Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

We need your feedback on the new forum text editor switch.
Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

New forum text editor - When to migrate?

JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer, Array Posts: 15,856
Vanilla’s Advanced Editor for text formatting is soon to be a legacy product, and is being replaced with a new Rich Editor. We understand text formatting is very important for our forum users and would love to hear your feedback.

At this time, the new editor won’t allow users to edit the source of their posts and advanced users (who like to add their html via copy/paste, or like doing code stuff) may find frustrations as the new editor does everything for you, and you may not be able to copy/paste html code as easily.

Read about the new text editor here and here.

This change will happen, the question is when. We want your feedback on that. This poll will stay active for 2 weeks, and then we’ll make a decision based on poll results and community feedback.

New forum text editor - When to migrate? 24 votes

We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.
66%
AedanmlneveseStefanOSylvus_MoonbowAnprionsaALIENAstroBryGuyRaduzielGirewanswitAerakarMirandelSssiksseilorRik_KirtaniyaTorgrimmerricoyung 16 votes
We should migrate when the problems caused by the legacy editor become overwhelming.
33%
MERLANCEMontresor_SPEndeavourLadyRhianbob_vengCahirTarotRedhandwolfguardian 8 votes
«1

Comments

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    Uhm... do I understand this right?

    "One of the the first things you will notice with the new rich editor is that the preview post option is gone. Truly “what you see is what you get” is at the heart of this. We wanted to provide a more real time experience using direct 1 to 1 mapping from keyboard to screen."

    That means no more html coding at all, right?
    Because when I use html I don't literally get what I see, instead I do have to use "preview" in order to see what my post will look like.

    So all "coding" with html will be gone?

    scriver
  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,145
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.
    Can't we have both, and an option to switch between them as necessary? Just like Wikis on Fandom (like the BG and IWD wikis) have the option to use both the Visual Editor (easier to use) and the Classic Editor (allows more advanced stuff).

    In the document via the first link in the original post, it shows:

    What do I do with my existing Advanced Editor posts?
    Rich Editor can function side by side with Advanced Editor. Leave Advanced Editor enabled in addition to Rich Editor, and older posts will still be editable using Advanced Editor.


    Does this mean we can have both, or does it mean something else? I'd like to have both, as I think most people would also like to have. I like the idea of more emojis, but not being able to use HTML is a severe atrocity. That's why both options should be provided, and it would be better if Vanilla provides cross-compatibility between the two text-editors, or at least add HTML support for the new Rich Editor.

    That being said, if a change is inevitable, it's best to have it soon.

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 15,856
    edited September 12
    Shandyr said:


    That means no more html coding at all, right?
    Because when I use html I don't literally get what I see, instead I do have to use "preview" in order to see what my post will look like.

    So all "coding" with html will be gone?

    It'll be done "on the fly", right there - the box you type your message in. You'll be able to choose formatting and see it immediately.

    Can't we have both, and an option to switch between them as necessary?

    We can't have both. If Advanced Editor is left enabled, it'll work only for older posts.

  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,145
    edited September 12
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.

    Can't we have both, and an option to switch between them as necessary?

    We can't have both. If Advanced Editor is left enabled, it'll work only for older posts.
    I see... That's kind of sad.

    What about the Activity page comments? Now that we'll be having an improved text editor, does the Activity page get a revamp? Since HTML never worked there, does it mean this new editor can assist us in formatting and adding emojis, links and images in the Activity page comments?

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 15,856
    Possibly? The details are a bit hard to get.

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    Oh man, this sucks. No more html manually :(

    The new editor would not convert html code anymore if I entered it manually.

    If I entered
    <i class="Italic">test</i>

    I would exactly see that. And NOT test

    Oh man, I hate that :(

    No more html. No more editing or even viewing "source code" of posts :(

    scriver
  • SkatanSkatan Member Posts: 3,354
    Adding a third option: Whenever you want to.

    I'm here for the words mostly, everything else is just frills. Nice frills at times, I admit, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter at all to me. Maybe this is closest to option 1 though?

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    edited September 12
    I don't see a reason for taking away the ability from us to edit the "source code" of our posts in HTML.

    Yes, it may be comfortable for some people. But editing the "source code" would be optional anyway. Nobody would be forded to do it.

