From simon at iki.fi Mon Nov 21 14:09:30 2005 From: simon at iki.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Simon_R=F6nnqvist?=) Date: Mon Nov 21 14:09:43 2005 Subject: [bx-editor-users] WYSIWYG vs. WYSIWYM and semantic usage? Message-ID: <4ACE65FD-FA77-457C-97B7-59C39AADA030@iki.fi> Hi! The way of the future of information seems to be semantic markup, both when speaking of the web and when speaking of word processing. That is marking up content according to what it is rather than what it should look like. When speaking of word processing there seem to be two approaches to this, the ordinary WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) approach which ordinary word processors have, and the pure semantic approach aka. WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean). WYSIWYG:s usually offer a possibility to mark up content with style classes rather than directly saying how each letter, word or passage should look. (Kind of like using CSS classes instead of in-line CSS or FONT-tags.) If you choose to use this possibility explicitly one could say that you're marking up text semantically (as long as the names of the classes are of a semantic nature). Then there's also at least one purely semantic word processor called LyX, which is a frontend to LaTeX. LyX has a so called WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) approach, which means that it doesn't even allow the user to see the formatting of the text while typing, encouraging the user to think semantically. When speaking of web content the Bitflux Editor embraces this approach as a WYSIWYG, yet encouraging the user to use semantic markup more than any other WYSIWYG I've seen. My question is: What advantages and disadvantages does this approach have compared to a pure WYSIWYM? I think it may be an advantage for the user to have a feeling of what the content is going to look like already at the time of typing it. But on the other hand it may tempt the user into using inappropriate markup in trying to achieve a sertain look, which anyways should be up to the CSS-designer to decide (at least for the sake of consistency). Another problem occurs if one is going to reuse the conent in different medias with different formatting (ie. different styling for print), then the WYSIWYG is nothing but an illusion. What experiances or thoughts do you have on this? Do you btw. have experiance with any web-based WYSIWYM:s? cheers, Simon From christian.stocker at bitflux.ch Fri Nov 25 09:13:29 2005 From: christian.stocker at bitflux.ch (Christian Stocker) Date: Fri Nov 25 09:13:36 2005 Subject: [bx-editor-users] WYSIWYG vs. WYSIWYM and semantic usage? In-Reply-To: <4ACE65FD-FA77-457C-97B7-59C39AADA030@iki.fi> References: <4ACE65FD-FA77-457C-97B7-59C39AADA030@iki.fi> Message-ID: <4386C7A9.6050103@bitflux.ch> Hi Simon Sorry for not answering this earlier, but it's a pretty long post IMHO it's just that our customers ask for WYSIWYG and not WYSIYWYM. They mostly do not care about correct semantic usage, but with BXE you can at least force it somehow :) I know LyX and wrote my diploma thesis with it. It's great and very useful, but I don't see much of a differecne between that and a strict BXE. BXE shows what you mean in a manner that it will look like what you will get on the webpage. if you reuse the content on a different palce (PDA, PDF, whatever), it will of course look differently, but I think the users can abstract that. How would a WYSIWYM Editor look like in your opinion? On the web, I mean :) chregu On 21.11.2005 14:09 Uhr, Simon R?nnqvist wrote: > Hi! > > The way of the future of information seems to be semantic markup, both > when speaking of the web and when speaking of word processing. That is > marking up content according to what it is rather than what it should > look like. When speaking of word processing there seem to be two > approaches to this, the ordinary WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) > approach which ordinary word processors have, and the pure semantic > approach aka. WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean). > > WYSIWYG:s usually offer a possibility to mark up content with style > classes rather than directly saying how each letter, word or passage > should look. (Kind of like using CSS classes instead of in-line CSS or > FONT-tags.) If you choose to use this possibility explicitly one could > say that you're marking up text semantically (as long as the names of > the classes are of a semantic nature). Then there's also at least one > purely semantic word processor called LyX, which is a frontend to > LaTeX. LyX has a so called WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) > approach, which means that it doesn't even allow the user to see the > formatting of the text while typing, encouraging the user to think > semantically. > > When speaking of web content the Bitflux Editor embraces this approach > as a WYSIWYG, yet encouraging the user to use semantic markup more than > any other WYSIWYG I've seen. > My question is: What advantages and disadvantages does this approach > have compared to a pure WYSIWYM? > > I think it may be an advantage for the user to have a feeling of what > the content is going to look like already at the