WYSIWYG editors are the bane of my existence.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Pottinger, Hardy J.
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'll just say my experience with the Confluence WYSIWYG editor hasn't been
> great. Now, partly, that might have been the fact that the one page I
> tried using it on had been migrated from another wiki, so, to be fair, the
> WYSIWYG editor was being presented with a challenge. But, from a user's
> POV, I have to say, editing with a WYSIWYG editor on a wiki is like a
> prank waiting for a punch line, and you, the well-meaning user, are the
> punch line. If you don't want to be embarrassed, I highly recommend going
> "advanced mode". :-)
> That experience has lead me to approach most WYSIWYG editors with caution.
> Don't trust 'em.
> HARDY POTTINGER <[log in to unmask]>
> University of Missouri Library Systems
> "Time and accident are committing daily havoc on the originals of the
> valuable historical and State papers deposited in our public offices. The
> late war has done the work of centuries in this business. The last cannot
> be recovered but let us save what remains not by vaults and locks which
> fence them from the public eye and use in consigning them beyond the reach
> of accident" --Thomas Jefferson
> On 7/25/12 8:32 AM, "Sean Hannan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>As an administrator of a Confluence installation, I have to say that I
>>Confluence is fine if you are not going to be touching it or doing any
>>of local customizations (hooking it into local auth, etc.). If that's the
>>case, you should really be looking at the hosted version.
>>I've found that Atlassian is frustrating to deal with for support. I ran
>>into a bug in Confluence that has been an open ticket in their issue
>>for 6 years. Years. I've found upgrades to be a pain, generally, and
>>sometimes Atlassian will be fast and furious with them and it's hard to
>>up. And the longer you wait, the more painful the upgrades become.
>>I don't deal with the money side of things, but I definitely think that we
>>do not get what we pay for with Confluence.
>>On 7/25/12 9:05 AM, "Nathan Tallman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> That's what I'm worried about with MediaWiki. The syntax used when
>>> and editing pages isn't intuitive and I'm afraid people won't want to
>>> it. I was hoping someone would recommend a wiki with more of a WYSIWYG
>>> of editing interface. Was also hoping to stick with FLOSS, but perhaps I
>>> should at least peak at Confluence.
>>> Thanks for the input,
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Nate Vack <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> If you're expecting "everyone" to create and edit pages,
>>>> it will be very hard to get widespread adoption with it.
The Cherry Hill Company