W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: NVU, child of Mozilla Composer (Windows & Linux)

From: Isofarro <lists@isofarro.uklinux.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:33:19 +0100
Message-ID: <40D45CBF.20306@isofarro.uklinux.net>
To: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Geoff Deering wrote:

> I don't know about the rest of you on this list, but I'm really disappointed
> with the quality of WYSIWYG based editors and the markup they generate.  I
> don't understand why it is so bad.  I'm disappointed in most of our tools
> actually.

I'm disappointed when I see a wysiwyg editor that has toolbar buttons 
for bold, italic, colour, text alignment, font size and font selection. 
IMO, it ignores the concepts of structured markup. The positive side is 
that people find them easy to use, because they can relate it to word 
processing.

Once in a while I have a look at web-based / javascript wysiwyg editors, 
and the one's I've seen all go down this visual-orientated approach.

I have thought of trying to write a structure-focused wysiwyg editor - 
offering buttons for paragraph, headings, lists, and generic containers 
with classes. But I can't visualise a UI that makes as good sense as the 
above-mentioned tools.


The drawback, I feel, is that it requires a knowledge of HTML (well, 
structured markup techniques) to be able to produce good markup from a 
wysiwyg.

Is it even possible to create a structured-orientated editor that's as 
easy to use as a visual-based wysiwyg? The more I think about it the 
more Wiki-style syntax is preferable.



Mike
Received on Saturday, 19 June 2004 11:43:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:33 UTC