Le 2010-11-05 14:59, Nino Novak a écrit :
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
I would not go to Wiki-markup. New users will look at the page, have no
idea there is help and not contribute. We should offer a WYSIWYG editor
of any kind that works as 100% of the membership can use it. Why would
we reduce the contribution rate if we can find a fix?
I would vote to find a working WYSIWYG editor.
Marc
--
E-mail to website+h...@libreoffice.org 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
