This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > March 2007 > Browser-based WYSIWYG editors
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Browser-based WYSIWYG editors
|
|
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:19 am |
| Hi folks,
I've been evaluating different browser-based WYSIWYG editors for a while
now, and around 6-9 months ago I decided to go with TinyMCE. I also
remember using FCKEditor and decided I wasn't happy with it (I don't
remember why!)
SO I was wondering, what other alternatives are there to TinyMCE and
FCK? Does anyone here have an experience using any of these, and if so
which would you recommend in particular?
Cheers,
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Chaddy2222 2007-03-26, 7:19 am |
|
Dylan Parry wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been evaluating different browser-based WYSIWYG editors for a while
> now, and around 6-9 months ago I decided to go with TinyMCE. I also
> remember using FCKEditor and decided I wasn't happy with it (I don't
> remember why!)
>
> SO I was wondering, what other alternatives are there to TinyMCE and
> FCK? Does anyone here have an experience using any of these, and if so
> which would you recommend in particular?
>
> Cheers,
I actually like Joomla / Mambo, but then again I think that writing
your own is the best solution, because you have full control.
I now use PHP includes and Cpanel to pritty much manage my sites, it
means that I only need to upload the one file, which is good for if I
need to change the date on the footer etc. However if I wanted too
just change the date on one page, I could just add a class to the PHP
file or whatever.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
| Karl Groves 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote in news:4607981a$0$758$bed64819
@news.gradwell.net:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been evaluating different browser-based WYSIWYG editors for a while
> now, and around 6-9 months ago I decided to go with TinyMCE. I also
> remember using FCKEditor and decided I wasn't happy with it (I don't
> remember why!)
>
> SO I was wondering, what other alternatives are there to TinyMCE and
> FCK? Does anyone here have an experience using any of these, and if so
> which would you recommend in particular?
>
> Cheers,
>
--
Karl Groves
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Karl Groves wrote:
[nothing at all...]
? :)
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Karl Groves 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote in news:4607c0eb$0$759$bed64819
@news.gradwell.net:
> Karl Groves wrote:
> [nothing at all...]
>
> ? :)
>
2 year old got ahold of the computer. Sorry.
But now I'll respond anyway.
I don't have any experience with any other browser-based WYSIWYG editors
other than FCK and TinyMCE. I used FCK and really didn't like it at all.
My main gripe was that it refreshed the page over and over as it built the
widget. I posted here about it, and I believe it was Miranda who
responded saying that she did not have a similar experience with FCK.
At any rate, I've since used TinyMCE on other stuff (including my CMS) and
I've been very happy with it. It works rather well "out of the box" and has
proven excellent with only a handful of configuration changes. There are a
few more tweaks I'd like to do in order to make it better, all of which are
just different configuration settings.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Karl Groves wrote:
> 2 year old got ahold of the computer. Sorry.
> But now I'll respond anyway.
Hehe :)
> I don't have any experience with any other browser-based WYSIWYG editors
> other than FCK and TinyMCE. I used FCK and really didn't like it at all.
> My main gripe was that it refreshed the page over and over as it built the
> widget. I posted here about it, and I believe it was Miranda who
> responded saying that she did not have a similar experience with FCK.
Ah. I don't think this was what put me off it, but I have remembered one
of the problems I was having: the quality of the code produced in some
instances, especially nested lists, was very poorly structured. Although
I see that this is no longer the case. I still don't like the way it
looks or any of the skins that come with it though <g>
> At any rate, I've since used TinyMCE on other stuff (including my CMS) and
> I've been very happy with it. It works rather well "out of the box" and has
> proven excellent with only a handful of configuration changes. There are a
> few more tweaks I'd like to do in order to make it better, all of which are
> just different configuration settings.
Yes, I've been quite happy using TinyMCE, tbh. The only reason I asked
here is because I was thinking there /might/ be a better alternative,
although I would still be happy to stick with what I have if nothing
better exists :)
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Karl Groves 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote in
news:4607daf1$0$764$bed64819@news.gradwell.net:
>
> Yes, I've been quite happy using TinyMCE, tbh. The only reason I asked
> here is because I was thinking there /might/ be a better alternative,
> although I would still be happy to stick with what I have if nothing
> better exists :)
>
If you do manage to find something better, esp. when it comes to markup
quality and ease of installation, please post back here or send me an e-
mail.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
| |
| John.Pleasanton@gmail.com 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| On Mar 26, 1:53 am, Dylan Parry <use...@dylanparry.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been evaluating different browser-based WYSIWYG editors for a while
> now, and around 6-9 months ago I decided to go with TinyMCE. I also
> remember using FCKEditor and decided I wasn't happy with it (I don't
> remember why!)
