Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Wikidforum - New forum software with wiki and CMS support
JavaJones:
There are some wikis that do natively support WYSIWYG. But MediaWiki being one of the most popular and not supporting it (natively) does mean that most of the wikis one comes across do not have full or even partial WYSIWYG support. There are plugins for MW that handle it, but as far as I know none of the actual wiki syntax based ones are complete yet, they're all still in some stage of development and not necessarily recommended for production use. The HTML-based ones like TinyMCE and the like do work, but they don't maintain the compatibility and portability of wiki syntax (considering compatibility/portability with other wiki systems at least). I don't know if there are issues with differencing, etc. when using the WYSIWYG editors.
Anyway I agree, ideally speaking wiki should not be synonymous with hard to use or obscure formatting.
- Oshyan
superboyac:
SB is so infuriating when he's right. ;D
Seriously, what's the BFD about having to master syntax elements when they could just be programed into an editor app. We have text expanders, spellcheckers, template tools, code generators, autoformatters, grammar checkers, voice recognition, and just about everything else built into word processors thes days. And that's just to deal with composing everyday language. What's so special about wiki that it doesn't feel the need to offer user amenities. Is it simple geekiness? Elitism? Or are they just trying to deter some of the riff-raff?
Back when I first learned to code, one of the first things they taught us was:
"For data entry, if specific characters or control sequences always need to be entered in order to do something, then they should never need to be entered at all. Don't be a lazy programmer and make the user do it. Let the system put them in instead. Boring, arbitrary, repetitious tasks are what computers are designed and built for."
:)
-40hz (January 19, 2011, 01:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
Haha, thanks. Well, if I were to really explain this, it would be like this:
I don't actually think the crux of the issue is the elitist attitude, although that's a part of it. But the primary reason, at least the one that makes the most sense based on my perceptions is that the programmers just stop the development once it gets to the point where it's pretty functional. So once the program is able to do the goal that the programmer set out to accomplish, then the motivation to go the extra step and really polish things up is gone. Especially freeware stuff like the video tools. For example, let's say the goal is to convert a dvd to an avi file. First the program will probably be some command line thing. Why? Because it's easy. It's pure code. You just write a couple of lines to do the job, and you're done. But then, as a few people start using it repetitively, the demand for a gui comes in. So, a gui is made, but it's bare minimum. There's no real motivation or demand to do more (other than "difficult" people like myself). So some gui is created, you know the type...there's some fields and dialogs and boxes, but when you click "start" or "run" a command line window pops up and does the work. basically, it's just a fancy form for putting in command line parameters. Again, the bare minimum. Not many people are going to go the extra step of removing the command line dialog popup, like integrating it into a window-looking dialog. Most of the people using the program are computer geeks, so a little command line doesn't bother them that much. Anyway, that's the idea. It's almost waaaaaaay more work to polish up the interface vs. just writing a simple code to do the job. There's simply no motivation for it from a practical standpoint. If I were to say something, the response in most developer's head would be "Dude, just type in "/n run echo pstart-c-t-w" and it will do it. It's going to take me a week to program a button for that. You can type it in in 2 seconds. Why bother." That, in my opinion, is why a lot of the good programs out there have terrible UI's. Unfortunately, the bad programs will tend to have better UI's...for the same reason. A good UI masks the poor program engine. So it fools non-computer people.
wraith808:
You can have your buttons, just don't take away my syntax! It's easier for me to keep typing inline rather than have to highlight a phrase and click a button.
superboyac:
You can have your buttons, just don't take away my syntax! It's easier for me to keep typing inline rather than have to highlight a phrase and click a button.
-wraith808 (January 19, 2011, 04:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think that's a true statement. You are more COMFORTABLE typing inline, or you PREFER to type like that. But it's not easier by any means for you, him, or any other person. There's no argument you can make to convince me that it's easier to type a word with brackets or whatever vs. clicking a single button.
At the risk of sounding rude, I've heard from programmers that they use all this text editing stuff because it's easier for them. This is not true. you can't say that because the alternative (buttons) doesn't even exist! You can't say one way is easier or better when the other way is not even available! So, in my opinion, the programmers sort of lie to themselves by saying it's better this way, but it's not. What they are really saying is that it's not worth the trouble to create a button, which is true in a lot of ways. It is easier to write code (if you know it) than it is to create a button, which is essentially writing a LOT of code and going through the whole troubleshooting of it, etc. So yes, text-editing is easier compared to writing the code for a button.
