Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: ConfCall wiki page broken?

On Friday 05 November 2010 22:19, Marc Paré wrote:
> Le 2010-11-05 16:04, Nino Novak a écrit :
> > On Friday 05 November 2010 20:27, Marc Paré wrote:
> > > I would not go to Wiki-markup.
> >
> > Please read Manuals reply.
> >
> > It's not about supposed potential users but actual contributors.
> > They predominantly seem to switch off the editor.
> >
> > So the editor should be disabled until a fixed version is
> > found/installed.
> >
> > Nino
> > EOD for me
>
> Thanks Nino. Don't take the rest of the following as an angry retort
> but more of a discussion more on the philosophy behind what I
> consider the use of WYSIWYG editors.

I'll give it a try ;)


> I don't have a problem with turning off the editor if it is not
> working. But would like to have the option of using it if this is
> possible at all ... pretty please. BTW, I am probably the one who
> turned the editor on in Manuel stats. LOL
>
> Also BTW, thanks for Manuel for all of his hard work. It is
> appreciated.
>
> I do all of my contributions with WYSIWYG editors wherever I
> participate. I find that I can format more efficiently and have more
> time and leave the formatting coding up to the editor. This is not to
> say that I could not do it or stop contributing to the project, but
> it would certainly slow down the process.

while I see this, please see also that I'm scared of the problems a 
broken editor produces, i.e. additional work and possible data loss. 
Therefore, it's a question of balancing arguments.


> I find it a little strange that we are debating about the virtues of
> using  WYSIWYG editors while at the same time advocating a suite
> built on the principles of WYSIWYG.

It's not about the principles of WYSIWYG but about weighting pros and 
cons of a /broken/ editor. No one would complain if the editor wouldn't 
destroy text. 


> How ironic, when you think that 
> the majority of people would definitely use the LibO suite and not
> return to the CP/M days of coding all aspects of formatting to write
> an article .. Wordstar these days would clearly not sell.

see above. Nobody talks about principles, it's about working efficiency.


> If we are looking to increasing the amount of membership
> participation on the project, then, presumably they are here because
> they believe in the LibO suite and would like to contribute. By
> providing these new members a means by which to participate that
> includes subscribing to a text editor that requires an output better
> suited to a WYSIWYG editor is self-defeating.

Again, read Manuel's mail. 

We should not argue about potential but actual contributors.

> Having more members participate will make for a better and more
> popular vibrant project.

For me, nothing is more de-motivating than if you're using tools that 
erase your contributions silently. 

Remember: I'm not talking about principles but concrete problems.

Nino

--
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted