Loading Profile...
Is the Classic Editor supported in PBwiki 2.0?
Are WikiStyle and the Classic Editor gone? I asked "Vu Nguyen" a couple of weeks ago, in a thread about editor switching, but he declined to respond. Can I get an "Official Response" on this? Thanks!
I’m very sad
1 person has this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The best answer from the company
-
I can confirm that Classic mode and WikiStyle are not incorporated into 2.0 and that we have no short-term plans to add them into the 2.0 product. That said, we also don't currently have any plans to force 1.0 wikis to upgrade to 2.0.
I think you raise a good point that we need to make sure that 2.0 is keyboard-friendly (common operations should be possible to complete without using the mouse). It's something Nathan's working on.
Beyond this, I think there's a general philosophy we're exploring of making an interface amenable to expertise - what I mean by this is a system that's very easy to approach initially but offers unfolding richness and complexity to a master. Like Larry Wall says, "make the easy tasks easy and the difficult tasks possible." And keyboard shortcuts are a good example of this (especially since they don't present a UI to confuse novices).
The company and 3 other people say
this answers the question
The best answer from everyone
-
I've used your site on and off over a few years for note-taking for my Open University courses here in the UK. So I was interested to take a look at your new V2 Beta. Initial impressions:
* Looks nice
* Mmmmmmmmmm, like that side bar
* Nice editor
So how do I switch into Wiki markup for edits? Oh, I can't :-(
As far as I can tell, you have created an editor for HTML - I can even switch into HTML mode and type HTML direct.
So - what's my problem?
Well - one of the points of a Wiki is to provide a quick and simple mark-up language. If I wanted to write HTML, I would write HTML. I could just use your editor, but:
* how do I do this on the train when I have no connection?
* how do I draft out the outline of a series of pages when I can't type in the links for pages to be created later?
* where is the CamelCase that allowed me to link pages in the fastest way I have ever seen?
* how, if my site is public, do I stop people putting malicious code on my pages, if I need them to be editable?
You could have produced a nice editor - but why not an editor for Wiki Markup, rather than HTML?
I think this is one step forward, but two large steps back.
I’m disappointed
4 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Hi Guy,
I'm sorry I missed this somehow. PBwiki 2.0, at least in its current incarnation, has no Classic Editor.
That said, I've been using a beta version of 2.0 for a few weeks now and the editor has yet to flake out on me like the 1.0 version did, and the HTML plugin allows me to continue with whatever crazy hacking I'm prone to doing with my wiki.
So, unless there's a great demand for it, there will be no classic editor. I'm checking with higher-ups for confirmation on that, however.
Vu
I’m sorry; I love that editor too!
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Yes, something as simple as inserting a link has gone from a few keystrokes to numerous "grab the mouse and point and click", so this is very bad news.
What will happen to PBwiki 1.0 wikis? Will they be able to avoid assimilation, or is resistance futile? -
Inappropriate?I can confirm that Classic mode and WikiStyle are not incorporated into 2.0 and that we have no short-term plans to add them into the 2.0 product. That said, we also don't currently have any plans to force 1.0 wikis to upgrade to 2.0.
I think you raise a good point that we need to make sure that 2.0 is keyboard-friendly (common operations should be possible to complete without using the mouse). It's something Nathan's working on.
Beyond this, I think there's a general philosophy we're exploring of making an interface amenable to expertise - what I mean by this is a system that's very easy to approach initially but offers unfolding richness and complexity to a master. Like Larry Wall says, "make the easy tasks easy and the difficult tasks possible." And keyboard shortcuts are a good example of this (especially since they don't present a UI to confuse novices).
The company and 3 other people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?I don't know if I missed it one night and it was always there, or if they just added it, but when you're editing a PB Wiki 2.0 page, there's a small button labeled "source" in the upper right corner of your editing page. That shows code of some type. I'm self-taught, and my vocab may be imprecise, but I do believe that shows HTML, not wiki style? Anyway, I've used it to help me make external links open in a new window. Hope that helps? - Karla -
Inappropriate?Personally, I would love to have the wikistyle editing feature for quick linking to be integrated in V2.0. I dearly miss those square brackets, as I have gotten used to them.
However, allow me to be a carefree optimist for a moment here so I could ask: Since the universal link editor is being used in most other places, like in lj for instance, and linking to another post in the same blog is done the same way as creating an external link, one could expect the average internet surfer to be comfortable with this scheme. Hence, shouldn't it be safe to assume that PBwiki 2.0 users have already encountered and are even, perhaps, already used to this system, and that the loss of wikistyle is one of a luxury or privilege rather than of a necessity?
I agree with PBwiki's general philosophy for an advanced interface, and I think that the move to make 2.0 exclusively subscribe to the new editor is for the best. More than preserving the old systems that have marked PBwiki as unique and exceptionally accessible, I think that the focus should be on seeking the perfect balance of convenience and simplicity for the benefit of its users. As long as this criteria is being met, I wouldn't mind letting go of the trademarks of the old interface that I have grown to love. I'm sure though that as the new interface continues to grow and improve, we will discover its charms as well. :o)
I’m a convert to 2.0!
