I would NEVER suggest removing the "XML editor". (Although one could argue that someone who prefers to edit their xml directly would be better off using an offline editor and then importing their code ;-)
As I indicated, one can (and, I think, should) use the existing editing options interchangeably: "XML Editor" -- when you know exactly what code you want and need to be as direct and quick as possible. Otherwise, "EDIT" is extremely convenient and educational. It could become even more educational. The "EDIT" interface is only slow and cumbersome if you are creating resources with many lines of code and lots of tags. As for creating a third "simple" editing interface, I'm not (yet) convinced that would be worthwhile. Simple interfaces tend to not teach the user anything, except to reinforce that they don't really know what is going on. It could be simply a marketing device to convince people that they can become empowered without learning anything. I am all in favour of having more and more features, but consider the various different "Parameter" interfaces -- ONLY two of which I use routinely and would recommend to others. How about keeping just the two present resource-editing interfaces and thinking of ways in which the screen space in the EDIT mode could be managed more efficiently/ergonomically, without losing functionality? I fear -- and what is more, BELIEVE -- that if "Edit" was considered an "easter egg" feature it would decline from lack of support and the educational aspects it can and does provide will be lost. If you really want to "replace" it with something else, then that had better be "hot stuff". :-] _______________________________________________ LON-CAPA-users mailing list LON-CAPA-users@mail.lon-capa.org http://mail.lon-capa.org/mailman/listinfo/lon-capa-users
