There's no official right way to format text that is input to, or output from, a graphical interface. It's largely a matter of personal style, and probably no style is objectively best.
Quotation marks are often good, as are italics. When quotation marks or italics are already being used, the sparing use of bold may even be considered.
An author might choose to use the same convention for every different type of GUI text talked about in a post. Alternatively, an author might choose to format text that is to be typed into a textbox one way, "static" labels (that do not respond when clicked) one way, and "dynamic" labels (like the text on a menu or command button) another way.
With that said there are three guidelines that I believe are widely agreed upon:
Within any single post, consistency is better than inconsistency. (This is similar to the idea that the same word should be spelled the same way within any single post, barring any special reason to do otherwise.)
Subjective style preferences of an editor don't warrant changing one established style to another. Only if the current style is causing problems should it be changed. So, if a post italicizes all names of menus, they shouldn't be put in quotes instead unless there is reason to think that would really improve readability.
code spans should only ever be used for text that is code-like in nature. This includes actual program code, but also most text that would appear or be typed into a terminal. Text that appears in a graphical interface is not usually code-like, so code spans should usually not be used for it.
Editing is justified to remove code formatting from text that is not code-like in any way. However, there is some reasonable disagreement about what is code-like. Filenames are widely considered to be code-like, here. Are package names code-like?
When something is clearly code-like (like commands for entry in a terminal), editing is justified to add code formatting.