time of typing it. But > on the other hand it may tempt the user into using inappropriate markup > in trying to achieve a sertain look, which anyways should be up to the > CSS-designer to decide (at least for the sake of consistency). Another > problem occurs if one is going to reuse the conent in different medias > with different formatting (ie. different styling for print), then the > WYSIWYG is nothing but an illusion. > > What experiances or thoughts do you have on this? Do you btw. have > experiance with any web-based WYSIWYM:s? > > cheers, Simon -- christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich phone +41 44 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71 http://www.bitflux.ch | christian.stocker@bitflux.ch | GPG 0x5CE1DECB From simon at iki.fi Fri Nov 25 23:23:19 2005 From: simon at iki.fi (Simon =?iso-8859-1?q?R=F6nnqvist?=) Date: Fri Nov 25 23:23:34 2005 Subject: [bx-editor-users] WYSIWYG vs. WYSIWYM and semantic usage? In-Reply-To: <4386C7A9.6050103@bitflux.ch> References: <4ACE65FD-FA77-457C-97B7-59C39AADA030@iki.fi> <4386C7A9.6050103@bitflux.ch> Message-ID: <200511260023.19668.simon@iki.fi> On Friday 25 November 2005 10:13, Christian Stocker wrote: Hi! > Sorry for not answering this earlier, but it's a pretty long post No problem. It was just something I started to think about when thinking about how I should focus my thesis. But your answer can be useful for citation on why to use a WYSIWYG. > IMHO it's just that our customers ask for WYSIWYG and not WYSIYWYM. They > mostly do not care about correct semantic usage, but with BXE you can at > least force it somehow :) That's true... BXE is kind of a WYSIWYG&WYSIWYM combo, since it's restrictive like a WYSIWYM (unlike ordinary word processors). Of course the customer is "always right", and if they're absolutely sure that they want a WYSIWYG, then one has to give them that. But on the other hand it may be that they'd be satisfied with a WYSIWYM once they'd get to know about it. As a matter of fact, it'd be really cool to do a quantitative (a large scale questionare) study in which one would survey the pros and cons of a rather restrictive WYSIWYG like BXE and a pure (LyX-like) WYSIWYM. But time and capacity is limited for me, so the closest I could get would be to interview one single customer using BXE and to check in what way she uses it. > I know LyX and wrote my diploma thesis with it. It's great and very > useful, but I don't see much of a differecne between that and a strict > BXE. I'm actually planning to use it too for my thesis, I'd feel like a hypocrit using anything but that, since my thesis covers separation of conent and presentation and semantics. ;-) I just hope that I'll manage get the formatting to fit my school's requirements. > BXE shows what you mean in a manner that it will look like what you > will get on the webpage. if you reuse the content on a different palce > (PDA, PDF, whatever), it will of course look differently, but I think > the users can abstract that. My fear (as I mentioned earlier) is that people would be tempted to choose the semantic marking according to looks instead of meaning. > How would a WYSIWYM Editor look like in your opinion? On the web, I mean :) Kind of like LyX. Or let's say kind of like BXE without showing how the page would look, but instead just indicating the semantics. I think there should be some kinds of web-based WYSIWYM:s around, but I haven't checked them out yet. cheers, Simon > On 21.11.2005 14:09 Uhr, Simon R?nnqvist wrote: > > Hi! > > > > The way of the future of information seems to be semantic markup, both > > when speaking of the web and when speaking of word processing. That is > > marking up content according to what it is rather than what it should > > look like. When speaking of word processing there seem to be two > > approaches to this, the ordinary WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) > > approach which ordinary word processors have, and the pure semantic > > approach aka. WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean). > > > > WYSIWYG:s usually offer a possibility to mark up content with style > > classes rather than directly saying how each letter, word or passage > > should look. (Kind of like using CSS classes instead of in-line CSS or > > FONT-tags.) If you choose to use this possibility explicitly one could > > say that you're marking up text semantically (as long as the names of > > the classes are of a semantic nature). Then there's also at least one > > purely semantic word processor called LyX, which is a frontend to > > LaTeX. LyX has a so called WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) > > approach, which means that it doesn't even allow the user to see the > > formatting of the text while typing, encouraging the user to think > > semantically. > > > > When speaking of web content the Bitflux Editor embraces this approach > > as a WYSIWYG, yet encouraging the user to use semantic markup more than > > any other WYSIWYG I've seen. > > My question is: What advantages and disadvantages does this approach > > have compared to a pure WYSIWYM? > > > > I think it may be an advantage for the user to have a feeling of what > > the content is going to look like already at