Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
> bleveck wrote:
> it definitley not for everyone.
Who ? Beside the bugs, lack of documentation, total lack of translation, can you show us some people that don’t understand Textile ?
Textile is not perfect, but one thing it is … simple to use.
> Why not give people other options? Also because CMS’s do seperate stuff so neatley, as you point out, the bad code wysiwyg’s can produce does less damage.
No use for a potential wysiwyg tool if it produce bad coding. The whole point of TXP is to produce good semantic HTML. If you could live without semantic HTML, there are zillions of tools outhere that will do ;)
Offline
#17 2005-01-17 00:56:08
- davidm
- Member
- From: Paris, France
- Registered: 2004-04-27
- Posts: 719
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
Whahhh, I see it’s getting passionnate here ;-)
The only thing I am against is preaching “one thing for all”, and everyone is entitled to choose… Once again, for myself I won’t use wysiwyg but Textile, but clients will want something different sometimes and yes, they deserve to know what txp can do for them, and use it, no matter what their position is on Textile vs wysiwyg (!).
I don’t think Dean meant to build a tool for the elite, but as he well put it “A flexible, elegant, easy-to-use content management system for all kinds of websites”.
Yes, Textile is really about web publishing while wysiwyg is a port of MS Word to web applications, which clumsily does the job of helping people to publish on the web.
But I remind you that my original idea was not to have a HTML wysiwyg editor but TEXTILE java shorcuts (that means, generating TEXTILE markup NOT HTML like there is for bbCode, which in no way has the same underlying logic as an editor generating more or less poorly marked up HTML…
Last edited by davidm (2005-01-17 00:58:21)
.: Retired :.
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
> tmacwrig wrote:
> It’s not really a question of “why can’t users learn textile” – it’s “why do users have to learn Textile?” I don’t see a technical reason why not, and I see many practical reasons for integrating a WYSIWYG.
Pros : I can’t see ones. Beside, try to code a really good wysiwyg editor… you will discover the horrible truth about user ergonomy, multi dimensionnal translations egonomics, and coding hell for cross browser capability (or you could do it in XUL, yes).
Cons : it’s a lot, I mean a lot of work that imo should go elsewhere… like in granularity rights and privileges for example.
But, no one is stopping you from doing it, TXP is GPL after all ;)
One thing that might be related, and imo very much more useful is a import/export tool. I would love to be able to export one or several articles in a clean word-processor format (OpenOffice, or .rtf), or to use a word processor to write article and then export them to TXP.
Lodel does this (it’s the purpose of this CMS), and it’s very much useful. For the hypotethic person who want to use his word processor, it’s even simpler and better (imo) than a web wysiwyg editor.
Offline
#19 2005-01-17 01:04:52
- davidm
- Member
- From: Paris, France
- Registered: 2004-04-27
- Posts: 719
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
On this last bit, Jeremie, I have something for you … It’s called servOO
“It converts documents prepared in a word-processor into XHTML for publication on the web. ServOO is based on OpenOffice.org so support many usual formats, for instance rtf, doc, sxw.”
———————
And since you’re french, LODEL, a french CMS, is using it. It’s more specialised in scientific and research publishing but it’s also an innovative CMS (despite the use of the same kind of tags as SPIP, which is an older approach…).
Last edited by davidm (2005-01-17 01:07:25)
.: Retired :.
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
> davidm wrote:
> But I remind you that my original idea was not to have a HTML wysiwyg editor but TEXTILE java shorcuts (that means, generating TEXTILE markup NOT HTML like there is for bbCode, which in no way has the same underlying logic as an editor generating more or less poorly marked up HTML…
Yep right, sorry about the confusion.
I’m not saying this sort of thing should not appear in TXP, I say in my opinion there are much more useful things to do before that.
But since it’s a job for the admin/backend plugin thing (ahem :p), everyone is free to try to code it and implement it when the ahem-thing appear.
In this direction, for example, and imo, a typographic helper would be more useful. Something that could easily insert caracters that can’t be easily produced with a keyboard, but yet are very common in a well written text.
