11 Jan
2016
11 Jan
'16
6:23 p.m.
On 11 Jan 2016 at 18:14:32, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) <
valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Note that this name is independent of A) or B). In any case we’ll need to give it a name
so that the user or admin can choose it or not :)
Also note that it’s as hard to choose the name of the new WYSIWYG editor because:
* either mentioning the underlying tech is ok and in this case GWT is ok
* or we don’t use the the underlying tech and in this case CKEditor is not correct either
;)
An easy option is to have:
* WYSIWYG 1.0 == Tiny MCE of before
* WYSIWYG 2.0 == GWT-based WYSIWYG
* WYSIWYG 3.0 == CKEditor-based WYSIWYG
* WYSIWYG 4.0 == Realtime+CKEditor-based WYSIWYG
If we base it on a characteristic of the editor it’s really hard (I’d say impossible) to
choose a name… (only Realtime would make sense but even that is not correct because if we
then have a new editor in the future, say, based on TinyMCE, then we cannot say “Realtime”
anymore since it’s been used already for the version working on CKEditor.
Thus so far the only thing that makes sense is the technology or the version (and the RT
one would be named “Realtime CKEditor WYSIWYG”).
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi,
I prefer B: I prefer to have things simpler for the user, while providing
power to the administrator.
There can be multiple extensions that integrate themselves inside that menu
(like the real-time editor) but I don't see that as a benefit for the user,
but more confusing about all the types of editors.
We already have 3 modes: WYSIWYG, Wiki, Inline + Objects + Class .... we
need to find ways to simplify that, rather than adding more things in the
menu (even if only for advanced users).
The administrator should select the preferred
editor from Configuration -
Edit Mode Settings - Editor - Default Editor (for the farm or per wiki).
The user will use the default value provided by admin or overwrite it from
his User Preferences (if he is advanced and knows about the existence of
multiple editors).
By default we should select the recommended editor to be used and this
should be changed just in exceptional / desired cases.
As I said in my initial mail, if we choose B then we need multiple
configuration properties, not just one:
* when you choose "Wiki" (edit mode) from the Edit menu, XWiki will have to
see what editor is the default Wiki editor (Standard Wiki Editor, Real-time
Wiki Editor)
* when you choose "WYSIWYG" (edit mode) from the Edit menu, XWiki will have
to see what editor is the default WYSIWYG editor (Standard WYSIWYG Editor,
CKEditor, Real-time WYSIWYG Editor)
* when you choose "Edit" (default edit action) from the Edit menu, XWiki
will have to see what is the default edit mode, and then see what is the
default editor for that mode.
An administrator/user will have to configure this.
What I don't like at B is that it's hard to discover new editors. What I
don't like at A is that the entry name that will appear in the Edit menu
can be cryptic (e.g. I not sure how to name the current WYSIWYG editor,
that's why I put "GWT WYSIWYG" but it's obviously not good). Thanks,
Marius
>
> Having multiple editors available is not something a normal user would care
> about and doesn't provide additional/different benefits for the user.
> Important is to provide the best tool by default.
>
> When adding the CKEditor first you will need to configure the wiki in order
> to use it. After a testing period we can change the default editor if we'd
> like.
>
> Off topic: I think that the Page syntax preference in the Document
> Information should be removed. There are not that many variations between
> 2.0 and 2.1 and I don't see why a normal user would care or want to chance
> the syntax. The users should rely on the default/recommended and the
> default is configured from Administration.
>
> Comment A: "GWT WYSIWYG" that would look super cryptic :)
>
> Thanks,
> Caty
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 11 Jan 2016 at 14:16:40, Marius Dumitru Florea (
> > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com))
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:00 PM, vincent(a)massol.net
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Marius,
> > > >
> > > > I prefer to think in term of use cases. Here are the ones I see as
> > > > important on this topic and that I think we need to ensure that we
> > > > implement:
> > > >
> > > > UC1: Ability for admins to install an extension that contributes a
> new
> > > > editor
> > > > UC2: Ability for admins to select which editor is the default editor
> > for
> > > > their users in a given wiki (note that ideally this configuration
> > should be
> > > > per wiki for the farm use case)
> > > > UC3: Ability for admins to decide which editors are active (i.e.