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Thank you for your feedback! I was a pretty big fan of the Classic Editor myself (I use Safari, so the 1.0 Point-and-Click editor didn't work at all), and using the new interface is still a little wonky at times. However, it seems like every time I log back into my wiki, there's something new and more awesome than the last time, and I think that's pretty nifty.
I also agree that the interface is a pretty standard one, and while it's not super keyboard-shortcut-intensive, at least most people will recognize the buttons and be able to use them. Usability being one of our goals, I think that's a good thing.
I’m <3-ing 2.0 too!
-
Inappropriate?"the loss of wikistyle is one of a luxury or privilege rather than of a necessity?"
Oh. My. God. I cannot believe you just said that. I've been happily using (and paying for) WikiStyle for over two years; as you well know, that's all there was when PBwiki first started. To have them just decide "Hey, screw you people who have been with us from the start; we're dropping what you use so we can suck in more paying customers, because it's just too much trouble to maintain a markup-based wiki editor" is just wrong.
Besides, real wikis use markup. I can understand PBwiki's desire to be just like all the other kids, and use the new, cool things. But some of us are perfectly satisfied with the way things are, and for the disabled, your "luxury or privilege" comment comes as a slap in the face. Frankly, it would be a luxury to be able to use a mouse, period. Try typing with a pencil in your mouth for a while, and see how wonderful the new editor is. Your sense of entitlement is overwhelming.
I’m glad the ADA doesn't apply to wikis
-
Inappropriate?I can agree with the sentiment, although I wonder if it's more sensible to adapt the new editor, such as improving its accessibility for the disabled, than trying to hold on to the mark-up based wiki syntax.
Some days I lean towards where you are, and I value the simplicity of the wiki-syntax and its interface. But other days, I remember the headaches of trying to explain WikiStyle to people who have little knowledge of wikis to begin with, let alone a new (albeit simplified) language.
I feel like we're actually pretty similar in how much we hate extra layers of abstraction or mediation. I'd like to be able to tell a wiki page exactly what I want without any of that fiddling around, but I've also found great uses for a wysiwyg format also, which is surprising concerning my original stance. For example, I use my wiki to take notes on articles I read for school, and the indented bullets make it a lot easier to follow while editing than the old system (since multi-line bullets wouldn't indent).
I'm really glad you're vocal on the flip-side though, because I think some things get overlooked with a completely optimistic perspective. I hope by the time there's a total switch, PBwiki will figure out some solution that strikes a good balance between everyone's concerns.
I’m thankful for your input
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?"I remember the headaches of trying to explain WikiStyle to people"
I believe you have unwittingly revealed the underlying reason for all this: because it makes life easier for PBwiki, not because it improves anything for the user. Yes, for some kinds of users, it does make some kinds of tasks easier. But that's a by-product. The horrible page-mangling that happens when you switch between editors is a similar cause; it's easier for PBwiki to just abandon traditional (and orders of magnitude simpler) markup than to try and fix these complicated problems.
I’m glad things are getting easier for PBwiki staff, cuz they're not for me
-
Inappropriate?Well, we've replaced that problem with login woes now *wink*.
What would your thoughts be on a wiki, or perhaps wiki-page, being set to use only one editor, either classic or point-and-click? In other words, has the page-type switching ever been useful to you? I ask because I think you're right, one headache would be alleviated if the "page-mangling" no longer occured.
I'm just throwing ideas around, so I'm not saying this will lead anywhere, but because of comments like yours', the return of the classic editor IS back on the radar as a future possibility. I have to disagree that making tasks easier for some users is a by-product, as I feel many of these decisions have been made specifically due to user input, and they wouldn't stick if users didn't feel like they made their lives easier. The problem is that what some people love, others will despise, and that's a constant balancing act. -
Inappropriate?As a matter of fact, I agreed with that suggestion every single time it was made in the old forums, but the answer given by PBwiki at the time was that it would "be too confusing", and clutter up the admin interface. And, no, page-type switching has never been useful to me. But don't go making any changes on my account. I've gotten almost all of my wikis ported over to various Google Apps (Notebook, Docs, and Sites), so I'm not anticipating this will be a huge ongoing issue.
I’m looking for a platform that won't radically alter they way they do things every couple of years
-
Inappropriate?Well, hopefully we'll give you some good options, as I would hate to see you go.
Always glad to see your input,
Vu -
Inappropriate?I don't think the point of changing PBwiki's user interface is solely for the convenience and satisfaction of its developers. This may sound clichéut both customers and developers are part of one community, and it takes all sorts of ideas from both sides to make sure that changes implemented work for the community as they should, and that as much as possible, everyone equally benefits. If anything, I think that convenience and satisfaction would be the by-products of the effort and work of PBwiki's developers. I'd think that you yourself, by sharing your thoughts and comments in this thread alone, know personally what it feels to set aside convenience and ease for the greater good.
