Skip to main content

Timeline for Stricter <kbd> usage rules

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

27 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 29, 2020 at 22:19 comment added zcoop98 Throwing a comment down here to point out that now links in <kbd> elements show up properly as links (maybe due to the post formatting updates a bit ago?).
Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Nov 26, 2015 at 16:22 comment added animuson StaffMod @Yakk It's not irrelevant. Markdown's stated goal is converting easy-to-read text into structurally valid HTML. Are you saying their goal makes no sense and you should use Markdown for whatever you feel like just because you don't have access to CSS?
Nov 26, 2015 at 16:18 comment added Yakk @animuson The parts of your argument that state "don't make it look like buttons, because reasons" that isn't what I'm disagreeing with. But you chose to make a different argument about HTML and CSS which does not apply here. Use HTML for (A) and CSS for (B) is a strong argument whenever you have CSS access. Without it, it reads like someone who has learned the lesson in an environment with access to both, and dogmatically applying it in an environment with only one. Those tags where removed from html after you could replicate their behavior in css, not before.
Nov 26, 2015 at 16:03 comment added animuson StaffMod @Yakk Your argument would make more sense if there was a need to actually use CSS to make links look like anything other than links. There's not.
Nov 26, 2015 at 15:01 comment added Yakk "Use CSS to style" makes sense where you have access to CSS. As far as I know, you don't have CSS control in markdown. "You are not allowed to change formatting" is a position to take, but taking it passively ("If you want to change formatting, use CSS", "I cannot use CSS", "well, then don't change formatting") is ... impolite. With a full html+css system, it makes plenty of sense to use html for markup and css for styling; but not using html for styling being a good argument because of css is predicated on being able to use css.
Nov 24, 2015 at 21:44 history edited Martin Smith CC BY-SA 3.0
added 51 characters in body
Aug 9, 2014 at 8:49 comment added mplungjan To my eyes, the button, on a line by itself is much more visible than a link. The weak contrast difference is not making it clear that it is a link - if you want to take this to the extreme you seem to want to, then all links at SE shoud be underlined too!
Mar 21, 2014 at 5:19 comment added Albert Xing It's late, but I'd like to throw in my opinion: I had previously used the <kbd> tag to outline my Fiddle links, 1) because others were using it, and 2) because it attracted attention to what is an essential part of an answer. However, I had stopped with this habit after someone came along and edited out the tag - I think it's absolutely fair that it was changed, for the same reasons discussed above. SO ought to either 1) discourage use, or 2) directly state that usage of <kbd> tags to outline Fiddle links are okay. We should have some sort of rule in place.
Feb 23, 2014 at 2:13 history bounty awarded Qantas 94 Heavy
Feb 20, 2014 at 6:40 comment added BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod @ChristopherW: The Stylistic Parable.
Feb 20, 2014 at 5:16 comment added SomeShinyObject Is this seriously a point of contention still? Is this what SO has been reduced to? Arguing over <kbd> with idle threats on both sides of the fence. We should all have an out of body experience and look upon ourselves...staring at our monitors...heatedly typing on a keyboard...arguing...about style
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:33 comment added Derek 朕會功夫 @hichris123 - May I ask since when I have to strictly follow the W3C recommended guideline when I am writing an answer? I'm not trying to be rude but I have never heard of this rule before... Also, even the SO website itself doesn't follow the HTML5 stadards (according to the W3C markup validation service.)
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:28 comment added Doorknob @Derek朕會功夫 My comment was meant partially as a joke, but this "minor styling" should not be used (the above post should convince you of that), and editing improper content/formatting out of a post is certainly valid. You could edit a post that said "Hi please help me with my JavaScript code", and kbd links are just as improper. (Okay, maybe not as bad, but you get the point :P)
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:25 comment added Derek 朕會功夫 @Doorknob - Yes I understand that <kbd> may not be appealing to certain people, but you can't just editing someone's post because you don't agree with them. The truth is this minor styling is definitely valid. You can stalk me if you want, but it will just be a lose-lose situation for everyone. :(
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:22 comment added hichris123 @Derek朕會功夫 You want proof? W3C has guidelines on what is/isn't appropriate use. Also, that Regex answer has been brought up on meta time and time again... it's way different than a <kbd> tag though.
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:16 comment added Derek 朕會功夫 @animuson - Don't misunderstand my words; I'm not trying to start a war, however by forcing others to use your preferred format is just unreasonable. In my and many's perspective, by using <kbd> it will appear more as a clickable content than just a boring blue text. This is all up to the answerer's choice of styling. This is nowhere near what you said "abusing". If you believe that simply styling links with <kbd> is abusing, then please explain this. Peaceful attitude is always more preferred.
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:12 comment added Doorknob @Derek朕會功夫 Please stop or I will stalk you for the rest of your life, finger hovering over the edit button, ready. Waiting. (but srsly, stahp, k? ;))
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:08 comment added animuson StaffMod @Derek I'm not sure how else to show you that this is not a preferred format. You are abusing the feature by using it in a way that it was not meant to be used. If you really want to start a war here, I assure you, you will not win.
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:07 comment added Derek 朕會功夫 @animuson - PS: As a protest of this forced self-defined "format", I will change all my links in my future answers to <kbd>. If this kind of power-misusing continues, I will also change all the links in my previous answers.
Feb 20, 2014 at 2:04 comment added Derek 朕會功夫 @animuson - I disagree with you, animuson. By modifying other's answers (like what you did on mine) to match a specific format that is defined by you solely is unreasonable. This is technically obliterating the creativity of users, making StackOverflow a very dull place. As said in ChristopherW's suggestion below, one should only encourage their preferred format, instead of changing it and locking the post afterward. This is obviously a misuse of power, and one doing this shall be condemned.
Sep 13, 2013 at 19:15 history edited animusonStaffMod CC BY-SA 3.0
Expanded on my opinions on this
May 27, 2013 at 16:29 comment added BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod @Arjan: Where and how are we going to spell it out? In fact, I should be asking - where and how else are we to spell it out besides in /editing-help (which, let's face it, hardly anybody reads anyway)?
May 26, 2013 at 13:36 comment added Arjan True, @Won't, but then why not define a policy somewhere? That is what this discussion is asking for, I think. I'd welcome some authoritative answers (policy, or at least a guideline) on this, and on things such as excessive formatting, or using &nbsp; in Stack&nbsp;Overflow, or editing posts to add <kbd>, or linking very well known terms to Wikipedia, or using "EDIT" in text.
May 25, 2013 at 20:03 comment added user1228 We don't have an "official" policy on it, so messaging the user and telling them to knock it off is a bit of an abuse of power. Kind of like me coming here, leaving a comment to tell you to put on a goddamned collared shirt in your gravatar. We don't like t-shirt wearing hipsters here. So get with the program, mister, before I suspend your account!
May 25, 2013 at 14:53 vote accept James Donnelly
May 25, 2013 at 14:49 history answered animusonStaffMod CC BY-SA 3.0