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(a)baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platonides"
<platonides(a)gmail.com>
3) 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitext-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation