wysiwyg versus non-wysiwyg

[janvl]

When I edit a page, I cannot switch between wysiwyg and html.

Only if I go to the tab options and mark "do not allow wysiwyg" I can get html.

I hope it will be changed.

Kind regards,
Jan

[scelle]

I noticed this too, but wasn't sure if it is a feature or a bug.

It would be nice to be able to fine-tune HTML sometimes, though...

[calguy1000]

Microtiny is designed so that designers can create stylesheets, and layout... the editors can then fill in the content without messing up the styles... if people want to want to blur those lines, the developer can install and configure the full blown TinyMCE module.

We have no intention at this time of adding a toggle to disable the wysiwyg.

[scelle]

Fair enough... Just don't get angry. (signature)

[janvl]

Thank you for your answer.

I know the idea behind the roles of designer, editor, admin.
Fact is however that users use copy-and-past, taking all kind of content from wordprocessors or even from old sites made with frontpage 4, causing a lot of abundant and unnecessary html-code to get into the site.

I always help them by removing that and teaching them to use an editor in between that strips the code.

In the past versions, I started with 1.3, there always was this possibility and I use it often, experiencing the usefullness.

So please reconsider.

Kind Regards,
Jan

[stevegos]

Great progress everywhere else, but...

I must say the MicroTiny editor is just too similified. I cannot get to see the html, I cannot strip out MS Word formatting, I cannot add in the code to embed a Google map, Facebook code, etc.

The whole idea of content managment is to manage content. If clients have to keep coming back to me to have simple things added then for me its a step backwards.

I have installed the old TinyMCE, but cannot work out how to set this as the default editor. Any ideas please?

[mcDavid]

Microtiny is designed so that designers can create stylesheets, and layout... the editors can then fill in the content without messing up the styles... if people want to want to blur those lines, the developer can install and configure the full blown TinyMCE module.

We have no intention at this time of adding a toggle to disable the wysiwyg.

Maybe it could be a permission then? "Manage content HTML", by default only for the admin.

[calguy1000]

I must say the MicroTiny editor is just too similified. I cannot get to see the html, I cannot strip out MS Word formatting, I cannot add in the code to embed a Google map, Facebook code, etc.

There is a paste as text button in MicroTiny... you can embed smarty tags like {some_udt_name} or {global_content name='foo'} or {cms_module module='bar'} or whatever. That answers those problems.

As far as pasting in facebook like buttons, or google maps... there are modules for that, or you can embed that code into a GCB and call that (that's where its supposed to be anyways). Why would you post html code like that into a content area, then hand the content over to the customer and ask them not to screw it up?

If those pages aren't for the customer, then just turn off the wysiwyg for those pages, setup the permissions so that the customer can't edit (and therefore mess up the page) and play with html code to your hearts content.

[Jos]

I agree that using smarty tags is preferable above manually inserting html code.

But what is the proper way to insert a smarty tag in the MicroTiny field and not have it surrounded by <p>...</p> elements?

[calguy1000]

Now were delving into the whole debate about wysiwyg editors....

!! caution: below is a very opinionated editorial, you may not like it !!

A long time ago I wanted to go with a bbcode style editor. I personally liked the limited editor that came with / comes with Wordpress better than TinyMCE. However, I was outvoted. Since I wasn't responsible at the time for coding it, releasing it, or supporting it; TinyMCE went in. Even I don't get my way with CMSMS all of the time (just a large percentage of the time ). To this day I do not like TinyMCE, do not as a general rule use it, and do not know much about its internal workings. I have done limited work with the TinyMCE module but mostly related to compatibility issues, or simple bugs.

The problem Jos mentioned, as I see it is that often times calling a module or some other tag, like {News} will itself output a containing <div> depending on its template, or code. Calling {News} on a line by itself inside the wysiwyg editor will often (though not always) result in stuff like <p><div class="something">... a whole bunch of stuff ...</div></p> which is gross but still technically valid (I think). Nonetheless it can be a royal PITA to deal with. Not because it doesn't work, but because it CAN cause problems with styling etc. I have seen this myself in the past.

However, we are still talking about the basics here... A reminder: CMSMS is designed for experienced web developers to be able to build sites so that end users can manage the content. So that you (the designer/developer) don't have to do things like change the company slogan, type in the latest press release, or edit the 'about us' page because some employee joined or left the company.

In the above cases the editor should be able to edit the page, and change the content in a page easily, Add or edit an article in the news directory. Or go into the CompanyDirectory module and delete an employee record... something which should be quite easy for them to do. Your average content editor should probably not be calling modules, or udt's or other tags that insert large blocks of content in the middle of other stuff. This is blurring the lines between the role of designer and editor.

As I've said many times: wysiwygs are for content editors, not designers. Designers/developers know html (or should), but are generally third parties that are not knowledgeable about the inner workings of the customers organization. Content editors know about content, grammar and specifics of the website, organization or the content they are managing, but generally know very little about the technology that is used to build their website and make the magic happen. Designers/developers generally shouldn't be managing content, and content editors shouldn't have to worry AT ALL about the layout of the site. Ideally they should be able to type stuff, and it just 'works'.

