[Solved] ListIt2 Shows No WYSIWYG Editor for Detail Window

[KitchM]

When using List2It, the editor windows for adding Item text for the Name and the Detail are not the same. The selected WYSIWYG editor only shows in the Name windows, but not the Detail window. It is needed more in the Detail window.

Is there a way to turn it on for both windows?

[gocreative]

Are you able to clarify your question? I've read it several times and can't tell what you mean by "window" as well as the Name and Detail windows.

[KitchM]

If one notices the page where one edits an item, it looks like this:

ListIt2 Add item page - 3.png (9.92 KiB) Viewed 4020 times

(sorry about size of last pic, but forum software had a problem with it.)

From these you can see that the Add item page shows the two editor windows, as is standard throughout CMSMS.

Notice that the two windows do not both have WYSIWYG editors.

[velden]

You did check both the

"WYSIWYG:
If checked, a WYSIWYG Editor will be enabled for this field."

field definition checkboxes, didn't you?

I just tested and it seems to work to have to text area fields with wysiwyg in one item.

[KitchM]

Is this what you meant?

[velden]

No.

In Listit2 instance, field definitions tab, edit the field definition that does NOT show the editor and at the bottom of the field definitions options you find the checkbox.

[KitchM]

Wow! That got it.

So just to change the wysiwyg settings for that module, the user must go into each "instance" of it, go to each field definition and check the box for that feature.

I wonder what was wrong with sticking to the global setting like everything else? Or at the very least, a global setting for ListIt2.

Thanks much, velden. It is appreciated.

[gocreative]

I wonder what was wrong with sticking to the global setting like everything else? Or at the very least, a global setting for ListIt2.

Because there are many reasons why someone may not want a field to be WYSIWYG. I use a mixture of both, depending on what type of content I'm expecting to enter into the field. A global setting would make ListIt2 less flexible.

[KitchM]

Not really. Each edit window allows the user to swith to HTML. That is the standard.

[gocreative]

No, there are many instances where you specifically want ONLY plain text, such as a field to insert YouTube embed code or other HTML. It makes no sense to have to change the WYSIWYG option on the box when it will never be used for that purpose.

If you're forcing the user to toggle settings, or if you're trusting them to follow the correct steps at all times, then you're making a big mistake

[KitchM]

Please explain specifically where that would be.

[gocreative]

Well, as I said, if you wanted a user (website owner) to be able to copy/paste HTML code from a third party website such as YouTube, then it would be beneficial to use only a plain old textarea, without the option to make it WYSIWYG.

I actually use this for a Testimonials module (using ListIt2) whereby the user can enter a text (WYSIWYG) testimonial, but they also have another field to enter YouTube video code (not WYWIWYG). This way there's absolutely no chance that the user could corrupt the YouTube HTML by pasting it in with the "WYSIWYG" checkbox enabled.

Another example is allowing users to enter a multi-line postal address without the need to then strip out HTML formatting when outputting this address on the website.

There are countless other examples, but those are just a couple. The best way to look at it is simply that users can't be trusted, so anything that they could possibly do wrong, they almost certainly will. So prevent that wherever you can. It's only a checkbox on each field in ListIt2, so it's not difficult to protect your clients from these errors, and in turn prevent yourself from needing to fix those errors.

[KitchM]

You have a good viewpoint of the issue, although it is fairly contrary to CMSMS philosophy. I, too, like to make things goof-proof, but we are usually left on our own to solve the problem and are assumed to know certain things to use CMSMS.

I might mention that the other side of your position is that it would be better to be consistent one way or the other. Consistency itself lends to making things goof-proof because the user always expects one way of doing things. Currently, we have no standard on this issue. Every contributor does their own thing and that makes users tear out their hair with frustration.

Thanks.