On Friday 05 November 2010 17:05, Florian Effenberger wrote:
I'm happy to hear other opinions, but IMHO we *NEED* a WYSIWYG
editor. Many users will be very uncomfortable otherwise, so I'd even
take the risk of slightly defective pages in favor of WYSIWYG.
I'd like to argue with Manuel against a broken editor as it generates
additional work. Without permanent watching and fixing, even content
can be lost.
If we go for pure Wiki-markup, what do we lose?
Some pages might not look as nice as they would but nothing would be
broken/lost. My personal opinion is clearly, better some correct but
ugly pages than nice but broken.
If really necessary, I'd even volunteer to help beginners tidying up
But I'd not volunteer doing absloutely stupid work of fixing pages
people have destroyed without noticing. You'll have to review any
single edit then! A nightmare.
* I don't see a big need for a real WYSIWYG editor. Wikimedia has
found the biggest online community in the world, not even having
the UsabilityInitiative improvements available for many years.
I know my users. ;)
Trust poeple! They might exceed your expectations :-)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy