don said:
You could try what is arguably the most widely used html editor/platform for non-techies - the WordPress.blog engine. Besides it's default mediocre sorta-wysiwyg UI, you can get adapters to input markdown, RST, textile, etc.
you've been experimenting with that for a while now, don. something tells me that if it really worked, you would have some things that you would be willing to show us by now...
Pure, unadulterated HTML.
oh, it's .html, to be sure, but i wouldn't call it "unadulterated" in any way, and describing it with "pure" is simply laughable... evidently you haven't really looked at it, or its .css stylesheets. oh, and just for the record, wordpress doesn't actually _save_ content as .html files, but rather saves it in a mysql database. because saving content as .html files would be _very_messy_... *** but hey, let's say someone wants to give wordpress a whirl... i would suggest that that person check out pressbooks.com. i believe the site, which i have suggested before (but when do my first few suggestions ever get traction on this list?), is now out of beta... if not, it will be, soon, so check back... my guess is that you will find it unsatisfactory, but if not, please come back here and tell us. i like to be surprised. -bowerbird
Time for a refresher on WP, bird. It's pure html in the mysql database. One record per version of the text. I'm pretty intimately familiar with it. eb.tbicl.org just for playing around. And I'm not particularly interested in writing yet another wp editor interface since they already have a wide selection available. One example is a free one from Microsoft named Windows Live Writer (not my preference, btw.) This argument isn't going to be settled until someone comes up with a means to measure and compare their effectiveness in addressing the four main requirements - 1. User productivity (e.g. pages published per user hour,) 2. Accuracy (perhaps curve-fitting of errors per incremental page-task,) 3. Immediacy of user feedback (maybe using parallel proofers) with positive rather than negative reinforcement), and 4.) a positive, comfortable proofing experience (say, like reading a book) that retains users. Considering the only currently available option features no measurements, and the only feedback is too stale to be useful, and then only negative, my opinion is we have a long way to go yet.
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
don kretz