Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-05 Thread David Gerard
2010/1/5 William Pietri will...@scissor.com: I think we could stave off critical mass and keep painful errors pretty low with an approach like that. Also, uh, dudes. We have a working live example on a few thousand existing MediaWiki installations, called Wikia. Some of the fears listed in

[WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread David Gerard
Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking edit, but actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's experience: http://wikiangela.com/blog/end-of-2009/#comment-26732 http://twitter.com/joshuaclerner/status/3602544810 Wikitext used to be a lot simpler. Now it's

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Shlomi Fish
On Monday 04 Jan 2010 16:23:29 David Gerard wrote: Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking edit, but actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's experience: http://wikiangela.com/blog/end-of-2009/#comment-26732

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Thomas Dalton
2010/1/4 Shlomi Fish shlo...@iglu.org.il: I personally detest all WYSIWYG web-based editors. They are slow and clunky and produce broken markup, and just get in the way. I'm also not fond of WYSIWYG word processors and prefer using XHTML or DocBook/XML or other non- WYSIWYG markup languages.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Edit completion rate - someone not merely clicking edit, but actually editing and hitting save - goes *way* up. Based on Wikia's experience: http://wikiangela.com/blog/end-of-2009/#comment-26732

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread David Gerard
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: I think that, fundamentally, WYSIWYG isn't the right model for Wikipedia or even wikis in general. What fits our model is what you get is what you mean. We really shouldn't want most editors worrying too much about how the page looks because its

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread David Gerard
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE, NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much wiki concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but hidden complexity. And never mind the actual

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Thomas Dalton
2010/1/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE, NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much wiki concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread David Gerard
2010/1/4 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: 2010/1/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: And never mind the actual numbers from Wikia, which look very like having a WYSIWYG system for presentational markup was *the* key to having people actually complete a planned edit rather than click

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Charles Matthews
David Gerard wrote: 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE, NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much wiki concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but hidden complexity.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Thomas Dalton
2010/1/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: I think that, fundamentally, WYSIWYG isn't the right model for Wikipedia or even wikis in general. What fits our model is what you get is what you mean. We really shouldn't want most editors worrying too

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Magnus Manske
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: A half step is possible: Editing with syntax highlighting and hiding of common blocks (i.e. references collapse down to just the tag unless you navigate the cursor into them). No syntax highlighting, but the rest I can

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE, NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much wiki concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread Stephen Streater
I tend to agree with GM here, and am generally opposed to a WYSIWYG editor for a widely read wiki. For a start, HTML renderers will output different pixels for the same source - for example in the case of a partially sighted person who may have bigger text, or people like me who often read

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why we need a good WYSIWYG editor

2010-01-04 Thread William Pietri
On 01/04/2010 11:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: Bad presentation in the edit isn't, in my view, the biggest problem with WYSIWYG systems the problem is that they frequently behave inscrutably, even ones designed from the start as WYSIWYG (as opposed to boltons as we'd have). Issues like...