Re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
\court is adjourned till next month Let us know how you go! On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:27 AM, bowerbird via Markdown-Discuss wrote: > mofo said: >> Yea, but I want to see more of the actual output >> rather than the markdown representation. >> But I don't want to lose track of what parts of >> the output can be seen in the now 'smaller' input > > i'm not following you. > > but i'm sure it's just a simple matter of terminology. > > when the _input_ field is showing any specific paragraph, > users should be able to summon that spot in the output, > i.e., automatically scroll (or "sync") to that paragraph. > > or, in cases where they prefer to do it the other way, > when the _output_ field is showing a specific paragraph, > users should be able to summon that spot in the input, > i.e., automatically scroll (or "sync") to that paragraph. > > i think both of those are very straightforward. > > now, as i've said before, doing sync between the fields > at any other time (or, indeed, on a continuous basis) > is not as simple a matter as you might suppose at first. > (per the example i just gave, which way do you sync?) > > >> I do hope somebody does give >> 'editable' output view, a shot. > > me too. and people are, to be sure. > > >> Maybe it might not be too stupid an idea in practice. > > i never said the wysiwyg markdown idea was "stupid". > > what i said is that my research/thinking indicates it is > _unworkable_, which is a very different thing entirely. > > so if someone proves me wrong and makes it workable, > it _might_ be a great idea. (or, we must say, it might not, > because it still mashes content in with presentation, but > i'm not one of those people for whom this is sacrilegious.) > > but, until someone makes the idea work, it's all irrelevant. > > *** > > michael said: >> I just added a toggle for source view, >> so one can check and edit the source. > > that's a good addition. > > i was perplexed when i pasted in markdown text > and it wasn't recognized and formatted correctly. > that was a serious violation of my expectations... > and i still don't know if that "should" work, or not. > > >> Actually I don't think it is the goal that >> people learn or type Markdown. > > we -- you, me, everyone -- choose our own goals. > > live and let live. > > >> Why should a person who only wants to >> write down some content switch to Markdown. >> They are used to WYSIWYG editing, and with >> Markdown hidden in the back end they get >> the Markdown publishing environment for free. > > make it work. i wish you luck. i'm rooting for you. > > >> imagining the output from the input is hard >> for many people, have both next to each other >> seems the current way to go, but be honest >> that is a crutch and not end user ready. > > i'm not sure i agree with your bottom line there, > but it's not worth disputing. :+) > > >> What if the output determines the input? > > then we will need to switch the terminology we use. > > plus your level of complexity will increase significantly. > > >> One has to formalize and "parse" the user input >> and that is hard. > > that's not why i say that combining the views is hard. > > it's because if you show all of the input characters, > then you will have compromised the wysiwyg value. > > but if you do _not_ show all of the input characters, > then you will have compromised the ease of editing. > > some apps try to escape this dilemma by showing > the "invisible" input characters in a gray font, but > -- in my opinion -- that is the worst of both worlds. > > >> One has to have in mind, that >> not all formatting and content >> can be resembled in Markdown and >> Marko Editor only takes from a paste >> what it can handle, so again what you see >> after a paste in the editor is what you get > > right there you will have violated one of the main > expectations that people have for a wysiwyg tool. > > (and, again, wysiwyg "means" _so_ many things!) > > but as the saying goes, i don't want to interrupt > your success by telling you that it can't be done. > > so go do it! prove me wrong! :+) > > -bowerbird > > ___ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
mofo said: > Yea, but I want to see more of the actual output > rather than the markdown representation. > But I don't want to lose track of what parts of > the output can be seen in the now 'smaller' input i'm not following you. but i'm sure it's just a simple matter of terminology. when the _input_ field is showing any specific paragraph, users should be able to summon that spot in the output, i.e., automatically scroll (or "sync") to that paragraph. or, in cases where they prefer to do it the other way, when the _output_ field is showing a specific paragraph, users should be able to summon that spot in the input, i.e., automatically scroll (or "sync") to that paragraph. i think both of those are very straightforward. now, as i've said before, doing sync between the fields at any other time (or, indeed, on a continuous basis) is not as simple a matter as you might suppose at first. (per the example i just gave, which way do you sync?) > I do hope somebody does give > 'editable' output view, a shot. me too. and people are, to be sure. > Maybe it might not be too stupid an idea in practice. i never said the wysiwyg markdown idea was "stupid". what i said is that my research/thinking indicates it is _unworkable_, which is a very different thing entirely. so if someone proves me wrong and makes it workable, it _might_ be a great idea. (or, we must say, it might not, because it still mashes content in with presentation, but i'm not one of those people for whom this is sacrilegious.) but, until someone makes the idea work, it's all irrelevant. *** michael said: > I just added a toggle for source view, > so one can check and edit the source. that's a good addition. i was perplexed when i pasted in markdown text and it wasn't recognized and formatted correctly. that was a serious violation of my expectations... and i still don't know if that "should" work, or not. > Actually I don't think it