Thomas, On Tuesday 21 February 2006 01:48, T. Ribbrock wrote:
...
Of course the problem is the same - that's the issue at hand. However, if the graphical tools are dubbed "WYSIWYG", many people *will* expect that that's exactly what happens. For example. they will happily use local fonts - which will or will not result in readable pages elsewhere. That's not WYSIWYG and it should not be named such, as otherwise wrong expectations are created. What's so difficult to understand about this?
Well, people who are that clueless about the nature of HTML and Web publishing are going to get an education pretty soon, anyway. They'll either adapt or walk away, I suppose. And it definitely is WYSIWYG, it's just not WYSIWTG (... They Get). As one person pointed out in something I read several years ago, WYSIWYG should really be called WYSIAYG (... All You Get). WYSIWYG seemed pretty cool when GUI-based personal computers came to electronic publishing (before which it was stuff like the roff family of processors and other varieties of overt mark-up), but it's an impoverished model for real publishing, suitable only for small-scale works and one-off tasks.
Regards,
Thomas
Randall Schulz