> which
> > > > editors users will be able to configure or use). For example it
> should
> > be
> > > > possible to completely replace the GWT-based WYSIWYG by CKEeditor
and
> > > > preventing any user from using the GWT-based WYSIWYG editor.
> > > > UC4: Ability for a user (simple or advanced) to explicitly decide
> which
> > > > default editors he/she’ll use (in his/her user profile probably).
> > Should
> > > > override the editor selected in UC2 (but they should only see
editors
> > that
> > > > are active, cf UC3)
> > > > UC5: Ability for an advanced user to choose on the spot (on-demand)
> the
> > > > editor to use to edit a given page, bypassing the default editor.
> > Should
> > > > override the editor selected in UC4.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > >
> > > All these use cases are covered by both A and B so it doesn't help me
> > > choose one or the other. My question is more how to implement these use
> > > cases: using A or B?
> >
> > Ok cool if they’re covered by A and B (it wasn’t mentioned in your
> email…).
> >
> > Note that currently there’s no default choice anymore for advanced users
> > when they edit a page and we’d need to put that back (that’s UC4).
> >
> > Apart from this, I think I prefer A) than B).
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Vincent
> > > >
> > > > On 11 Jan 2016 at 12:31:12, Marius Dumitru Florea (
> > > > mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com
> ))
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm working on integrating CKEditor in XWiki and I'm
wondering how
> > the
> > > > Edit
> > > > > menu should reflect the fact that there are multiple editors
> > available. I
> > > > > see two options:
> > > > >
> > > > > (A) List all the available content editors in the Edit menu
(note
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > menu is visible only for advanced users). E.g. Wiki, GWT
WYSIWYG,
> > > > CKEditor
> > > > >
> > > > > PROS:
> > > > > * easier to implement (because there is already an UIX for
this)
> > > > > * easier to discover new content editors (e.g. after an admin
> > installs an
> > > > > extension that provides a content editor)
> > > > > * ability to try a different content editor than the one
configured
> > (i.e.
> > > > > without updating the configuration)
> > > > >
> > > > > CONS:
> > > > > * the (advanced) user might not know, at first, which content
> editor
> > to
> > > > > choose from the Edit menu
> > > > > * once the user has a preferred editor the other content editor
> > entries
> > > > > become noise (the user may want to hide them)
> > > > >
> > > > > (B) List only the edit modes in the Edit menu. E.g. Wiki,
WYSIWYG
> > > > >
> > > > > PROS:
> > > > > * easier to choose the edit mode (wiki/source vs. WYSIWYG)
> > > > > * less crowded Edit menu (easier to scan, no noise)
> > > > >
> > > > > CONS:
> > > > > * the user needs to edit his profile to discover the available
> > editors
> > > > for
> > > > > Wiki/WYSIWYG modes
> > > > > * harder to try the new content editors (you need to update the
> > > > > configuration)
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's see what we need for each option:
> > > > >
> > > > > (A) Needs:
> > > > > * UIX in the Edit menu (already available)
> > > > > * 1 configuration option
("editing.content.defaultEditor") to
> > configure
> > > > the
> > > > > default editor (at farm/wiki/space/user level). We can probably
> > extend
> > > > the
> > > > > "Default editor to use" preference from the user
profile to show
> all
> > the
> > > > > available content editors.
> > > > >
> > > > > (B) Needs:
> > > > > * 3 configuration options:
> > > > > ** default edit mode (Wiki vs. WYSIWYG), already available in
the
> > user
> > > > > profile
> > > > > ** default Wiki mode editor (only one editor for now so we can
skip
> > it)
> > > > > ** default WYSIWYG mode editor (GWT-based vs. CKEditor)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm leaning towards option (A). WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Marius