Last edited by Jeremie (2005-01-17 01:08:41)
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
> davidm wrote:
> On this last bit, Jeremie, I have something for you … It’s called servOO
Yep it’s a Lodel API. An integration with Textile for use with TXP would be nice…
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
Jeremie
1) There are WYSIWYG editors that produce decent xhtml. I was just saying that Textile had avoided the flaws of many past editors that didn’t produce it.
2) There are people who can live without good semantic html and may, for whatever reason, have to interact with TXP if their web developer uses it to build a site.
3) I think tmacwrig hits the nail on the head. It’s not why people can’t learn Textile. It is “Why should they have to?” No one has really put forward a critique of why having a wysiwyg plugin would be bad. It just gives you an option. One great thing about TXP is that it is lightweight and coherent in its design but is aimed at letting you expand it if you want.
4) In light of this I don’t see why people shouldn’t strive to create more options for users that want them. I think the live preview would be a good compromise for some (I would enjoy it). The WYSIWYG would be great for others. I think the Word-html—> xhtml(cleaned html)—> Textile plugin I mentioned in a previous post would be very nifty for people who like composing documents in MS Word (or for people who have bunch of word documents they want to post to a TXP site). I’m thinking of implimenting it if I can get together with a programming buddy of mine soon (my coding skills are not up to par).
update: I agree with you Jeremie that there might be more useful things to ad first to TXP. I certainly would like some other things first. Maybe a spell checker that knows how to ignore Textile. I just don’t know if that means this should be ignored. Obviously Dean doesn’t seem too into devoting his time to a WYSIWYG editor, and I don’t blame him, but others could.
Last edited by bleveck (2005-01-17 01:17:19)
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
Good point David… I kinda lost sight of the fact that you were proposing shortcuts. That would be a very cool option too.
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
Oh And one more thing. How hard does someone think it would be to use Serv00 and then have another script convert the xhtml to textile? cause that would be bad ass… (if you can’t tell, I have become a bit fixated with this idea in the last 4 hours =) )
Last edited by bleveck (2005-01-17 01:26:03)
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
> bleveck wrote:
> Oh And one more thing. How hard does someone think it would be to use Serv00 and then have another script convert the xhtml to textile? cause that would be bad ass… (if you can’t tell, I have become a bit fixated with this idea in the last 4 hours =) )
I have been for like 2 or 3 months… :-D
In theory, it should be simple. I guess there is a Textile->XHTML API somewhere (at least in TXP there is), so it might be reversed to do XHTML->Textile. It doesn’t need to be the fastest conversion ever, since you do that once on a while. It could be hand coded as well… it’s just about getting <code><em>plom</em> and transform it to _ em _ </code> and things like that.
Or you could take it the other way around, and try to implement Textile (instead of XHTML) in the servOO API.
I do think this would be a great feature… we could use OpenOffice for spellchecking, easy writing of long document, versioning, typographic checking, and so on.
Last edited by Jeremie (2005-01-17 01:55:08)
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
search for “reverse textile” and there are a few scripts out there
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
Jeremie:I do think this would be a great feature… we could use OpenOffice for spellchecking, easy writing of long document, versioning, typographic checking, and so on.
My thoughts exactly
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
davidm: As I was reading your comment, I realized I’d posted to the wrong thread. I meant to take this into the WYSIWYG one but got too wrapped up in the argument to pay attention.
Responding to tmacwrig:
People aren’t “forced to learn” a WYSIWYG – it’s the way that 99% of people learn how to write text on a computer (cue MS Word).
WYSIWYG editing controls are not a natural way to write. They are an interface which was created and implemented because they solved the problem at the time, which does not mean that they are the best solution or even a very good one.
An analogous case is that of having to save your work when using a word-processing program; this was necessary, once, because of I/O limitations on early computers, but was never changed when computers improved. It would be easier and more natural for the document to be saved as you write, automatically, just as if you were typing or writing on a piece of paper, but we’ve never switched. Matthew Thomas uses this and other examples in his wonderful explanation of the ancient cruft in most modern interfaces, if you’re interested in reading more about the prehistoric conventions that most software still carries around.
