Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since Dakka will be moving to new forum software, I put this question out to all of you: What type of text editor do you prefer when posting in forums? A WYSIWYG text editor like Dakka currently uses or a UBB text editor used on such sites as Warseer?



OPTION A: I like 'What you see is what you get' (WYSIWYG) text editors like Dakka currently uses, even if it occasionally has hiccups when pasting from rich text sources and especially when trying to edit posts containing that pasted text. The ease of use outweighs any small bugs these editors may have.


OPTION B: I like UBB text editors like that used on Warseer (for example). Even though they may not be as easy to use as WYSIWYG text editors, their stability more than makes up for those faults.


OPTION C: I would choose a WYSIWYG text editor over a UBB text editor, but only if the WYSIWYG text editor fully worked with my browser (Opera, Safari, etc) and had absolutely no bugs when pasting and editing rich text from other sources. If the WYSIWYG text editor is going to have any bugs at all, then I'd prefer to stick with a UBB text editor.



Any and all comments on this subject are of course welcome!

I tentatively voted B for one reason. I like the UBB editor, but sadly the one on warseer has a problem with quotes.

As in, if I quote someone who also quaoted me, my quotes are now gonemaking it harder to understand the context of what is bneing quoted.

I know for a fact UBB editors arent normally that bad, but warseers quotation system has me baffled because I am forced to do ALOT more work to make sure the quotes are straightened out correctly.

so with that in mind, I think it is more of a mix of A & B.

UBB. Even though quotes are the weakness of UBB, you're supposed to read through the thread and thus should know what is being quoted and in what context anyway.

I voted UBB, but what's more important to me is that the UBB quick reply option sticks around. Really nothing gets me posting more than this handy little feature (same goes for Warseer, etc).

- Salvage

Stability.

If you are changing over to a new forum software (I think it was UBB?), almost all of them to date allow for the user to choose in their control pannel (or in the reply to post page) which text editor they want to use. The WYSIWYGs in vBulletin and UBB are much better than the dot nuke one.

I would say A, but in your admin options, enable it for users to define which one they would like to use.

I voted for B for two reasons

1) WYSIWYG editors almost always have bugs, don't function well cross-platform and are usually designed to look like the interface of Word which is utterly horrible. The editor here at Dakka isn't bad except that I can't use it on my Mac and it has WAY too many buttons.

2) too many editing options often distract people from the aim of a message board... writing something interesting for other people to read. I'd rather see much fewer options in an editor and therefore far fewer bold, all caps, red posts.

I voted C, but I don't require zero bugs, ever; I just want something that'll work in Opera.

I voted C for stability but no matter how good your code is there's always going to be bugs, so maybe B is the better choice most people know UBB so it will be more familiar to them too

Posted By Necros on 08/06/2007 8:30 AM
I voted C for stability but no matter how good your code is there's always going to be bugs, so maybe B is the better choice most people know UBB so it will be more familiar to them too

It's not the code that is at fault, it's that the browser does not accept it.

Format A may work in browser 1 and 2, but not browser 2; and Microsoft is like Sony in the camera market, they make up their own standards to look better.

I agree with pixelgeek, Dakka's current system is alright, but it has too many buttons and is generally just bloated. I just want the thing to work. I've been using UBB code for so many years that its familliar to me though I understand it can be a little arcane to those just exposed to it. The myriad of useless buttons on the current editor, though, I think are just as significant of a hurdle.

You need to consider that new forums WYSIWYG editors are very easy and simple, especially compared to dakkas. They are basically real time UBB implimenters. So you can either type the UBB yourself, or use the editor.

I voted UBB, but I really just want the stability.  I also really would like something that handles honest-to-God HTML as well, even just limited stuff like linking to images, URLs, and some text markup.  I know that better than I know UBB code.  Whatever we end up using, we should also have an easily accessible (from the editor itself) FAQ about how to do all the stuff in the editor.

Yakface I dont see the option for MS notepad, best product Mircrosoft ever came out with!

K.I.S.S.
I would wote for something like this "Quick Reply" function but expanded with buttons for "external link", "linked image" and "upload image".

Perhaps a function who would take image links, copy the image to a Dakka archive, crop it to max 650 px wide and post it in the thread.

I absolutely hate reading posts with a lot of external links (to Flickr, Imageshack, an At43 page or similar).
Pics should be visable directly in the Dakka thread and ideally stored on a Dakka server - then we wouldn't have to deal with a lot of broken links and/or exceeded bandwidth quotas.

Whatever is chosen should be computer OS and browser neutral above all other considerations. It shouldn't matter that I use Linux and Firefox (32-bit or 64-bit), Mac OS and Safari or Windows Me and Opera. I should be able to participate.