First of all, I don't think that all WYSIWYGs are evil. But I do think that the WYSIWYGs that are currently used for Web based editing of content are just no help at all.
Why do they not work?
Most of them do not work properly with different browsers, some of them work ONLY with certain browsers and if you want to make them work with multiple browsers, generally you need to trim down the functionality so much that it does not make sense to have a WYSISYG anymore.
Another bone to pick with the WYSIWYGs is that majority generates garbage code and has poor support for CSS. Honestly, I feel of Web based WYSIWYGs as a gimmick so that the company offering them (or company that incorporates them into their CMS or Website builder) can claim that "If you can use MS Word, you can use our application."
From my experience, none of the WYSIWYGs functionality is even close to MS Word. In general, it has been a struggle for years to come up with a "graphical" way to effectively develop and/or maintain Web based content. I feel that we are not getting any closer. The WYSIWYGs simply lack the control you may need to work with the Web document and are simply not a help at all to someone who does not understand that Web is not Print and that the Web page will not (and actually SHOULD NOT) look like a printed piece of content.
Furthermore, when you use a WYSIWYG within a Web based application, you almost never get what you see. The content you are editing is only a part of the Web page and some of the CSS styles do not work properly. What you're left with is a cumbersome text area that shows you some text bold, some italicized and some underlined (for links).
Why are they evil?
Ok. Here is why they are evil...
For unexperienced user, WYSIWYG becomes a tool to "decorate" the content. As a result, the content is a bunch of fonts, colors, sizes, etc. The problem is that the user does not concentrate on the content itself and whether the formatting makes semantical sense and provides a consistent experience for the intended audience.
For experienced user, WYSIWYG becomes an obstacle. Experienced users do not need to highlight something and click the "B" icon to make it bold. The experienced users gladly trade the WYSIWYG for something much cleaner and more efficient (like the Textile markup we use for WebAssemblyLine™).
As you can see, the WYSIWYG is evil because it actually keeps the users from achieving their objective, which is a contextually formatted written content. The "decorating" should be left for the designers and developers that prepare the CSS styles that are much better supported through a markup approach.
Perhaps the most important point I would like to make is that the use of WYSIWYGs actually promotes "inexperience" while using a contextual markup formatting very quickly transforms an inexperienced user to an experienced content contributor by forcing the user to spend the 15-20 minutes to learn the basics of providing the content.
3 comments so far
24 Apr 2006, rifat said:
thnks
28 Nov 2006, Twis Too said:
What do you suggest instead? Red/Blue Cloth?
29 Nov 2006, WAL Manager said:
We recommend and utilize Textile, which is actually called RedCloth in its implementation for Ruby (and Ruby on Rails)
Post your comment
We moderate the comments in order to prevent comment spam. This means that your comment may not appear immediately after you submit it. Please do not submit the same comment multiple times.