If you as a designer want to insert a call to {news} in the content area of a page, as that is part of the design that is fine... just disable the wysiwg editor for that page and don't allow the content editor to edit it.
If you really really want to blur the lines, or because you as a designer/developer don't know HTML then you can install the full blown (bloated, heavy, complex, hard to use) TinyMCE module. Or a different wysiwyg editor with different functionality. And better yet, if you install more than one, your editors can chose between the different editors, and you can probably configure each one to your liking.

A possible exception to the 'editors shouldn't be calling tags that insert large chunks of content' thing I said above would be things like youtube videos, etc that are content that an editor may be responsible for. An editor may wish to embed a video into the content for a news article, and has been trained to do something like type: <enter>{youtube video=19238323}<enter> which could result in gross html like mentioned above. However, to my knowledge this ugly html is still valid, and can be accounted for in stylesheets.

I have only had one person give me a (IMnsHO) valid reason for this checkbox that isn't solvable any other way (yet). However, the proper solution to the problem he reported (that is a problem all editors will probably encounter) is another button, not to allow the editor to muck with HTML. I am still trying to find a way to solve that problem.

Are there any other reasons that are applicable to 80% of the editors? Convince me.

!! End of editorial !!

[mcDavid]

The problem Jos mentioned, as I see it is that often times calling a module or some other tag, like {News} will itself output a containing <div> depending on its template, or code. Calling {News} on a line by itself inside the wysiwyg editor will often (though not always) result in stuff like <p><div class="something">... a whole bunch of stuff ...</div></p> which is gross but still technically valid (I think). Nonetheless it can be a royal PITA to deal with. Not because it doesn't work, but because it CAN cause problems with styling etc. I have seen this myself in the past.

a <div> inside a <p> is technically not valid. But this comes to the point where I accept some invalid code. Every browser in the world will display a div correctly even if it's inside a <p> element. I'm not going to manually edit all content because some validator tool is throwing an error. The same goes for having some empty <p> tags for returns or whatever. Yes, the HTML will be 7 bytes too heavy. But honestly, no men or machine is going to care about that.

However, we are still talking about the basics here... A reminder: CMSMS is designed for experienced web developers to be able to build sites so that end users can manage the content. So that you (the designer/developer) don't have to do things like change the company slogan, type in the latest press release, or edit the 'about us' page because some employee joined or left the company.

I think this way of thinking is not 100% valid. Ofcourse, this is the way how bigger websites should be managed, but in practice, a lot of small organisations have just one person responsible for the website. Mostly just an employee/member who is "good with computer stuff". Not to speak of all the personal websites (yes, CMSMS is snooping off market share of wordpress). Those people are both designer and editor. I don't have any statistics but I think most websites are actually managed like this.

I, for instance, I'm a member of a small sportsclub and run the website of this club. Luckily I have a content-editor helping me to keep it up-to-date, but I'm doing that myself too. That means I use the wysiwyg editor most of the time, becaus it's just really convenient. If I quickly want to post a news-item, I don't want to be bothered with typing <p>'s and <br>'s. But sometimes I also need to take a look at the code. That's where the "turn wysiwyg on/of" checkbox comes in very handy! It would actually be even better when unchecking it would switch to the EditArea editor.

I think it's really good that there can be a clear line between editors and designer (I wouldn't be able to accept the help of my content-editor if he was able to screw things up all the time - beacause he would!). But I think the admins have to be able to use the best of both worlds. Because in a lot of cases, they are both worlds.

[calguy1000]

I think this way of thinking is not 100% valid. Ofcourse, this is the way how bigger websites should be managed, but in practice, a lot of small organisations have just one person responsible for the website. Mostly just an employee/member who is "good with computer stuff". Not to speak of all the personal websites (yes, CMSMS is snooping off market share of wordpress). Those people are both designer and editor. I don't have any statistics but I think most websites are actually managed like this.

Well, CMSMS is intended for the professional web developer. Noobs (what I call "Frontpage refugees") may use CMSMS, but we don't go out of our way to support them, or design our product with them in mind. This has been discussed many times. if the 'professional web developer' is also acting as a content editor then there really isn't any issue is there?

[janvl]

Hi again,

Just for the record. Of course you are right, CMSMS is for professionals and not for noobs.

Now my users do not want to tamper with html. But I am often puzzled how they (the editors) get certain html-code into the system. That is when I have to check the html and clear the thing out, that is when I toggle between html and wysiwyg.

I just mentioned it because it would be practical for the way I work, I can live without it and use the "wysiwyg is not allowed" checkbox under the tab options, but that means more clicks and more scrolling, a little bit less comfortable for me.

This was just a question to leave the functionality as it was, if you do not want that, fine. You have read the pros and contras now decide and let us all continue, please.

Kind regards,
Jan

[Wishbone]

Now my users do not want to tamper with html. But I am often puzzled how they (the editors) get certain html-code into the system. That is when I have to check the html and clear the thing out, that is when I toggle between html and wysiwyg.

Same here.. They don't always remember the 'paste as plain text' (which I think should be default) button, and I have to disable WYSIWYG on occasion to clear out the DIVs that keep showing up.

[cb2004]

Well, CMSMS is intended for the professional web developer.

Then why was MicroTiny created for "the editor".

I am all for a stripped down version of Tiny, I think it is a great idea. It should however in my opinion at minimum have the paste from Word button, and the Turn WYSIWYG on/off check-box. I cant see many professional web developers making a preference to Micro without these.