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>

> > 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@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



--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation