WikiMatrix / WYSIWYG vs. Wiki syntax

andi · 2008-04-17 09:28:41

Martin Koser wrote an interesting article about Simplicity, adoption and WYSIWYG editors.

From the article:

While WYSIWYG is supposed to offer clarity, simplicity and easy adoption I hold that this is exactly what wiki markup is good for.

He explains how good WikiSyntax can be much easier to work with - even for novice users - than with any of the available WYSIWYG editors and makes a strong case for CREOLE.

See also:

* Wikis with CREOLE support
* Wikis with WYSIWYG editors

witten · 2008-04-17 10:54:43

Here's the comment I posted on the article:

My main complaint with most markup-based wikis is the excruciating edit/save cycle. You go and tweak the markup syntax just the way you like, you hit save (or if you’re lucky, preview) to view the result. You find a typo or another change to make, which means you have to hit edit, scroll back down to where you were, and start the process all over again.

WYSIWYG editors, for all their faults, have the ability to do away with this cumbersome edit/save cycle completely. You just edit your page directly (ideally with some good key combinations in order to approach the speech with which you can enter formatted text with traditional markup).

So I actually tried to tackle the problem of making a decent, simple, fast WYSIWYG wiki editor. The result is called Luminotes, and you can check it out at http://luminotes.com/

Let me know what you think.

cjtannu · 2008-04-17 17:35:23

There can be the inherent issues with WYSIWYG editors and a lot of people are used to wiki syntax, but the larger issue is more about how the data is saved. With wiki syntax you are introducing a new data standard that adds complexity when it comes time to integrating or migrating data. I know that there are a lot of WYSIWYG editors out there that still save to wiki syntax but I argue that they should save as XHTML. This may be a moot point as there are a lot of wiki engines that save as wiki syntax and people have become accustomed to the syntax, but as wikis grow in popularity the industry needs to move to a standard that fits software as a whole as opposed to the wiki space. This standard would be XHTML.

frogpond · 2008-04-19 09:33:52

Dan I replied on my blog, pasting it here too:

@Dan I don’t know - honestly, editing and hitting save didn’t disturb me in the past - like you said there’s always the preview available (and the “only small change” checkbox).

And while I like the experience of editing in Luminotes, there are also some things missing that come with the standard edit-save cycle like comparing versions (diffs) of pages - but, well, perhaps I didn’t find it?

In my experience most people argue against wiki markup from the experience of a try at editing a Wikipedia article - and Mediawiki markup is seriously limited (to say it very friendly). This problem of “oh no, it’s code” needs to be tackled with easy and powerful WYSIWYG editors in time, Luminote sure is an interesting thing to watch.

@Corey I agree with you, how data is stored is important - exporting, migrating and importing (from Word docs, ftw) would profit from standard interfaces - XHTML is very OK with me

_sebastian_ · Today 09:03:51

Currently I am looking into the option of a corporate wiki and the WYSIWYG issue is one of my big worries.

I myself have used DokuWiki for ~1 year now and are quite accustomed to most of the mark-up but getting the wiki accepted others is the main source of worry for me.

What I like with wiki markup is that after some time you can simply start writing things down and you sort of know how it will look. I've written long documents without intermediate save and used the preview only to have the draft saved.

When I think about how to get a newbie (be it an older or younger person) to use the wiki without any wiki knowledge I would assume that having a very basic WYSIWYG editor should be suitable. Once you start writing more, more complex stuff writing the wiki syntax is IMHO quicker.

The WYSIWYG editors I've used (www.worpress.com, twiki.org, ?) all had similar issues, buttons did not work correctly (I use FF2/3) I had to <mark the text and click> twice to have the formating effect.
It was hard to work with numbered and bulletin list, esp. identing and finish of the listing

Regarding data storage, well I am not a programmer or familiar with how it all works in the background but from what I know XHTML/XLM is a good basis to convert from into many formats. Currently DokuWiki saves the wiki syntax text but as it does the conversion to xhtml I can't see any major reason not to have it saved in XHTML and convert to wikisyntax when editing.
I have to admit I might lack the deep knowledge but isn't is converting from one defined syntax into another? of course there are always the exemptions which make it hard.

#1 2008-04-17 09:28:41

WYSIWYG vs. Wiki syntax

#2 2008-04-17 10:54:43

Re: WYSIWYG vs. Wiki syntax

#3 2008-04-17 17:35:23

Re: WYSIWYG vs. Wiki syntax

#4 2008-04-19 09:33:52

Re: WYSIWYG vs. Wiki syntax

#5 Today 09:03:51

Re: WYSIWYG vs. Wiki syntax

Board footer