>
> SO I was wondering, what other alternatives are there to TinyMCE and
> FCK? Does anyone here have an experience using any of these, and if so
> which would you recommend in particular?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Dylan Parryhttp://electricfreedom.org|http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
>
> The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
> those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
Good resource for your question
http://geniisoft.com/showcase.nsf/WebEditors
| |
|
|
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Dylan Parry wrote:
>
> [..] post back if I find any particular gems on it ;)
After having worked my way through that list (only picking out the ones
that appeared to be recommended and supported the features I was
interested in) there was only one that jumped out as having potential:
Xinha - http://xinha.python-hosting.com/
This one seems to be very much like TinyMCE/FCKeditor and does look like
it has promise. It appears to have good browser support and a plethora
of available plugins. Also, being opensource could be a bonus here.
I haven't tried to integrate it or install it in any way, but the demo
alone gives me some hope that it good be a good replacement for TinyMCE.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
> Dylan Parry wrote:
>
>
> After having worked my way through that list (only picking out the ones
> that appeared to be recommended and supported the features I was
> interested in) there was only one that jumped out as having potential:
>
> Xinha - http://xinha.python-hosting.com/
>
One feature I like to see is the ability to drop an image and drag it to
where I want it to show. This is for users who don't know html. Most of the
web editors I tried lack this feature.
Karim
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:22 pm |
| Karim wrote:
> One feature I like to see is the ability to drop an image and drag it to
> where I want it to show. This is for users who don't know html. Most of the
> web editors I tried lack this feature.
Do you mean the ability to move the image after inserting it using the
menus; or rather to drag and drop the image into the editor in the first
place either from another page or from a file?
The former is certainly a requirement as far as I am concerned, although
the latter would certainly be a nice thing if it's actually possible to
achieve. Not sure how many people would think to use such a feature though.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
> Karim wrote:
>
>
> Do you mean the ability to move the image after inserting it using the
> menus; or rather to drag and drop the image into the editor in the first
> place either from another page or from a file?
>
> The former is certainly a requirement as far as I am concerned, although
> the latter would certainly be a nice thing if it's actually possible to
> achieve. Not sure how many people would think to use such a feature
> though.
To insert the image and then be able to drag it anywhere you like. Just
like in Dreamweaver. DW creates a div surrounding the image with abolsute
positioning. I like something similar in the web editor.
For the current editors, I assume the user needs to know html and css to
place the image in the desired position. This is asking too much for a non
techie user.
Another requirement is to be able to edit the whole web page and not just
behave as an html textarea replacement. Whole page meaning from the
opening html tag to the close one in the WYSIWYG screen.
Karim
| |
| Bergamot 2007-03-26, 11:18 pm |
| Karim wrote:
>
> To insert the image and then be able to drag it anywhere you like.
You can already do this with TinyMCE, probably FCKeditor and others, too.
> For the current editors, I assume the user needs to know html and css to
> place the image in the desired position.
Not really. It depends on how you've implemented the editor and any
add-ons or plug-ins. TinyMCE in particular has some very advanced
editing features, but you don't have to use them, or use them all.
> Another requirement is to be able to edit the whole web page and not just
> behave as an html textarea replacement. Whole page meaning from the
> opening html tag to the close one in the WYSIWYG screen.
I for one wouldn't want this feature. These editors are meant to plug
into a CMS. If your CMS is templated (and who's isn't?) then letting the
user manipulate areas of the page outside of the content area isn't a
very good idea. If you are just referring to things like page title and
meta description, then the CMS should already allow editing them, but
not necessarily within the content editor.
If you want the editor to be an online version of NVU, then feel free to
modify it to do exactly that. TinyMCE and FCKeditor are both open
source, so have at it. Or just use NVU and forget about running it
through a browser.
--
Berg
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2007-03-27, 11:21 pm |
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> SO I was wondering, what other alternatives are there to TinyMCE and
> FCK? Does anyone here have an experience using any of these, and if so
> which would you recommend in particular?
Frankly, I can't stand any of them. Of the ones I've tried, I prefer
widgEditor <http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/widgEditor/> but to say
that I recommend it would be like saying I recommend having your finger
chopped off. It's better than having your hand chopped off or your head
chopped off, but it's still painful. Most of them produce varying
cleanliness of markup depending on which browser is used, and I often see
things like <strong><strong></strong></strong> produced. I also have found
such things to be slow, and fairly awkward to use, forcing me to rely on
the mouse a lot more than I'm accustomed to while typing.
Personally, I think the *nicest* markup input method is Markdown
<http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/> which works in an entirely
different manner. Instead of a WYSIWYG input box, you use a regular
TEXTAREA and then server-side code translates asterisks to *bold*, line
breaks to new paragraphs and other such fancy stuff -- the same sort of
formatting you'd use in a Usenet message. Some aspects like inserting
links and images are somewhat less intuitive, but overall, it's very easy
to learn and use, and it produces very clean markup.
Similar to Markdown is Textile <http://www.textism.com/tools/textile/>.
