WebBuilder 2008 - WYSIWYG + Web Forms?

[jerm]

Ah yes - I can see it now, or rather hear it phonetically. Not only am I showing my ignorance, but also my age, I suspect!

[applaudmedia]

Prior to switching to WeBuilder I used FirstPage 2000 then 2006. FirstPage 2006 added WYSIWYG but it was quirky. However you could disable it in the preferences so it wasn't available. Since I'm not a app developer I don't know what problems adding WYSIWYG adds to the non-WYSIWYG components but there are definitely times when WYSIWYG is golden, such as finding your place in the code and making quick text edits. The main advantage I see to WYSIWYG is that when clicking in the visual portion, it highlights where that section is in the code - this is HUGELY beneficial, especially when using CSS for layout as the code does not necessarily logically follow the visual representation. So, that's all I really care about from WYSIWYG!

[big0mike]

I understand the experts decrying WYSIWYG as 'beginner's stuff' but for those who aren't gun coders, it can be useful.

And if someone wants WYSIWYG there are myriad other utilities that offer that functionality. Either bluementals offers a product you are interested in or it doesn't. To say, "WeBuilder would be great IF it were completely redesigned to allow WYSIWYG functionality," is kinda dumb. If you want WYSIWYG then these editors are not for you.

The other way of looking at it is that sales would skyrocket due to the increase in the editor's popularity. For the l33t guys, an option to turn it off (like in CoffeeCup's editor) would be all that's needed.

And the extra bloat from the required code would more than likely make the product less functional to those that use it.

That said, introducing WYSIWYG into an existing application opens a huge can of worms for the devs, so why break a perfectly good app doing that? Perhaps the answer would be a new, stand-alone product (Visual WeBuilder?) incorporating those features required to corner the WYSIWYG market.

That would be the only acceptable solution. But, I believe the developer's time should be spent on making their current line of products better instead of making a new line of software that has many competing products.

[davenz]

Thanks for explainging that Chris. Sorry, I shouldn't use that language. In a way, I suppose it is being sarcastic, though from what I see in the posts here, some of the people well deserve to be called 'leet'.

@bigMike

I agree with all your points. Two editors would be the way to go if one wanted WYSIWYG.

Dave.

[syrupcore]

I understand the experts decrying WYSIWYG as 'beginner's stuff' but for those who aren't gun coders, it can be useful.

I'm not anti WYSIWYG at all. I make a living setting up CMSs for customers and take pains to make sure the WYSIWYG editors they use are easy and put out clean code.

What I'm against is taking a nice code editor and totally changing direction with out. I, obviously, <3 Webuilder. I'm ok with change but that's not a change I'd welcome. The amount of overhead in processor and memory do not sound inviting. Selfishly, the amount of time the Blumentals team would take to implement it would only take away from the time they had to implement all of my awesome feature requests.

so really, I get the value of being able to see your output and then introspect your code (i use firebug for this). I understand and am into the idea of being able to edit text in a comfortable, human way - with line breaks and pleasant fonts and all that stuff. I'm all for it - just not in Webuilder.

Sorry if I came off sassier than I meant it.

[syrupcore]

So a 'l33t guy' is a nerd, geek, etc. Or 'syrupcore' as we call it here. ;)

haha, just saw this. I'm definitely a geek but painfully far from claiming l33t.