The basics are explained in formatting help, but perhaps for sake of homogeneity we can adopt a style guide concerning conventions with examples of how to and not to mark-up content.
Well established Exchanges rigorously enforce their style-guide, this doesn't mean people lose their identity but it does mean that people combing through the site can quickly understand the content, without having to parse through various personal styles.
We may not all agree with some of the conventions, so I will reference appropriate examples in these cases. The following is a work in progress, feel free to add your suggestions and objections in the comments or as answers.
Style Guide
- Avoid using bold to emphasize key words mid sentence, using bold rarely has the effect you think it does.
- Use back-ticks for short code references only.
- Use the kbd tag only when referencing keys or mouse buttons. Menu / submenu items should perhaps get their own tag type if possible (with own styling).
- If you inline an image, make sure to crop when possible or otherwise edit it before uploading. Edit it in a way that most of it's pixels contribute to passing information.
Please discuss the following.
Menus
we should pick one and stick with it, encourage new users to conform.
- Add > Mesh > Cube
- Add → Mesh → Cube
Add > Mesh > Cube
Add > Mesh > Cube
Add
>Mesh
>Cube
Add > Mesh > Cube
Add | Mesh | Cube
- Add > Mesh > Cube
- Add|Mesh|Cube
- Add | Mesh | Cube
- Add → Mesh → Cube
- Add→Mesh→Cube
- Add | Mesh | Cube
- Add > Mesh > Cube
I will argue for the first option, it is undeniably easier to type while still serving the author and the reader well. edit: This has generated some interesting discussion and style proposal
keyboard shortcuts (and mouse events)
This one is not be up for debate, it seems we all accept the convention to use the kbd tag. One might find slight variance in the following.
- Ctrl M
- Ctrl + M
- CtrlM
- Ctrl + M
Cases for all three can be argued, I will stick up for the last as it seems to be most visually straightforward.
Links
This may be somewhat tricky, but here we find less variety than the menu items. Also the meta has slightly different styling than the main site so this may fail to serve the point I wanted to make.
- this is some link
- this is
some link
(code tags inside square brackets) - this is some link (italic)
- this is some link (bold)
Again with the first example being easiest to type, but I will agree the styling fails to significantly distinguish short links, the dark blue and black are not easy to tell apart on the main site -- I suspect this is the main reason people feel they should decorate their links with other methods.
to be continued
more to come (sorry had to cut short)
**Menu** → **Submenu** → **Menu item**
, whereas non-menu UI elements are*Render Engine*
or*Remove Doubles*
. $\endgroup$<em>
,<strong>
or the markdown equivalents. There's also the issue of enforcement. Looking about it seem that users shouldn't be badgered about markup. $\endgroup$<kbd>
is ugly.. some more issues are brought up on the meta.so post I think. $\endgroup$→
? it looks much cleaner from my point of view. $\endgroup$