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?
You can of course very basically place text next to a picture, but if you want the picture and the adjacent text to be centered on the page, and the entire construct to be only just so many pixels wide so it looks right to you, and you want the background color in the text area to be different, then you are talking about a table.
And remember the kind of user we are talking about. If this class of user was savvy enough to use Dreamweaver they'd be pasting DW-generated code into text areas, right?
Could I retrain users to use css for their currently table-based callouts? Probably. Would I piss them all off? Definitely
Sorry for jumping all over this but I consider this basic functionality and without it FCKEditor becomes literally worthless. The folks who use CMS' -- my clients one and all, at least -- are all on some form of broadband. Speaking personally I use dialup when I'm working remotely and I hear what you're saying when FCK is loading on a 50k connection, but I figure thats life on dialup
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?
You're getting a little too involved with these issues. Relax. I don't want an editor that doesn't "do much". I'm just expressing a view that perhaps some features are not really necessary and you are free to agree or disagree. Don't put words in my mouth.
And, no, not everyone has your idea of what a CMS should be like. Even very knowledgeable people like Massimo Foti (a far more advanced user/developer of CMS and Colfusion than you or I will ever be) consider these issues and have certain views on them:
http://www.olimpo.ch/tmt/tag/tmt_xhtmleditorPro/ ).
Tables are part of the page's structure and should be outside the control of non-technical people. Light formatting (bullets, bold, etc) is ok, but once you let people insert tables, forms, etc;, they are bound to create a mess of the code and also the presentation. If tables are ok, why not javascript? And what about server-side code? It's a pandora's box.
My feeling is that this project runs the risk of developing acute "featuritis". In all honesty, I never met a client that knew how to handle so many features.
But, once again, this is just my opinion. We will have to agree to disagree.
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.