But text-editing is definitely NOT easier than clicking a button. Two different things.
Renegade:
You can have your buttons, just don't take away my syntax! It's easier for me to keep typing inline rather than have to highlight a phrase and click a button.
-wraith808 (January 19, 2011, 04:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think that's a true statement. You are more COMFORTABLE typing inline, or you PREFER to type like that. But it's not easier by any means for you, him, or any other person. There's no argument you can make to convince me that it's easier to type a word with brackets or whatever vs. clicking a single button.
At the risk of sounding rude, I've heard from programmers that they use all this text editing stuff because it's easier for them. This is not true. you can't say that because the alternative (buttons) doesn't even exist! You can't say one way is easier or better when the other way is not even available! So, in my opinion, the programmers sort of lie to themselves by saying it's better this way, but it's not. What they are really saying is that it's not worth the trouble to create a button, which is true in a lot of ways. It is easier to write code (if you know it) than it is to create a button, which is essentially writing a LOT of code and going through the whole troubleshooting of it, etc. So yes, text-editing is easier compared to writing the code for a button.
But text-editing is definitely NOT easier than clicking a button. Two different things.
-superboyac (January 19, 2011, 04:25 PM)
--- End quote ---
OOOOOOOO~! A challenge~!
Ok... let's convince you...
Ever see someone that's a whiz with vi? Well, in addition to being socially inept and sexually frustrated, they're also blistering fast. There isn't a hope in hell that you could possibly hope to accomplish the same tasks with a mouse.
Now, if I'm going to post an image here, it's FAR easier for me to type the [ img ] tag and paste a URL than it is to click a button, fart around with some interface and whatever else I need to do. In both cases I'll end up pasting the image URL, so those make no difference to the procedure. So... Consider:
THE GUI WAY:
1) Move hand from keyboard to mouse.
2) Figure out WTF the cursor is on the screen
3) Locate "image" button on toolbar
4) Move mouse cursor to toolbar image button
5) Click image button
6) Wait for some window to pop up
7) Locate URL field in popup for image URL
8) Move mouse to URL field
9) Click URL field to give it focus
10) *** Paste image into URL field
10.1) Since typing is hard, make things further painful, but avoid pain of moving hand between keyboard and mouse
10.2) Right-click in URL field
10.3) Click "Paste" option in context menu
11) Click OK button in popup
THE KEYBOARD WAY
1) Type img open tag
2) CTRL + V to paste image URL
3) Type img close tag
Clicking buttons is often more difficult because you have to move your hand from the keyboard to the mouse, find the cursor, look around, and by that time your ADHD has kicked in and you're thinking about lunch or going out for a cigarette!
*** cig =========:::~ ***
Back...
Now where was I?
Oh yeah...
Try this experiment... Tweet 5 times however you normally do, then try tweeting 5 times with my little Twiddle Twittle Tweeter for Twitter:
Twiddle Twittle Tweeter for Twitter
When you tweet with it, use the keyboard shortcuts:
In your browser (Firefox) -- use F6 to focus on the address bar then CTRL + C to copy it all.
From anywhere at all, like your browser, you can use T4 like this:
CTRL + ALT + S ==> Show/focus
Type whatever.
CTRL + ALT + B ==> Paste a shortened URL
CTRL + ALT + T ==> Tweet
Tell me which is faster then. (Don't include time to download, installation, or starting the program. :) )
Here's the help info:
http://renegademinds.com/Products/TwittleTwiddleTweeterforTwitter/Help/tabid/119/Default.aspx#help
You simply can't move your hand between the keyboard and your mouse fast enough. It's just not possible for simple things.
If you know what you want to do, the keyboard is MUCH faster, and hence, easier. If you're waffling on what you're doing, it makes no difference, and likely then the mouse is easier.
Q.E.D. ??? ;)
I use both the keyboard and mouse, but it really all depends on what you want to do. Very often the keyboard *IS* much faster and easier.
ED: Typos :P
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version