is the goal that > people learn or type Markdown. we -- you, me, everyone -- choose our own goals. live and let live. > Why should a person who only wants to > write down some content switch to Markdown. > They are used to WYSIWYG editing, and with > Markdown hidden in the back end they get > the Markdown publishing environment for free. make it work. i wish you luck. i'm rooting for you. > imagining the output from the input is hard > for many people, have both next to each other > seems the current way to go, but be honest > that is a crutch and not end user ready. i'm not sure i agree with your bottom line there, but it's not worth disputing. :+) > What if the output determines the input? then we will need to switch the terminology we use. plus your level of complexity will increase significantly. > One has to formalize and "parse" the user input > and that is hard. that's not why i say that combining the views is hard. it's because if you show all of the input characters, then you will have compromised the wysiwyg value. but if you do _not_ show all of the input characters, then you will have compromised the ease of editing. some apps try to escape this dilemma by showing the "invisible" input characters in a gray font, but -- in my opinion -- that is the worst of both worlds. > One has to have in mind, that > not all formatting and content > can be resembled in Markdown and > Marko Editor only takes from a paste > what it can handle, so again what you see > after a paste in the editor is what you get right there you will have violated one of the main expectations that people have for a wysiwyg tool. (and, again, wysiwyg "means" _so_ many things!) but as the saying goes, i don't want to interrupt your success by telling you that it can't be done. so go do it! prove me wrong! :+) -bowerbird ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
Re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
bowerbird via Markdown-Discuss schrieb am 12.09.2014 06:16: > there is a lot of surface appeal to a system > which combines wysiwyg and light-markup. > > and one can do a few simple combinations. > > but before long, and certainly once you try > to tackle some more-complicated features, > you find yourself torn by an inherent conflict. > > starkly put, there is a _difference_ between > what you put in, and what you get out, and > the question is which one you want to "see". > > by definition, wysiwyg pictures the "output". Yes. And imagining the output from the input is hard for many people, have both next to each other seems the current way to go, but be honest that is a crutch and not end user ready. > > but an inability to "see" your input means it > can become very difficult to edit that input. What if the output determines the input? > > the inclination, upon that realization, is to > attempt to show "enough" of the input that > it becomes possible to do your editing, but > that just turns the wysiwyg into cruel illusion. That's why I'm not satisfied with the current solutions. > > i'm not gonna say that it's "impossible", but > i will advise anyone who is tempted to try it > to carefully map everything you need to do > before you even start to think about coding. Yes, that is true. One has to formalize and "parse" the user input and that is hard. > > if you want to take on the hardest thing first, > figure out how to successfully allow a paste > from an arbitrary ms-word file... good luck... I don't have ms-word here, Marko Editor has functionality for LibreOffice and pasting from websites. I admit it is not perfect, but, I think, not too bad either. One has to have in mind, that not all formatting and content can be resembled in Markdown and Marko Editor only takes from a paste what it can handle, so again what you see after a paste in the editor is what you get (modulo bugs). > > -bowerbird > > p.s. even if you solve that fundamental gap, > you will also discover that "wysiwyg" carries > excess baggage, in that some people think > it entails one thing, and other people another, > so you're never gonna make everyone happy. That is true, but this problem also arises when you try to convince people to use any new technilogy. Why are there no columns in Markdown, and so on... Regards, Michael > > p.p.s. all this also applies to contenteditable, > in case anybody is mulling that as a solution. > > ___ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > > ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
Re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
> some good code will sync input and output when you want. Yea, but I want to see more of the actual output rather than the markdown representation. But I don't want to lose track of what parts of the output can be seen in the now 'smaller' input' > i'd love to talk if y'all have wysiwyg solutions, but i have none. :+) Same here too. Well I know it sounds weird after our discussion on knocking down the very concept. But I do hope somebody does give 'editable' output view, a shot. Maybe it might not be too stupid an idea in practice. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:13 PM, bowerbird via Markdown-Discuss wrote: > mofo said: >> >> I do get a bit irked by the amount of screen re-estate it takes. > > > yeah, i suppose it depends on what you happen to be doing. > > i do have some ideas i'm researching that riff on that thought. > > >> Perhaps we can drop the wysiwyg > > > well, i think it's interesting to think about these things, and to > discuss them, especially if anyone has ideas on all of this, so > i'd love to talk if y'all have wysiwyg solutions, but i have none. :+) > > >> and stick to input/output model >> but maybe with this twist: >> Place the input screen on the top, >> and the output screen on the bottom. >> Input takes vertically 20% of screen, >> and output takes vertically 80% of screen. > > > that's easy. > > the html-demo-code i have put up uses "position:absolute", > so people can arrange the interface any way they want to... > > i've also researched jquery drag-and-resize components, > for even more flexibility, but it's hard to say if it's worth it... > > >> A red 'box' in the output screen shows >> where the part that the input screen is showing. > > > some good code will sync input and output when you want. > > > -bowerbird > > ___ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
