Timeline for Requesting guidance on the use of backtick formatting with manpage names
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15 at 20:02 | comment | added | bertieb | This is one of those things we should probably keep a periodic watch on as a community-- actually seeing (hearing) how things formatted as code are presented in major screen readers. One thing which enlightened me years ago was seeing a tweet / post about how 'fancy letters' (eg unicode blackletter, unicode heavy lettering) were read out individually. Eg '𝓢𝓸𝓶𝓮 𝓯𝓪𝓷𝓬𝔂 𝓽𝓮𝔁𝓽' becomes "Mathematical bold script captial S, mathematical bold script small o, ... " (etc) If there's a difference in rendering, I'm with graw- visual consistency should not come at the cost of accessibility | |
| Nov 14 at 14:16 | comment | added | Robotnik |
Sorry I have to disagree - being consistent with formatting throughout a post makes the most sense, backticks for computer input especially. Sure, they might be visually ugly, but they are semantic markup: under the hood they are being rendered as HTML <code></code> sections, which get treated differently in accessibility software. For example, screen readers may spell out code, rather than try to read it word-for-word. For someone using a reader, it would be confusing to have the same text treated differently because the first instance used semantic formatting and subsequent ones did not.
|
|
| Nov 14 at 13:14 | history | answered | grawity | CC BY-SA 4.0 |