Return to Answer

No, backticks should not be used for emphasis. There are various reasons for this:

1. Consider blind users using screen reading software. Such context tags (<code>) help them know what they're reading and, if I'm not mistaken, their software will spell anything marked as code letter by letter. So foo would become "eff, ow, ow" (f,o,o).

2. Many of us find that such formatting makes posts harder to read. If you want to emphasize, you can use bold or italics, but code really breaks the flow of your text.

3. That's the site-wide consensus:

   • Inline Code Spans should not be used for emphasis, right?
   • Is highlighting your answer a bad practice?
   • How to prevent users from emphasizing text in comments as "code" instead of "emphasis"?
   • Why do some editors think using unnecessary code formatting "enhances readability?"
   • Abuse of code formatting to add unnecessary emphasis
   • Is using `code` styling for non-code samples okay?

4. It breaks the conceptual model. Um. What I mean is that you are marking things that are not code as code even though they aren't actually code. I'm sure that causes a kitten to cry. Somewhere.

In short, code should only be used for things that a computer would read. So a command, a file name, actual code etc. Please don't use it for emphasis.

_{PS. I had written up almost all of this answer before noticing that the edit you were referring to was actually mine. I guess you might argue that that means I'm not impartial, but I hope the argument I have given will convince you.}

No, backticks should not be used for emphasis. There are various reasons for this:

1. Consider blind users using screen reading software. Such context tags (<code>) help them know what they're reading and, if I'm not mistaken, their software will spell anything marked as code letter by letter. So foo would become "eff, ow, ow" (f,o,o).

2. Many of us find that such formatting makes posts harder to read. If you want to emphasize, you can use bold or italics, but code really breaks the flow of your text.

3. That's the site-wide consensus:

   • Inline Code Spans should not be used for emphasis, right?
   • Is highlighting your answer a bad practice?
   • How to prevent users from emphasizing text in comments as "code" instead of "emphasis"?
   • Why do some editors think using unnecessary code formatting "enhances readability?"
   • Abuse of code formatting to add unnecessary emphasis
   • Is using `code` styling for non-code samples okay?

4. It breaks the conceptual model. Um. What I mean is that you are marking things that are not code as code even though they aren't actually code. I'm sure that causes a kitten to cry. Somewhere.

In short, code should only be used for things that a computer would read. So a command, a file name, actual code etc. Please don't use it for emphasis.

_{PS. I had written up almost all of this answer before noticing that the edit you were referring to was actually mine. I guess you might argue that that means I'm not impartial, but I hope the argument I have given will convince you.}

No, backticks should not be used for emphasis. There are various reasons for this:

1. Consider blind users using screen reading software. Such context tags (<code>) help them know what they're reading and, if I'm not mistaken, their software will spell anything marked as code letter by letter. So foo would become "eff, ow, ow" (f,o,o).

2. Many of us find that such formatting makes posts harder to read. If you want to emphasize, you can use bold or italics, but code really breaks the flow of your text.

3. That's the site-wide consensus:

   • Inline Code Spans should not be used for emphasis, right?
   • Is highlighting your answer a bad practice?
   • How to prevent users from emphasizing text in comments as "code" instead of "emphasis"?
   • Why do some editors think using unnecessary code formatting "enhances readability?"
   • Abuse of code formatting to add unnecessary emphasis
   • Is using `code` styling for non-code samples okay?

4. It breaks the conceptual model. Um. What I mean is that you are marking things that are not code as code even though they aren't actually code. I'm sure that causes a kitten to cry. Somewhere.

In short, code should only be sued for things that a computer would read. So a command, a file name, actual code etc. Please don't use it for emphasis.

_{PS. I had written up almost all of this answer before noticing that the edit you were referring to was actually mine. I guess you might argue that that means I'm not impartial, but I hope the argument I have given will convince you.}

No, backticks should not be used for emphasis. There are various reasons for this:

1. Consider blind users using screen reading software. Such context tags (<code>) help them know what they're reading and, if I'm not mistaken, their software will spell anything marked as code letter by letter. So foo would become "eff, ow, ow" (f,o,o).

2. Many of us find that such formatting makes posts harder to read. If you want to emphasize, you can use bold or italics, but code really breaks the flow of your text.

3. That's the site-wide consensus:

   • Inline Code Spans should not be used for emphasis, right?
   • Is highlighting your answer a bad practice?
   • How to prevent users from emphasizing text in comments as "code" instead of "emphasis"?
   • Why do some editors think using unnecessary code formatting "enhances readability?"
   • Abuse of code formatting to add unnecessary emphasis
   • Is using `code` styling for non-code samples okay?

4. It breaks the conceptual model. Um. What I mean is that you are marking things that are not code as code even though they aren't actually code. I'm sure that causes a kitten to cry. Somewhere.

In short, code should only be used for things that a computer would read. So a command, a file name, actual code etc. Please don't use it for emphasis.

_{PS. I had written up almost all of this answer before noticing that the edit you were referring to was actually mine. I guess you might argue that that means I'm not impartial, but I hope the argument I have given will convince you.}

No, backticks should not be used for emphasis. There are various reasons for this:

1. Consider blind users using screen reading software. Such context tags (<code>) help them know what they're reading and, if I'm not mistaken, their software will spell anything marked as code letter by letter. So foo would become "eff, ow, ow" (f,o,o).

2. Many of us find that such formatting makes posts harder to read. If you want to emphasize, you can use bold or italics, but code really breaks the flow of your text.

3. That's the site-wide consensus:

   Inline Code Spans should not be used for emphasis, right?

4. It breaks the conceptual model. Um. What I mean is that you are marking things that are not code as code even though they aren't actually code. I'm sure that causes a kitten to cry. Somewhere.

In short, code should only be sued for things that a computer would read. So a command, a file name, actual code etc. Please don't use it for emphasis.

_{PS. I had written up almost all of this answer before noticing that the edit you were referring to was actually mine. I guess you might argue that that means I'm not impartial, but I hope the argument I have given will convince you.}

No, backticks should not be used for emphasis. There are various reasons for this:

1. Consider blind users using screen reading software. Such context tags (<code>) help them know what they're reading and, if I'm not mistaken, their software will spell anything marked as code letter by letter. So foo would become "eff, ow, ow" (f,o,o).

2. Many of us find that such formatting makes posts harder to read. If you want to emphasize, you can use bold or italics, but code really breaks the flow of your text.

3. That's the site-wide consensus:

   • Inline Code Spans should not be used for emphasis, right?
   • Is highlighting your answer a bad practice?
   • How to prevent users from emphasizing text in comments as "code" instead of "emphasis"?
   • Why do some editors think using unnecessary code formatting "enhances readability?"
   • Abuse of code formatting to add unnecessary emphasis
   • Is using `code` styling for non-code samples okay?

4. It breaks the conceptual model. Um. What I mean is that you are marking things that are not code as code even though they aren't actually code. I'm sure that causes a kitten to cry. Somewhere.

In short, code should only be sued for things that a computer would read. So a command, a file name, actual code etc. Please don't use it for emphasis.

_{PS. I had written up almost all of this answer before noticing that the edit you were referring to was actually mine. I guess you might argue that that means I'm not impartial, but I hope the argument I have given will convince you.}