On 04/11/2012 09:54 AM, Trevor Russ wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Thanks and apologies -- I hadn't ignored your email response, I was just swamped with
work (release time).
I was only vaguely aware of XOffice but didn't have time to explore it, but it looks
like it may have been what we needed (at least partially). What the users didn't like
overall was having to relearn text formatting tools, when everyone is familiar with Word.
eg. making headers, tables of content, and especially making tables. They found table
editing particularly frustrating. Even simple things like keyboard shortcuts for bold,
italics, etc. didn't always work (though that was because the browser would trap
them). I regret not having the time to feedback all of this while it was going on; most
of my wiki support work was done on spare (unbillable) time, and I had little of that of
late.
Unfortunately, we're a small team, so time to support the system and train users was
effectively nil. I know that's not a good state to be in, but when there's
limited time and we have to decide between writing code or learning how to use a wiki,
writing code always wins out. I had used XWiki for myself, starting with things like note
taking, procedure documentation, and doing some technical specification templates and
using them to spec. out some projects. I thought it was a perfect way to collaborate, not
only between developers but also with the client. But anytime there's even a
perceived learning curve for a new tool, there's going to be resistance. I know
that's a fact of everyday work, but it's especially so with a small
bill-by-the-hour team.
As for "ideas for integrating with user's favorite editors", I haven't
really had time to think thoroughly about that. I don't know if it's something
like XWord, or if it's just a matter of duplicating (to the extent possible) the Word
interface within the XWiki GUI editor. I've used HTML editors before, so perhaps that
helped me in putting up with it's general peculiarities. I've found, for example,
making bulleted lists exactly the way you want is not trivial with HTML editors (as
opposed to with Word).
I think something like XOffice would go a long way to capturing the Word-oriented users,
as long as it's unobtrusive and instinctive to use. I think efficiency of creating
content is key more than the formatting frills available -- otherwise users will quickly
become frustrated and give up prematurely. I know that once over the learning curve (as
with any tool) it's a very rich environment for collaboration -- so the trick is to
minimize that learning curve by starting out with something familiar.
I don't know if that's helped any, or if I'm just rambling at this point.
Thanks again for your attention.
Each tool tries to accommodate best a certain kind of usage. And
although we try to make the best WYSIWYG editor available on the web, I
must admit that XWiki isn't at its best when rich text formatting is the
main target of the wiki. I can't say that I know your team, but in
general when using wikis it's better to leave out formatting and
concentrate on the content. This is why by default the WYSIWYG editor
doesn't include too many formatting actions.
Thanks again for the feedback and the support.
Trevor
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:49:06 +0200 Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi Trevor,
>
> Thanks for your kind words and the piece of feedback which is very useful :) I'm
glad you liked the product.
>
> You may know that we had started XOffice (
http://xoffice.xwiki.org/) a few years ago.
IMO it was a very good effort to bring xwiki into the hands of MS Word users.
Unfortunately our main committer on this is no longer active ATM…
>
> Before you go if you have ideas for "integrating with user's favorite
editors" that would be great. Do you mean something like XOffice or do you mean
something else?
>
> Take care,
> -Vincent
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/