    Not to mention the other hidden insinuation: "We believe you shouldn't meddle around in HTML because that may be too complicated for you."

    Yes, for some people, it may be true. That's a given.
    But not for everyone.

    I don't like it when I have the feeling someone is telling me what is comfortable for me and what's not. And what is too complicated for me to learn and use and what's not.

    scriver
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 8,649
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.
    I'm favorable to anything that makes it simple for the poster to format their posts. Many people want to post more complex messages without having to learn HTML. Actually I had to learn some HTML for my most complex posts in this forum and I use it nowhere else.

    Aedan
  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    mlnevese said:

    I'm favorable to anything that makes it simple for the poster to format their posts. Many people want to post more complex messages without having to learn HTML. Actually I had to learn some HTML for my most complex posts in this forum and I use it nowhere else.

    That is fine. But why take the option from people who actually like to learn and use HTML for their posts?

    scriver
  • StefanOStefanO Member Posts: 305
    edited September 13
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.
    https://blog.vanillaforums.com/hs-fs/hubfs/rich-editor.png?t=1536793094953&width=1200&name=rich-editor.png

    The new editor supports both BBCode and Markdown (Yes!), so everyone, even HTML hardcore fans, should be happy.

    Shandyrmlnevese
  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    ^ I hope that's true.

    Since a change is inevitable anyway I'd say, let's get it over with already. We could even use it while it is still in beta. That way we could test it and provide valuable feedback.

    scriver
  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,145
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.
    Okay, I vote for the new editor! I hope there are emojis on Martians, ferrets, squirrels, hamsters... and, and... maybe @Minion?

    mlnevese
  • argent77argent77 Member Posts: 2,569
    I commonly prepare comments in advance (for mod announcements, etc.). Morover, I sometimes use existing comments as templates for new posts. So the ability to use source formatting would be one of the most crucial features to me. A "Rich Editor" without the ability to enter or receive formatting on source level would just be a lot more work for me.

    If it's possible I would propose to add a toggle that allows you to choose between Rich Edit or one of the available source format modes mentioned in the linked document (Markdown, BBCode or HTML).

    ShandyrALIENscriverFlashburn
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,106
    We should migrate when the problems caused by the legacy editor become overwhelming.
    even if it's going to be a legacy product, i don't see why it can't still be used for quite a while, because i don't see which serous problems could crop up

  • ALIENALIEN Member Posts: 558
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.
    argent77 said:

    I commonly prepare comments in advance (for mod announcements, etc.). Morover, I sometimes use existing comments as templates for new posts. So the ability to use source formatting would be one of the most crucial features to me. A "Rich Editor" without the ability to enter or receive formatting on source level would just be a lot more work for me.

    If it's possible I would propose to add a toggle that allows you to choose between Rich Edit or one of the available source format modes mentioned in the linked document (Markdown, BBCode or HTML).

    Fully agree especially on Markdown!

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,676
    I agree with @Shandyr and @Argent77 about coding and stuff.

    But if the tool is going to be changed anyway I suggest the bandaid methodology. Just get it over with.

    Shandyrmlnevese
  • TarotRedhandTarotRedhand Member Posts: 477
    We should migrate when the problems caused by the legacy editor become overwhelming.
    If I'm understanding what @JuliusBorisov says at the start of this thread correctly goodbye correctly formatted posts and hello typo city. I say that because they said (if I am reading this right) no editing once posted. In that case I'm screwed. I'm forever hitting "Post Comment" and immediately afterwards seeing typos that I then need to edit. Not looking forwards to this.

    TR

  • Rik_KirtaniyaRik_Kirtaniya Member Posts: 1,145
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.
    @TarotRedhand I guess this is where the confusion lies?

    At this time, the new editor won’t allow users to edit the source of their posts...

    What @JuliusBorisov means is that you just cannot edit the source code of your post. Like you can't write <i class="Italic">Example</i> and have it show up as Example. It will still show as <i class="Italic">Example</i>.

    I don't think any forum text editor would be so improperly made as not to allow anybody to edit their posts at all. So don't worry, you will still be able to edit your posts. ;)

    JuliusBorisov
  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    edited September 14
    I'm confused. What is true now? Is that not mutually exclusive?

    At this time, the new editor won’t allow users to edit the source of their posts...