Anyway, I believe that WYSIWYG editing controls are similarly crufty and unnatural; they bear no resemblance to a natural writing (or even typewriting) process and so they force users to become acquainted with a new and inefficient way of carrying out writing tasks. For the simple text formatting used in 90+% of all web writing, a WYSIWYG interface with standard controls is overkill; a simple formatting syntax like Textile, which mostly stays out of the way and only has a few, easy-to-learn commands, is the ideal1.
This is a forum for mostly developers and site admins, but Textpattern isn’t a tool just for the computer-savvy – people who manage content should only be faced with content, not html or code. Yes, Textile is a great way to input text, but it’s not the usual way, and people generally don’t like to learn things that they don’t see as directly related to the task at hand.
MSWord-style WYSIWYG is not the “usual” way we write, either. We’ve just become accustomed to it from years of having it forced down our throats. The natural way to write is simply to write, which is what Textile lets users do. It requires no “computer-savvy” knowledge, it requires no knowledge of HTML or code. As I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t believe that most end users will ever bother with much beyond bold, italics, links and images. Textile provides an incredibly simple way to do this without the need for the constant start-stop-click-start-stop-click of traditional WYSIWYG controls, and I think that when presented in this fashion it will win over even relatively technophobic users.
As such, I don’t think there is any need for non-Textile editing controls, even as an optional plugin.
1 On an unrelated note, I’m not a fan of WYSIWYG editors for more advanced tasks, either; when I need to do “real” text processing, I fire up LyX.
Last edited by ubernostrum (2005-01-17 04:38:27)
You cooin’ with my bird?
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
Uber… I enjoy your critque of certain interfaces. Regardless, I just don’t know if it justifies enshrining Textile as the only possiblity. I don’t think anyone was ever arguing that WYSIWYG editors are the most natural way, but there are a ton of unatural interfaces that get used for other reasons. The QWERTY keyboard I’m using right now is an example. It is backwards and slows me down, but even someone like me, who is not a technophobe, doesn’t want to re-learn to type.
Not everyone wants to have to evangelize to another user about Textile. I think many of your arguments for Textile are good (obviously I’m a fan of the system), but that doesn’t mean they are going to convince everyone. Not everyone wants to be “enlightened” or rethink the way they have been making documents for the last 15 years. You might think that unconvinced people are being stubborn, shortsighted, or narrow minded, but if those people are your client it is hard to argue.
update: I also don’t fully get your argument about the need to have such a system. Obviously there are many ways to do any task, but some people prefer certain systems. What is the harm in making that available as long as it doesn’t rain on everyone else’s parade? I do think that Jeremie and I are so hip on the idea of converting Word to Textile for the reason that it satisfies those who want to use a comfortable interface, but also has seperate benefits (such as not having to reformat documents that you upload by hand). Such a project would help more people, but if someone wants to make a simple WYSIWYG work with TXP, I’m totally cool with that.
Also, after thinking about it I’m not sure why WYSIWYG has to be inherently crufty. If you are saying that users only use Bold and italics (etc…), then why is CTRL+B for bold CTRL+i for italics (etc…) with a few buttons at to the top as a back up (for those who forget the shorcut keys) crufty? WYSIWYG after all is just that, a system where what you type looks like the program’s final output. It doesn’t say anything about how many useless commands you put on.
Last edited by bleveck (2005-01-17 05:34:49)
Offline
Re: A textile "user-friendly" Editor ?
I’ve said I don’t have a problem with live preview, and I think it’s doable once we can hook plugins into the backend. I just don’t think we need an MSWord-style GUI interface to text formatting, because frankly it’s crufty and bad. Using keyboard shortcuts is a step in the right direction, but Textile is an even better step.
Most users are stuck in the rut of MSWord-style interfaces because they don’t know an alternative exists. Textpattern should not hide the alternative from them out of some misplaced shame at not having a WYSIWYG GUI. Think of browsers — most people know and use Internet Explorer, because it’s the only browser they’ve ever seen. But show them a viable alternative and they start switching to whatever best suits their needs. I think the same will happen with Textile, and I think Textile suits the needs of the average web author extremely well.
You cooin’ with my bird?
Offline