Slashdot Mirror
Soon to Be Released CKEditor 4 Features New Skin And Inline Editing
PsxMeUP writes "CKEditor, one of the world's most popular WYSIWYG HTML editors, is getting a new default skin. The winner, Rafal Bromirski, will also receive $1000. The new design is going with the trendy monochrome look. The skin will be used with the soon-to-be-released CKEditor 4, which will feature inline editing."
I recommend checking out the inline editing demo. Who needs textarea any more?
Seriously, what is wrong with color in a UI?
To simplify Open Source community involvement and development, CKEditor 4 is now hosted on GitHub, the popular git community site.
OK.
It's an open-source project, fool, and a pretty darn good one.
"Who needs textarea any more?" I do. I am writing this comment in VIM using the "I's All Text" extension for Firefox. I use my tool of choice (VIM) for almost everything I write, and I am not overjoyed with "solutions" trying to enforce other tools and behavior than the ones that help me the most. Freedom of choice is, at lest for me, very valuable.
With color, your eyes can quickly jump to the right one...
Which is great for people with color sight. As a colorblind person I can testify that this is of no use to me whatsoever. Now, before you 'color' (<- clever, no?) me an activist lemme just say that this is not a big deal to me, I'm comfortable in my disability and am not advocating some kind of radical, PETA-esque change in society. But your very first statement; "With monochromatic icons, you need to inspect each icon carefully to discern its shape.", well, sorry but I just don't find this to be too much of a burden. Yes, I do it as a matter of course. But do you REALLY need the extra help?
I like the trend to less chromatic styles, its helps me and I believe it lends itself to a more streamlined, uniform look for all of us. Its hardly anything to get activist about, but like the 2nd law I tend to less complexity anyway.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I'd MUCH rather use Notepad - not even Notepad2 or Notepad++, vim, pico, nano
This is an inline replacement for textarea. It has nothing to do with those.
As an avid implementer of CKEditor, I've had several clients ask for the ability to edit content directly on a page. This new inline editor will make that possible. Can't wait for the release.
Well, the fact of the matter is that far more people are not colorblind than are. Those who are not can use these extra color hints to do what we want to do quicker. Do we absolutely need color? No, we don't, but that doesn't mean we should just forego color altogether when there is a proven benefit to it because ~9% of others can't discern the same differences. I know you said you aren't trying to make the whole societal change argument; I merely am responding to the piece of text suggesting we don't need the extra hints.
I say this with the most respect to those who are colorblind. It's early in the morning (for me), so if anything I said reads as offensive, please understand that was entirely not my intent.
Never heard of CKEditor and I could care less....
"could NOT care less". Please, if you're going to troll, do it properly.
Inline editing is terrible if you give them ALL options.
First it has nothing to do with development. It has to do with content.
What we did was first disable anything that could be abused. This included almost anything. What was left was bullets, bold, the colors black and red and links. Also placing images was allowed.
Next we explained everybody how to use those things and had the amount of users limited. Never had an issue.
If it can break anything, then the developer did a shoddy job.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I knew someone would bring this up. No, it's not much of a burden, but if color makes it better for fully-sighted people (who, by the way, greatly outnumber people with any amount or kind of color blindness -- not that we're therefore more important, it's simply a question of what does the most good for the most people) then why not leave it in? Plus it's not like I'm advocating making a TV louder, which would help a hearing-impaired person watch a show but would cause discomfort for others. If something helps one group and has no impact on another, why not do it?
Totally blind people can't see icons at all. Does that mean the icons should be replaced with BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE STRIKETHROUGH NUMBERED LIST BULLETED LIST INDENT OUTDENT SUBSCRIPT SUPERSCRIPT TEXT COLOR HIGHLIGHT COLOR MAKE LINK BREAK LINK LEFT ALIGN CENTER RIGHT ALIGN so you have the same experience a blind person has with a screen reader? After all, it's not much of a burden on you, right?
That's what separates something that is merely "usable" from things that are truly "good" -- a thousand little details, all adding up to a better experience. Is this the end of the world? No. Is it a step backwards? Yes.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
CodeLobster PHP is the best that I've found. The editor itself is free, the devs charge a small fee if you want access to their plugins --- which include WordPress, Joomla, Drupal, among others.
Some Features: code-highlighting, code-folding, auto-complete, tag-matching, regex search/replace.
Default View is "code" but it also includes "Preview Mode" (WYSIWYG) and Inspector -- a mix between CodeView/Preview/FileView : personally I don't find Inspector all that useful, but the rest is decent.
CLPHP can (as other editors I'm sure) quickly open a file with your browser of choice as well.
The Open-Source Editors I've looked at for dealing with HTML/CSS/PHP are either plain buggy, not updated, missing significant features or just clearly don't do what they claim to at all. As well many of the best "text-editors" that are recommended for dealing with WebDevelopment don't do much more than code-highlighting - when it comes to the specifics of html/css/php et al.
Adobe's Brackets (editor) looks interesting, but I haven't had time to mess around with it yet.
It is actually the browser that creates most of the garbage. The editor mostly uses an API to tell the browser that a certain part of the page is editable.
New things are always on the horizon
You want things to be equally bad for everyone, whereas I want things to be as good as possible for as many as possible. Sorry, but your way makes no sense. Presenting colorful icons to colorblind users does not harm them in any way, but its an enhancement for fully-sighted users. Colorful icons don't "not fit" colorblind users. (Sorry for the double negative there -- not proper English but there's not a word that's the opposite of "fit".) This isn't like the difference between sounds that are too loud or not loud enough, or words that are long and confusing versus short and clear. There is no downside to using colorful icons, but there is an upside, therefore they should be used, if you're going for maximum usability.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.