>> >> Any of the programmers out there preaching XML editors, >> compliant HTML, >> etc. should take a good look at Joel's UI Guide for >> Programmers article >> at: >>
>>>>http://www.joestump.net/pages/news.php/709 Good points raised about UI design, but it does not necessarily follow that a good UI for a content editor must produce bad output. I am not sure I understand your point - are you suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive or too much to aim for? As CMS developers we should strive to meet both the end users' needs and the business needs. Do you propose to disregard business needs for storing content in reusable semantically marked up format? Here's a screenshot of our UI http://www.livestoryboard.com/en_us/Products/Screen_shots.html -- it is familiar and intuitive to End Users, simpler, yet it enables them to create meaningful markup. They don't need to know they are producing valid semantic markup, they don't need to know their work is validated against a schema (a custom one that someone else in their organization may have predefined or a default one), they don't need to know that the content they enter will be result compliant HTML, CSS, etc. This way the End User is happy because they have a simple and familiar way of entering content, while the benefits of meaningful markup are achieved for the business. I don't buy the argument that we should compromise either usability and simplicity or valid structured output and it's too bad it comes up often on various lists. On a different note, I am a strong supporter of good UI principles as well as web standards and admit to be one of the developers preaching XML editors and compliant HTML, etc. In your post you encourage developers to pay attention to UI and usability, but I had to adjust my browser settings to read your site because dark text on a dark background is not very usable... Best, Iva -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
