[Sussex] wysiwyg html editor

[Karl E. Jorgensen]

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:07:32PM +0100, Desmond Armstrong wrote:
> So what is wrong with the
> 1/ Mozilla Composer
> and
> 2/ OpenOffice HTML
> editors?

As editors go: probably OK. But they both (attempt to) give only a
*single* view of how the HTML+CSS would be presented: As a graphical
browser with a certain set of assumed characteristics:
- a screen that can display zillions of colours 
- a certain set of fonts available
- navigation with a mouse
and so on. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

My argument is that the HTML & CSS specifications that lie as a
foundation is so much *more* than just to support "a graphical browser".
HTML+CSS also supports things like:
- text-only browsers
- text-to-speech browsers (essential for the blind)
- graphical browsers with "weird" font/CSS settings (users with poor
  eyesight will usually force certain settings via font/colour/custom
  stylesheet)
- mobile devices (lower resolution, fewer fonts, fewer colours,
  restricted navigation)
- printed media (even just the lowly "Print-from-browser")
and probably lots of other things that I've forgotten.  But it's for
more than just "a graphical browser". 

Tools like Mozilla Composer/OpenOffice HTML fail miserably on most of
the above accounts. 

This doesn't make them bad tools though: just limited. 

I'm always a bit wary of people who wants WYSIWYG HTML/CSS: Failure to
understand the underlying HTML/CSS means that they have no idea of how
the content will/could be presented on anything but "a graphical
browser".  End result:  A website which is probably just aimed at a
single (or very few) browser(s).

"WYSIWYG" tools can give you an *idea* of *one* way the content could be
presented, and thus improve productivity.   But please don't let anybody
think that they can get away *not* understanding the underlying
HTML/CSS..

Phew.. end of a (slight) rant... Sorry for blasting your inboxes like
this - but I feel better now! :-)

-- 
Karl E. Jorgensen
karl at jorgensen.org.uk  http://www.jorgensen.org.uk/
karl at jorgensen.com     http://karl.jorgensen.com
==== Today's fortune:
sticky bit has come loose
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20070508/8b577490/attachment.pgp