mofo said: I do get a bit irked by the amount of screen re-estate it takes. yeah, i suppose it depends on what you happen to be doing. i do have some ideas i'm researching that riff on that thought. Perhaps we can drop the wysiwyg well, i think it's interesting to think about these things, and to discuss them, especially if anyone has ideas on all of this, so i'd love to talk if y'all have wysiwyg solutions, but i have none. :+) and stick to input/output model but maybe with this twist: Place the input screen on the top, and the output screen on the bottom. Input takes vertically 20% of screen, and output takes vertically 80% of screen. that's easy. the html-demo-code i have put up uses "position:absolute", so people can arrange the interface any way they want to... i've also researched jquery drag-and-resize components, for even more flexibility, but it's hard to say if it's worth it... A red 'box' in the output screen shows where the part that the input screen is showing. some good code will sync input and output when you want. -bowerbird ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
Re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
I see. While I prefer working with the typical 'left screen is input' and 'right screen is output', I do get a bit irked by the amount of screen re-estate it takes. Perhaps we can drop the wysiwyg and stick to input/output model, but maybe with this twist: Place the input screen on the top, and the output screen on the bottom. Input takes vertically 20% of screen, and output takes vertically 80% of screen. A red 'box' in the output screen shows where the part that the input screen is showing. ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
mofo said: > I think a mark down wysiwyg would still > be very useful, even if not perfect except it wouldn't be anywhere near "perfect". i'm saying that it is, in the end, _unworkable._ > Take for instance Adobe dreamweaver. > It can edit both in output mode and in source code. except that's explicitly _not_ wysiwyg. not at all. rather, it's a multi-mode environment, where you _switch_ between fully different representations. (again noting "wysiwyg" means _so_ many things.) > The ability to switch between two views > is a lifesaver. right. because sometimes what you do in one view screws up stuff in the other, and it cannot be fixed without switching to work in that other environment. thus, what you end up with when you try to mush the two environments together is the worst of both worlds, where you can't tell for sure whether it's right or wrong, and -- if it's wrong -- you don't know how you can fix it. this example upholds my point, it's not a counter to it. > Plus this is a good opportunity to push the idea > of separation between presentations and text > for typical non tech savvy office workers. yet another case of not choosing your battles carefully. for all of these issues, a much better solution is the two-up interface with both your input and the output, in the form almost all the good implementations use (i.e., edit on one half the screen, display on the other): dillinger, ghost, mmd-composer, stackedit, markable, and a host of other tools, not to mention marked2.app. if you can show me any wysiwyg implementation that works anywhere near as well as any of those tools, do. or any tool that tries to mush together input and output. even medium, with all of evan william's money, cannot work it well for more than a meager handful of features. i'm not going to review the attempts, because it would be overly cruel and i sincerely wish 'em good luck, but as far as i can see, it will take some big breakthroughs. -bowerbird ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
Re: wysiwyg and light-markup are oil and water
I think a mark down wysiwyg would still be very useful, even if not perfect (as long as all outputs is consistent between computers) Take for instance Adobe dreamweaver . It can edit both in output mode and in source code. The ability to switch between two views is a lifesaver. Plus this is a good opportunity to push the idea of separation between presentations and text for typical non tech savvy office workers. By perhaps a centralized repository of css styles for each type of documents. On 12/09/2014 2:16 pm, "bowerbird via Markdown-Discuss" < [email protected]> wrote: > there is a lot of surface appeal to a system > which combines wysiwyg and light-markup. > > and one can do a few simple combinations. > > but before long, and certainly once you try > to tackle some more-complicated features, > you find yourself torn by an inherent conflict. > > starkly put, there is a _difference_ between > what you put in, and what you get out, and > the question is which one you want to "see". > > by definition, wysiwyg pictures the "output". > > but an inability to "see" your input means it > can become very difficult to edit that input. > > the inclination, upon that realization, is to > attempt to show "enough" of the input that > it becomes possible to do your editing, but > that just turns the wysiwyg into cruel illusion. > > i'm not gonna say that it's "impossible", but > i will advise anyone who is tempted to try it > to carefully map everything you need to do > before you even start to think about coding. > > if you want to take on the hardest thing first, > figure out how to successfully allow a paste > from an arbitrary ms-word file... good luck... > > -bowerbird > > p.s. even if you solve that fundamental gap, > you will also discover that "wysiwyg" carries > excess baggage, in that some people think > it entails one thing, and other people another, > so you're never gonna make everyone happy. > > p.p.s. all this also applies to contenteditable, > in case anybody is mulling that as a solution. > > ___ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > ___ Markdown-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