I guess what I'm trying to say, in a long-winded way, is that I'm glad to see your comments here. No offense, but it just fuels my optimism for the major transitions in V2.0. With all do respect, I really like WikiStyle and it was one of the driving factors of why I love PBwiki. I don't believe it's obsolete or extinct. I actually think that it could be reincarnated in one of the future developments of PBwiki. These are all baby-steps we all take towards getting that optimum satisfaction out of PBwiki.
I’m ecstatic!
-
Inappropriate?Wow. I thought *I* was good as twisting what someone said around to meet my own agenda, but you're good!
I’m surprised you showed back up after so long away
-
Inappropriate?You could take my comments here as indicative of my character: I usually "go with the flow" and focus on what is on the table rather than insist on devouring as much of the buffet as possible. There are, admittedly, some disadvantages to this, such as being prone to narrow-mindedness or even making hasty generalizations of things beyond the immediate pov. In which case, I add a big dollop of optimism to paint a bright, if rather vague, future.
I guess I'm more on the level of 'work-with-what-you-have', a perspective on things that you know can never fully be known or are constantly changing. (Say, the weather, for instance.) From this position, it's impractical and rather illogical to think that it is possible to get to the level of 'work-with-what-you-WANT-to-have'. You'd have to be an optimist to think that (which I am, conveniently). It is, however, more logical to conclude that the next level from 'work-with-what-you-have' is to 'work-FOR-what-you-want-to-have'. This is where, I think, all things are made equal, for both people like me and you. :o)
(Rather than an attempt to clear things up, this is actually more of a "my last two cents" kind-of reply.)
I’m happy to be around again
-
Inappropriate?I've used your site on and off over a few years for note-taking for my Open University courses here in the UK. So I was interested to take a look at your new V2 Beta. Initial impressions:
* Looks nice
* Mmmmmmmmmm, like that side bar
* Nice editor
So how do I switch into Wiki markup for edits? Oh, I can't :-(
As far as I can tell, you have created an editor for HTML - I can even switch into HTML mode and type HTML direct.
So - what's my problem?
Well - one of the points of a Wiki is to provide a quick and simple mark-up language. If I wanted to write HTML, I would write HTML. I could just use your editor, but:
* how do I do this on the train when I have no connection?
* how do I draft out the outline of a series of pages when I can't type in the links for pages to be created later?
* where is the CamelCase that allowed me to link pages in the fastest way I have ever seen?
* how, if my site is public, do I stop people putting malicious code on my pages, if I need them to be editable?
You could have produced a nice editor - but why not an editor for Wiki Markup, rather than HTML?
I think this is one step forward, but two large steps back.
I’m disappointed
4 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?I think the model for PBwiki 2.0 is to be more like a word processor, although you raise some interesting points, particularly concerning offline editing. A possible solution for that would be better integration into software such as Microsoft Word or OpenOffice, and that's something PBwiki is exploring.
I'm sorry I can't be of more help, but thanks for your suggestions!
Vu -
Inappropriate?I will miss CamelCase.
And I will miss not being able to edit wikis on limited devices (cellphones, Palms, etc.). I realize that's not a normal use case. But it works on 1.0, and apparently won't work on 2.0. That's a shame.
-
Inappropriate?Does anyone know of a wiki provider that does support limited device access? -
Inappropriate?You're right that wikis need to be editable on limited devices like mobiles. We will be working on adding this support to 2.0 in the next few months. And don't forget, in the interim you can always use 1.0!
-
Inappropriate?I agree with Guy and others who are upset to see Wiki markup disappear. To me, losing that style of editing causes the service to no longer really be a wiki. It's just HTML pages (a la geocities) with a built in HTML editor.
Something that I like about wiki markup is the limiting factor that it puts on layout. As well as some of the automatic features such as creating tables of contents for the Headings on the page. This also allowed for anchors for each of those headings automatically. Of course, I might be recalling features that MediaWiki has and not PBwiki.
This strikes me as a difference between myspace and facebook in a way... Facebook was successful in part because it didn't let the user create super-ugly do anything-they-want-to pages. All Facebook pages follow the same formatting rules. Almost all myspace pages I've ever seen look terrible. Wiki markup when followed has a similar effect... It restrains craziness and focuses on the content.
I suggested PBwiki to a friend expecting him to be able to create real wiki pages on a real wiki service. I'm very disappointed to come look at the pages he made, click source, and see this inscrutable HTML appear behind the pages. I'm sorry to say that I regret recommending PBwiki now.
I’m annoyed that wiki markup style is being disregarded.
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?"losing that style of editing causes the service to no longer really be a wiki. It's just HTML pages (a la geocities) with a built in HTML editor."
Thank you. -
Inappropriate?I miss WikiStyle too. WYSIWYG is the devil. It's so much more complicated and time consuming than just typing what you want on to the page. I don't get the point.
I’m gutted that wikistyle isn't incorporated in 2.0
2 people say
this answers the question