the time of typing it. But > > on the other hand it may tempt the user into using inappropriate markup > > in trying to achieve a sertain look, which anyways should be up to the > > CSS-designer to decide (at least for the sake of consistency). Another > > problem occurs if one is going to reuse the conent in different medias > > with different formatting (ie. different styling for print), then the > > WYSIWYG is nothing but an illusion. > > > > What experiances or thoughts do you have on this? Do you btw. have > > experiance with any web-based WYSIWYM:s? > > > > cheers, Simon From christian.stocker at bitflux.ch Mon Nov 28 08:43:59 2005 From: christian.stocker at bitflux.ch (Christian Stocker) Date: Mon Nov 28 08:44:07 2005 Subject: [bx-editor-users] WYSIWYG vs. WYSIWYM and semantic usage? In-Reply-To: <200511260023.19668.simon@iki.fi> References: <4ACE65FD-FA77-457C-97B7-59C39AADA030@iki.fi> <4386C7A9.6050103@bitflux.ch> <200511260023.19668.simon@iki.fi> Message-ID: <438AB53F.3000308@bitflux.ch> On 25.11.2005 23:23 Uhr, Simon R?nnqvist wrote: > On Friday 25 November 2005 10:13, Christian Stocker wrote: > >>BXE shows what you mean in a manner that it will look like what you >>will get on the webpage. if you reuse the content on a different palce >>(PDA, PDF, whatever), it will of course look differently, but I think >>the users can abstract that. > > > My fear (as I mentioned earlier) is that people would be tempted to choose > the semantic marking according to looks instead of meaning. Just give it meaningful names, remove bold/etc, and they can't do that :) >>How would a WYSIWYM Editor look like in your opinion? On the web, I mean :) > > > Kind of like LyX. Or let's say kind of like BXE without showing how the page > would look, but instead just indicating the semantics. I think there should > be some kinds of web-based WYSIWYM:s around, but I haven't checked them out > yet. Maybe the tag mode (without wysiwyg formatting) would be something for you then. It has to be improved (it doesn't do live updates right now), but that could be a way to what you want chregu > > cheers, Simon > > > >>On 21.11.2005 14:09 Uhr, Simon R?nnqvist wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>>The way of the future of information seems to be semantic markup, both >>>when speaking of the web and when speaking of word processing. That is >>>marking up content according to what it is rather than what it should >>>look like. When speaking of word processing there seem to be two >>>approaches to this, the ordinary WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) >>>approach which ordinary word processors have, and the pure semantic >>>approach aka. WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean). >>> >>>WYSIWYG:s usually offer a possibility to mark up content with style >>>classes rather than directly saying how each letter, word or passage >>>should look. (Kind of like using CSS classes instead of in-line CSS or >>>FONT-tags.) If you choose to use this possibility explicitly one could >>>say that you're marking up text semantically (as long as the names of >>>the classes are of a semantic nature). Then there's also at least one >>>purely semantic word processor called LyX, which is a frontend to >>>LaTeX. LyX has a so called WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) >>>approach, which means that it doesn't even allow the user to see the >>>formatting of the text while typing, encouraging the user to think >>>semantically. >>> >>>When speaking of web content the Bitflux Editor embraces this approach >>>as a WYSIWYG, yet encouraging the user to use semantic markup more than >>>any other WYSIWYG I've seen. >>>My question is: What advantages and disadvantages does this approach >>>have compared to a pure WYSIWYM? >>> >>>I think it may be an advantage for the user to have a feeling of what >>>the content is going to look like already at the time of typing it. But >>>on the other hand it may tempt the user into using inappropriate markup >>>in trying to achieve a sertain look, which anyways should be up to the >>>CSS-designer to decide (at least for the sake of consistency). Another >>>problem occurs if one is going to reuse the conent in different medias >>>with different formatting (ie. different styling for print), then the >>>WYSIWYG is nothing but an illusion. >>> >>>What experiances or thoughts do you have on this? Do you btw. have >>>experiance with any web-based WYSIWYM:s? >>> >>> cheers, Simon -- christian stocker | Bitflux GmbH | schoeneggstrasse 5 | ch-8004 zurich phone +41 44 240 56 70 | mobile +41 76 561 88 60 | fax +41 1 240 56 71 http://www.bitflux.ch | christian.stocker@bitflux.ch | GPG 0x5CE1DECB From michael.wechner at wyona.com Wed Nov 30 23:15:54 2005 From: michael.wechner at wyona.com (Michael Wechner) Date: Wed Nov 30 23:16:09 2005 Subject: [bx-editor-users] Firefox 1.5 Message-ID: <438E249A.5000309@wyona.com> Hi Do other people also experience problems with Firefox 1.5 and BXE 1.X? e.g. Dropdown selector menu on upper left of BXE navigation does not affect any changes to the selected page object. Thanks for any pointers Michi -- Michael Wechner Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org michael.wechner@wyona.com michi@apache.org