Ctrl+U should be underscore, not Preferences panel

[Nancy OShea]

In just about every Windows app I work with, Ctrl+U invokes an underscore on highlighted text.  Not so in DW.  Instead it opens the Preferences panel.  

The <u> element was deprecated in HTML 4.01.  But the W3C redefined it in HTML5 to represent text that should be stylistically different from normal text, such as misspelled words or proper nouns in Chinese.

Ctrl+B = Bold or <strong>

Ctrl+I = Italic or <em>

There is no Underscore option on the HTML Properties panel.

Logically,  Ctrl+U should be Underscore or <u>.

Nancy

[pziecina · Accepted solution]

Not certain if you are complaining about Dw's shortcuts, or how Dw supports html5?

If it is about html5, Dw does not support most of what is in the html5.2 specs, (which is now a proposed recommendation) beyond what is compatible from the html4 specs, and the main semantic elements. In fact Dw even 2018 should not tell anyone that it supports html5, and certainly not to the latest specs.

Now for the 'u' underline element -

Even in the specs it says that its use should be avoided, as underlining conflicts with the default presentation of hyperlinks, so another way to look at the shortcut not working as expected, is that Dw is making the use of 'u' elements a deliberate coder choice, which must be inserted from code view, and I would think that the 'panel' selections you show in your image should not have the 'u' elements in order to not promote or make the use of underlining easy for those unaware of the w3c spec recommendation.

[Nancy OShea]

I very rarely use underscores which is why it took so long for me to notice the change in DW.

How many web designers use text-underline on hyperlinks these days?   Almost none.

I had an editorial purpose for underscoring which is why I was kind of surprised by DW's lack of support for it.   Of course I can  manually code it.   But for me it's more logical to use Ctrl+U.

[pziecina]

Just curious as to what the requirerment was that required an underscore, and wondering if another of the html5 text elements would not be more suitable?

https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/PR-html52-20171102/textlevel-semantics.html#textlevel-semantics

[Nancy OShea]

It's an MLA style bibliography where book titles are underscored.

Bowker, Michael. Fatal Deception: The Untold Story of Asbestos: Why It Is Still Legal

and Still Killing Us. N.p.: Rodale, 2003.

[pziecina]

I'd probably go with em, then apply underlining using css if necessary, but like many thing its probably more a matter of preference when there is no clearly defined element to use.

Should we propose a new type of 'title' element .

(your client would probably have to wait 5 years before it could be used )

[pziecina]

After writting the last post, and jokingly suggesting a new type of 'title' element, i remembered about the 'title' attribute, which could be used in such circumstances.

The trouble is it is not very well supported yet.

[Nancy OShea]

I don't want to use <em> because I need it for... well... em.

pziecina  wrote

After writting the last post, and jokingly suggesting a new type of 'title' element, i remembered about the 'title' attribute, which could be used in such circumstances.

The trouble is it is not very well supported yet.

Like so many things.

I could create definition lists with nth-of-type styles if I wanted to.  But this doesn't warrant a big production.  And Ctrl+U would have been perfect here.

Oh well.  On to plan B.

[Preran]

I am not sure as to why the decision to remove the underline shortcut was made because I haven't used that style myself. I will check with the team.

Thanks,

Preran

[BenPleysier]

Natively, browsers show an underline for linked text. If you show underlined text for non-linked items, this will confuse the user. There are other ways to highlight important text, namely a different colour, bold, italic and their combinations.

[Jon Fritz]

I don't think you'd be confusing anyone. It's been many years since designers regularly allowed their links to carry the browser default underline on normal websites, let alone something as specific as Nancy is doing.

I'm going through the sites in my bookmarks list and not a single one still makes use of a default underline on links.

I'm actually having a pretty difficult time finding any site that uses it from my list of bookmarks. Most appear to change the font color and go with text-decoration:none...

[Nancy OShea]

I would have agreed with you 8 or so years ago.  But almost nobody uses default underlined text on hyperlinks anymore.  Besides, underscore was re-introduced in HTML5.  And the manner in which I'm using it is consistent with the HTML5 spec.  In some circles -- particularly academia &  publishing, there are style rules that have to be followed.  Book titles are underlined.   It's the MLA standard.  And I think the APA does it that way, too.  

Nancy

[Jon Fritz]

You could always drop back to CC2015 to set up a wrapping snippet, then copy it over to CC2018.

It wouldn't allow for the snippet keyword shortcut, but would allow you to wrap <u> </u> around text with a doubleclick.

[Preran]

I was directed to this guidance on using the U element: 4.5 Text-level semantics — HTML5

It states that The default rendering of the u element in visual presentations clashes with the conventional rendering of hyperlinks (underlining). Authors are encouraged to avoid using the u element where it could be confused for a hyperlink.

[Nancy OShea]

To give another example, how many hyperlinks does your résumé or curriculum vitae contain?

[Preran]

I completely get the point, Nancy.  My message was more of a communication of what the team had to say.

When I was a technical writer, we were discouraged from using an underline to emphasize text, and to use the emphasis tag instead. I understand that there are still valid cases for the tag, which is why I think it was reintroduced.

Having said that, I don't think this feature at least will be brought back any time soon unless it kicks up a lot of dust.

Preran

[Nancy OShea]

I understand, Preran.

Too bad we can't wrap snippets in the latest.

[BenPleysier]

Jon and Nancy, old habits die hard.

[B i r n o u]

well I am divided on whether or not to use underscores on links. if we look at the side of the big newspapers (which essentially produce text) ..; on the first pages of guards the links are not marked in the old way (color and underline are designed) ... but as soon as one verticalises on articles the underlined blue links reappear ... certainly stylish for the Washington post, or the Guardian, much more traditional on the New York Times, but The Sun, and the Carnard Enchainé stay blue and remove the underline...

so I'm divided, and not so categorical as some