I'm working on a comparison between two leading weblog software and since it's already quite long, I'll be venting something in advance to free some space up and not pollute the spirit of the upcoming article.
I would like to know how you, software editors, dare to sell products that you tag as "the world's most creative and powerful web publishing software" or "the most powerful and customizable weblog publishing system available today" (you'll recognize yourselves) and still ship them with ridiculous, sometimes non cross-platform, WYSIFUC interfaces.
Come on, it's 2004 and no one has been able to get a WYSIWYG rich text editor in a tool that is supposed to help non technical people publish on the web?
And please, don't tell me about Markdown or Textile or -- pitié ! -- Wiki syntax. If you want to shove FUC on me, let me at least choose one that's a standard with some chance to survive the next decade.
I'm not asking for the moon, the cure for cancer or even a solution against Microsoft's monopoly. I'm asking for a simple interface, with the typical buttons, that would help those bozos people from marketing author their texts properly, with links, headers, blockquotes, images, even tables and any semantic that is permitted under the auspices of XHTML without having to type, see or even think about f*cking ugly code!
When you'll understand this, and get rid of the redundant preview button, you'll really deserve your superlatives. And I'll be a super happy webmaster. Thanks for listening.
Previous rants on same subject.
P.S.: I have to pay tribute to Stéphane Le Solliec for the acronym WYSIFUC. Thanks Stéphane, the conversation on that day was certainly great fun ;-).
And please, dont tell me about Markdown or Textile or pitié ! Wiki syntax. If you want to shove FUC on me, let me at least choose one thats a standard with some chance to survive the next decade.
There's an interesting question. Which came first, FUC email structured syntax (like Markdown), FUC Wiki syntax or the FUC Textile variant. And, I wonder if <i> and <b> tags will (or should) be depreciated -- unsupported -- by web-browsers in 10 years.
Radio Userland is better from the WYSI* point of view.
Well, it doesn't let you do 100% of what you might want to do, but us Mac users have iBlog, which really is a WYSIWYG blog editor.
Well, it's 2006, and I still don't know of a WYSIWYG web-based editor... is it possible this is just a technically difficult thing to do? The latest version of Wordpress sure as hell isn't cutting it, and even Writely seems to screw up my documents. If the mighty Google can't make it work... is it possible it's just too difficult to do, at least at the present time?
Well, I think that Wordpress is pretty WYSIWYG software.