I'd agree with that. Only two problems:
*First, I don't think anyone is suggesting the underlying markup syntax will not still be usable as an alternative to plaintext *It is a massive mistake to confuse "smart" with "capable of understanding markup". The second group includes the first, but not as a large chunk. "Only smart people can grok our markup" does not mean "only people who grok our markup are smart". It is important not to confuse the two.
On 10 February 2012 16:25, Jay Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platonides" platonides@gmail.com
- I see there are usability talks. Improving usability is good, but
targetting at people who don't want to be "technically proficient" (emphasis: DON'T WANT TO BE, not just "ARE NOT") and just want to press a magic button and "that's all" is not good. There are topics like "internal vs external links, users tend to find one and ignore other" - that's ridiculous, that's NOT the usability problem. I.e. I think we shouldn't think of "usability initiatives" as of 100% correct ideas.
The Visual Editor is the candy with which you try to engage them.
Sure.
I think the argument being made here -- it is certainly mine -- is simply "please don't penalize the 'smart people' to benefit the masses, regardless of how many people are in each group".
Cheers,
-- jra
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Wikitext-l mailing list Wikitext-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l