- From: Terry Crowley <tcrowley@oz.net>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 22:45:29 -0700
- To: "dssslist@mulberrytech.com" <dssslist@mulberrytech.com>, Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> You can have multiple views without one being "structured" and the other > "presentational". Standard word processors have "draft" and "preview" > modes. With more powerful stylesheet languages the gap between "draft" > and "preview" is larger. In the long term I think that WYSIWYG will take > a back seat to interface clarity and power. > > In these cases, WYSIWYG would make the interface harder to navigate and > harder to use. In the long run I expect WYSIWYG to gradually become less > and less interesting. Graphical views of documents are important, but > views that are exactly the same as readers are not really so important. Wow. Better put a huge caveat on the above statements. Whose your target user? Sure, if it's someone whose writing content all day where the ability to control layout easily for the document as a whole is important, the stylesheet view is important. For the other 99% of users, they just want something that easily allows them to achieve the effect they're trying to achieve. Using a stylesheet is like programming, and bottom line is that most users of composing tools don't want to be programmers. Using a stylesheet requires planning, and most users don't want to plan. They just want to write their content. Draft and preview modes in a word-processor are nothing like structure vs. WYSIWYG view. They're both WYSIWYG views with different trade-offs in resolution vs paper fidelity. I absolutely agree that WYSIWYG views can make things much more difficult to achieve and difficult for the user to understand (e.g. what's the feedback for an arbitrary DIV in a WYSIWYG editor? What are the operations for manipulating content into or out of the DIV?). But that's the price to pay. Terry
Received on Saturday, 10 May 1997 01:37:53 UTC