I'd like to know if others are interested in a project "trimming" some of the features that have made the editor a bit too bulky and complex (for people like, who just need to provide non-techies with a simple way of managing content).
Table and form creation, for example, are better accomplished with more sophisticated editors, like Dreamweaver.
What do thers think?
Table and form creation, for example, are better accomplished with more sophisticated editors, like Dreamweaver.
What do thers think?
RE: Too many features?
If you don't want a particular feature just take it out of the toolbar. I don't use the form stuff since my for-pay CMS has its own form generation and data management system. However the free Lite version doesn't and as such I enable the form features in that release.
I'm not sure if the form feature is widely used but I can guarantee I would have legions of ordinary content editors SCREAMING if I took away their ability to put text next to a picture.
RE: Too many features?
Yes, I know that I can modify the number of tools shown to users. That's not my aim. My idea is to keep the editor lightweight, as it was at the beginning. But then again, it might not matter much anyway, with the ever-growing popularity of broadband access.
RE: Too many features?
It might be nice if some features were made optional and implemented as plugins, to reduce the size of the core editor, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of FCKeditor to know what the tradeoffs are.
Tom
RE: Too many features?
RE: Too many features?
It's a designer's role to format the page so that users just deal with content. That's what any serious CMS should aim for.
If your users need to deal with tables and background colors and other page-building tasks, perhaps it's time to revamp your CMS.
But, of course, this is a matter of taste and approach. Your mileage will certainly vary.
RE: Too many features?
It is most certainly not a designer's job to format *everything*. It is the designer's job to design the framework around the page, and peripherally to provide an array of default in-page templates which the editor/user can apply. But templates don't always do the job, especially if the system is used by grownups who expect some flexibility. So tables are in.
Users don't *need* to do anything but type. They *want* to do these things. You make money in the real world by meeting the customer's needs.
If you want an editor that doesn't do much, they are out there, I guess. TinyMCE comes to mind.
RE: Too many features?
http://www.olimpo.ch/tmt/tag/tmt_xhtmleditorPro/
RE: Too many features?
There is no one definition of what a CMS must be nor should there be. I'm familiar with Massimo's work although I never used his editor (Last time I saw him discuss it he said he was considering ending its development pending what happened with what was then a distant FCK 2.0 final release).
As to his thoughts in that link, and yours along the same lines, I can only say that I have customers who want that, and a whole lot more who would light torches and grab pitchforks if I tried to restrict them such. For systems that need to absolutely future-proof content that will live forever, or which needs to be workable across a wide variety of platforms (i.e. pdf., word docs, web, handhelds etc.) then a lightweight editor like Massimo's is likely a better choice.
RE: Too many features?
However tables still have a legitimate use for what they were originally intended for - that is, displaying tabular data! If an author wants to display a list of people with columns for first name, last name and email address, how else could they achieve it?
The XStandard editor is the champion of XHTML compliance, CSS and semantically correct code. Even it allows tables to be used for tabular content. It's a standard part of any author's toolkit and should be available to them.
Of course they could make the table width 1000 pixels and break your design, but we need to somehow restrict their ability to do this, rather than their entire ability to use a table.