Personally I feel that Markdown is easier to learn for noobs, and
would really have liked to see your extension done with Markdown.
However, maybe your toolbar makes the reduces the differences in ease
of use between Markdown and Textile.
Maybe even Textile is better in conection to buttons, since you can
have a H2-button produce h2.Something, but what would you call a
button that produces ##Something? Ok, both could be called the more
explanatory "Heading 2", but you get my point... in general the button
name could look more like the textile code that it produces, than it
could look like to markdown code that's produced... which could ease
up the learning process, when learning to actually write the code.
And the rest of your implementation sounds really promising, I'll
definitely give it a shot. Thanx! ;)
On Nov 20, 2008, at 15:50 , Jason Garber wrote:
I'm catching up to this interesting thread a couple days late, but I
can't believe no one's mentioned my textile_editor extension yet!
I'm hurt! (jk!) It would have helped if I'd have announced it to
the list when I released it in September, huh? :-)
[ANN] radiant-textile_editor-extension makes Radiant really easy to
use for non-technical content editors!
We have a lot (50-ish?) of technology-impared people working on our
university website. We haven't rolled the CMS out to all of them
yet but so far in my testing I've found that the Textile editor
toolbar helps them a bunch. It seems silly because pushing the H1
button inserts h1. and pressing B adds asterisks, but it works
because it overcomes their fear and uncertainty about Textile. They
pretty quickly get to the point where it's faster to just type h3.
than to click the button, but for getting over the initial hump of
staring at a blank textbox, it's a huge psychological boost!
The part of the toolbar I find myself using all the time is the link
and image buttons. The way I designed it, not only can you add
Textile links and images, but also enkoded email links, attached
images, and attached files.
Speaking of attachments, the concept is genius for file management.
Buckets and asset libraries and all that are too confusing for my
users (I tried paperclipped for a while), but they're used to
attaching files in webmail, so the page_attachments extension works
out great. I use the page_attachments_xsendfile extension to make
the attached file available at a friendly URL (the page's URL +
filename). That seems to match people's expectations better. You
just tell them they can use an attachment on that page or any page
under it and they get it.
I'm a strong believer in the non-technical user being able to see
what's going on. Even if they can't write <r:children:each> tags,
when they encounter them they'll know what's going on and are less
likely to mess up Radius or HTML tags than if they're hidden behind
a WYSIWYG editor. Training up front is really the key—and preparing
their expectations. So you say, "Textile is going to make your life
a whole lot easier. Here are a few things it does and here's a
toolbar in case you forget. HTML tags [Radius tags in reality] are
mostly for the web team. You're not expected to know how to use
them, but I'm glad to show you a few so you know what they do."
If you're using Textile, make sure you're using version >= 4.0. A
lot of the hate on RedCloth was rooted in how buggy it was for a few
years. You'll need the redcloth4 extension to make it work in
On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Chris Parrish wrote:
1. I think the textareas need to come with a toolbar above them
parts, snippets, layouts). These toolbars would be filter
Radiant mailing list
Radiant mailing list