On Thursday 08 December 2011 13:01:43 ext Atlant Schmidt wrote: > [...] to echo and amplify what Stephen has said: > > WYSIWYG editors may be easier for novice wikipedians to use, but > markup-based editors are far easier for experienced people to use > and get the results precisely correct (where "precisely correct" means > exactly conformant to the intended "house style" of the wiki). > > One use case Stephen didn't mention is the case where you decide > to make some sort of global change to the project. (I don't know if it's > true of the Alassian wiki, but) In a pure WYSIWIG system, you'll get to > make that change individually to every page in the project and the > odds of you making the exact same change to every page are > vanishingly small. In a markup-based system, though, such a change > is trivially easy. > > I spend a lot of my life wrestling with several very large Microsoft Visio > documents and I would trade away the WYSIWIG editor for a markup- > based editor in a heartbeat. > > I've used quite a few Wiki systems (albeit, not the Alassian one) but > in my experience, so far, the Wikimedia system is the best. > > > On 12/7/2011 9:26 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > > > The worst thing about Confluence is that it can only be edited in rich > > > text mode. There is no markup behind that which you can switch to in > > > order to edit pages.
I don't want to be dragged into Wiki wars here, but I essentially agree with Stephen and Atlan: A WYSIWYG-_only_ interface is a clear show stopper. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
