Re: WYSIWYG vs. WYSIWYM and semantic usage?

On Friday 25 November 2005 10:13, Christian Stocker wrote:

  Hi!

> Sorry for not answering this earlier, but it's a pretty long post

  No problem.
It was just something I started to think about when thinking about how I=20
should focus my thesis. But your answer can be useful for citation on why t=
o=20
use a WYSIWYG.

> IMHO it's just that our customers ask for WYSIWYG and not WYSIYWYM. They
> mostly do not care about correct semantic usage, but with BXE you can at
> least force it somehow :)

  That's true... BXE is kind of a WYSIWYG&WYSIWYM combo, since it's=20
restrictive like a WYSIWYM (unlike ordinary word processors).
  Of course the customer is "always right", and if they're absolutely sure=
=20
that they want a WYSIWYG, then one has to give them that. But on the other=
=20
hand it may be that they'd be satisfied with a WYSIWYM once they'd get to=20
know about it.
  As a matter of fact, it'd be really cool to do a quantitative (a large sc=
ale=20
questionare) study in which one would survey the pros and cons of a rather=
=20
restrictive WYSIWYG like BXE and a pure (LyX-like) WYSIWYM. But time and=20
capacity is limited for me, so the closest I could get would be to intervie=
w=20
one single customer using BXE and to check in what way she uses it.

> I know LyX and wrote my diploma thesis with it. It's great and very
> useful, but I don't see much of a differecne between that and a strict
> BXE.

  I'm actually planning to use it too for my thesis, I'd feel like a hypocr=
it=20
using anything but that, since my thesis covers separation of conent and=20
presentation and semantics. ;-) I just hope that I'll manage get the=20
formatting to fit my school's requirements.

> BXE shows what you mean in a manner that it will look like what you=20
> will get on the webpage. if you reuse the content on a different palce
> (PDA, PDF, whatever), it will of course look differently, but I think
> the users can abstract that.

  My fear (as I mentioned earlier) is that people would be tempted to choos=
e=20
the semantic marking according to looks instead of meaning.

> How would a WYSIWYM Editor look like in your opinion? On the web, I mean =
:)

  Kind of like LyX. Or let's say kind of like BXE without showing how the p=
age=20
would look, but instead just indicating the semantics. I think there should=
=20
be some kinds of web-based WYSIWYM:s around, but I haven't checked them out=
=20
yet.

  cheers, Simon


> On 21.11.2005 14:09 Uhr, Simon R=F6nnqvist wrote:
> >   Hi!
> >
> > The way of the future of information seems to be semantic markup,  both
> > when speaking of the web and when speaking of word processing.  That is
> > marking up content according to what it is rather than what  it should
> > look like. When speaking of word processing there seem to  be two
> > approaches to this, the ordinary WYSIWYG (What You See Is What  You Get)
> > approach which ordinary word processors have, and the pure  semantic
> > approach aka. WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean).
> >
> > WYSIWYG:s usually offer a possibility to mark up content with style
> > classes rather than directly saying how each letter, word or passage
> > should look. (Kind of like using CSS classes instead of in-line CSS  or
> > FONT-tags.) If you choose to use this possibility explicitly one  could
> > say that you're marking up text semantically (as long as the  names of
> > the classes are of a semantic nature). Then there's also at  least one
> > purely semantic word processor called LyX, which is a  frontend to
> > LaTeX. LyX has a so called WYSIWYM (What You See Is What  You Mean)
> > approach, which means that it doesn't even allow the user  to see the
> > formatting of the text while typing, encouraging the user  to think
> > semantically.
> >
> > When speaking of web content the Bitflux Editor embraces this  approach
> > as a WYSIWYG, yet encouraging the user to use semantic  markup more than
> > any other WYSIWYG I've seen.
> > My question is: What advantages and disadvantages does this approach
> > have compared to a pure WYSIWYM?
> >
> > I think it may be an advantage for the user to have a feeling of what
> > the content is going to look like already at the time of typing it.  But
> > on the other hand it may tempt the user into using inappropriate  markup
> > in trying to achieve a sertain look, which anyways should be  up to the
> > CSS-designer to decide (at least for the sake of  consistency). Another
> > problem occurs if one is going to reuse the  conent in different medias
> > with different formatting (ie. different  styling for print), then the
> > WYSIWYG is nothing but an illusion.
> >
> > What experiances or thoughts do you have on this? Do you btw. have
> > experiance with any web-based WYSIWYM:s?
> >
> >   cheers, Simon
-- 
bx-editor-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.bitflux.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/bx-editor-users