> However, many of the journalists I've > shadowed still > prefer to write in a WYSIWYG style that approximates the > final output.
Or do they simply prefer to work in a WYSIWYG style that offers some meaningful visual feedback to the author as they write? Of course, you can't approximate the final output if you don't know WHAT the final output device/platform/environment will be all of the time (which is often true). > They > set column widths, But on the web page the end user can change the size themselves. The screen reader doesn't care about column widths. Different display devices will also warrant different attributes. > they use many of the same fonts, Ditto. > they > break headlines, Ditto. > They simply wish to "get an idea" of what the > story will look > like. This is just a problem with authors thinking they need something when they don't. They need to see that the headline is clearly (ie, visually) shown as the headline: It's the bold, bigger type at the type that was styled when I clicked on the HEADLINE style button. They don't need to know what color it will be in, where the line break is, or whether it will be sans serif or not. > Still other writers aren't necessarily trying to approximate > any sort of > final output. As it should be in terms of authoring content for multiple delivery platforms, correct? > It's a huge issue if new tools > interfere with > the way they work. Ah. I see. Well, the reality is that ANY new tool interferes with the way ANYONE works. The goal, of course, is to make the new tool intuitive and with a shallow learning curve. > Providing a WYSIWYG editor on the front-end satisfies their > creative needs, What creative needs? Aren't their creative needs in their ability to manipulate the written language? What WYSIWYG features would they need to satisfy that creative need? I'll agree that the WYSIWYG editor should satisfy their needs to visually distinguish different structural elements, but they shouldn't need to change the look of a stuctural element at all. > while transparently generating XML from their work satisfies > the needs of > the business. I agree with that. Was anyone arguing that an author should have to mark up their content with XML themselves? -Darrel -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