Overall, I think I prefer Markdown, but I'm using Textile in demiblog
<http://demiblog.org> for the simple reason that the server-side library
is very easily extensible to allow for adding extra features to the markup
language.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
| |
| Matt Probert 2007-03-27, 11:24 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:40:10 +0100, Toby A Inkster
<usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
>Dylan Parry wrote:
>
>
>Frankly, I can't stand any of them. Of the ones I've tried, I prefer
>widgEditor <http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/widgEditor/> but to say
>that I recommend it would be like saying I recommend having your finger
>chopped off. It's better than having your hand chopped off or your head
>chopped off, but it's still painful.
And where do you get the evidence that having one's head chopped off
is painful? Can we have cited and reliable references please, from
persons who have had their heads' chopped off.
A friend of mine was recently working with a fellow using a circular
saw, upon taking over he noticed a finger lying next to the saw, and
calmly asked his colleague if it was his. Turned out it was, the man
hadn't even felt it being severed.
So, we can perhaps deduce from this, and other anecdotal evidence,
that having limbs and appendages severed while undesireable, is not in
itself painful. Unlike papercuts which hurt like buggery (allegedly,
unless you use a lube)
</gets coat>
Matt
--
Documenting the banal to the bizarre
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| Matt Probert wrote:
> And where do you get the evidence that having one's head chopped off
> is painful?
If you read my post carefully, I never claimed that it was painful. I
claimed that having ones finger chopped off is painful, and also claimed
that having ones head chopped off is worse than ones finger, though didn't
elucidate in which way.
Having not had a finger severed, I can't claim to know that it is painful,
but using inductive logic and numerous examples of smaller injuries, it
seems very likely that a severed finger would cause severe pain in most
cases.
That, said, see this article from Cecil Adams:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_262.html
| My friend's head came to rest face up, and (from
| my angle) upside-down. As I watched, his mouth
| opened and closed no less than two times. The
| facial expressions he displayed were first of
| shock or confusion, followed by terror or grief.
| I cannot exaggerate and say that he was looking
| all around, but he did display ocular movement
| in that his eyes moved from me, to his body, and
| back to me. He had direct eye contact with me
| when his eyes took on a hazy, absent expression...
| and he was dead.
So the head being severed seems to have certainly caused the decapitee
emotional pain if nothing else for the last few seconds of his life.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux
* = I'm getting there!
| |
| Bergamot 2007-03-28, 7:19 pm |
| Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
> Frankly, I can't stand any of them.
You are not as technically challenged as the average user, so you see
things a bit differently.
> Of the ones I've tried, I prefer
> widgEditor <http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/widgEditor/>
It's not very robust, but is adequate for some uses. How does one assign
a class selector to an image so it will float:right? How does one insert
a data table? A multi-level list? This basic of a tool isn't always enough.
> Most of them produce varying
> cleanliness of markup depending on which browser is used, and I often see
> things like <strong><strong></strong></strong> produced.
Some regular expressions server-side can clean most, if not all, of this
up. Cleanse the code before it gets stored in the database.
> I also have found
> such things to be slow, and fairly awkward to use, forcing me to rely on
> the mouse a lot more than I'm accustomed to while typing.
Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. Disable
JavaScript and just type HTML instead of using the controls, if that's
what you prefer. If the editor was implemented correctly, this should be
completely workable.
As for speed, a broadband connection and a reasonably fast PC are
preferable for a lot of reasons these days. This is one.
> Personally, I think the *nicest* markup input method is Markdown
> <http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/> which works in an entirely
> different manner.
Using tools like this for an enterprise where you can dictate practices
and provide adequate on-site training is great, but for regular Joe User
1000 miles away, this is a hard sell. If they have to learn special mark
up code, they might as well just learn HTML. One is likely to be just as
easy (or hard) for them to learn as the other.
If you're comfortable coding HTML, you don't need such a tool.
> Instead of a WYSIWYG input box, you use a regular
> TEXTAREA and then server-side code translates asterisks to *bold*, line
> breaks to new paragraphs and other such fancy stuff -- the same sort of
> formatting you'd use in a Usenet message.
Most people who need an editor tool don't even know what Usenet is, let
alone how to format plain text messages. They use HTML email, so that's
what they know. Tools like FCK and TinyMCE give them familiar controls
so the learning curve is short.
> Similar to Markdown is Textile <http://www.textism.com/tools/textile/>.
> Overall, I think I prefer Markdown, but I'm using Textile in demiblog
> <http://demiblog.org> for the simple reason that the server-side library
> is very easily extensible to allow for adding extra features to the markup
> language.
I don't know about FCK, but TinyMCE is quite extensible and
customizable, too. You can be very specific about which elements are
permitted, and which attributes for each element. Disable all the
toolbar items and elements you don't want, and write your own plug-ins
for even more customizing. It's pretty easy once you understand how it
all works together.
--
Berg
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|