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.
----- Original Message -----Sure.
> 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.
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