    StefanO said:

    https://blog.vanillaforums.com/hs-fs/hubfs/rich-editor.png?t=1536793094953&width=1200&name=rich-editor.png

    The new editor supports both BBCode and Markdown (Yes!), so everyone, even HTML hardcore fans, should be happy.

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 15,856
    I don't believe the suggestion by @StefanO is true. Is that photo from a new article (posted later than the poll)?

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    edited September 14
    @JuliusBorisov

    It's taken from here:
    https://blog.vanillaforums.com/rich-editor-enhancing-your-forum-posting-experience

    Rather near the bottom of that page.

    image

    To be honest, that confuses me even more.

    Because they clearly say that the change from the "Advanced Editor" (which is the name of the current one we are using) to the "Rich Editor" is optional and not mandatory.

    They say if we want to use Markdown or BBCode we can still use the "Advanced Editor".
    And then their own graphic shows that the "Rich Editor" supposedly supports Markdown and BBCode.

    I would guess that is what they mean with "We have plans for enhancements for those in the future."?
    That they eventually plan to bring Markdown and BBCode to the Rich Editor in the future?

    But then it wouldn't be a pure WYSIWYG editor anymore which seems to be what they are advertising.

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,106
    We should migrate when the problems caused by the legacy editor become overwhelming.
    an editor can be wysiwyg and support makdown and bbcode (every wysiwyg forum editor supports bbcode) at the same time

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    edited September 14
    bob_veng said:

    an editor can be wysiwyg and support makdown and bbcode (every wysiwyg forum editor supports bbcode) at the same time

    Well, that is actually the question in this case.

    Hence why I wrote "pure WYSIWYG". And the vanilla devs are talking about a "true WYSIWYG" experience in the blog post:

    "As co-founder of Vanilla, Todd Burry noted “For most people our Advanced Editor was good enough, but we couldn’t have a true WYSIWYG experience, so we needed to move to a more modern architecture."

    Add to that, that the new Rich Editor does not have a preview function anymore. In a exclusively pure WYSIWYG editor you don't need a preview anymore because what you see is what you get, literally.

  • StefanOStefanO Member Posts: 305
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.


    Read about the new text editor here and here.

    Please, Julius, what exactly will we get?

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 15,856
    The way I see it, everything will happen "live" in the comment box. You'll choose formatting (by clicking buttons), and it'll do it right there. When you want to edit the comment, it'll again show you the text you wrote, but without code of your post.

    See https://forum.bubble.is/t/vanilla-rich-text-editor-beta-5-update-themes/19099/2 for example (mind that those are old images).



    from https://forum.bubble.is/t/vanilla-rich-text-editor-beta-5-update-themes/19099/28

  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,106
    We should migrate when the problems caused by the legacy editor become overwhelming.
    from my experience on forums with newer software, if you type [img]url[/img], that would be detected and automatically replaced with a picture in the editor box.

  • ShandyrShandyr Member Posts: 8,256
    Okay, in a way, live conversion of code is WYSIWYG. Because the code you type in is immediately converted on the fly, and you directly see its outcome. And then you get what you see. Hence WYSIWYG.

    The problem I see is this:
    What if I make a mistake when I type in "[img]url[/img]" ? Let's say I chose the wrong url.

    How can I edit code that has already been converted?

  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 15,856
    A good question! Most likely, you'll have to delete that part and type again.

  • TorgrimmerTorgrimmer Member Posts: 164
    We should migrate once the Rich Editor is out of beta.

    Can't we have both, and an option to switch between them as necessary? Just like Wikis on Fandom (like the BG and IWD wikis) have the option to use both the Visual Editor (easier to use) and the Classic Editor (allows more advanced stuff).

    In the document via the first link in the original post, it shows:

    What do I do with my existing Advanced Editor posts?
    Rich Editor can function side by side with Advanced Editor. Leave Advanced Editor enabled in addition to Rich Editor, and older posts will still be editable using Advanced Editor.


    Does this mean we can have both, or does it mean something else? I'd like to have both, as I think most people would also like to have. I like the idea of more emojis, but not being able to use HTML is a severe atrocity. That's why both options should be provided, and it would be better if Vanilla provides cross-compatibility between the two text-editors, or at least add HTML support for the new Rich Editor.

    That being said, if a change is inevitable, it's best to have it soon.
    I agree, I like both, having both options is best key, to make everyone happy, including me.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.