Hi, On Friday 05 November 2010 17:05, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> I'm happy to hear other opinions, but IMHO we *NEED* a WYSIWYG > editor. Many users will be very uncomfortable otherwise, so I'd even > take the risk of slightly defective pages in favor of WYSIWYG. I'd like to argue with Manuel against a broken editor as it generates additional work. Without permanent watching and fixing, even content can be lost. If we go for pure Wiki-markup, what do we lose? Some pages might not look as nice as they would but nothing would be broken/lost. My personal opinion is clearly, better some correct but ugly pages than nice but broken. If really necessary, I'd even volunteer to help beginners tidying up markup ;-) But I'd not volunteer doing absloutely stupid work of fixing pages people have destroyed without noticing. You'll have to review any single edit then! A nightmare. > > * I don't see a big need for a real WYSIWYG editor. Wikimedia has > > found the biggest online community in the world, not even having > > the UsabilityInitiative improvements available for many years. > > I know my users. ;) Trust poeple! They might exceed your expectations :-) Nino -- E-mail to [email protected] for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
