Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-33168089-20170821015513/@comment-32354545-20170822020644

Noreplyz wrote: Henstepl wrote: A source editor does not require testing to implement. It's literally an HTML input field and a "submit" button.

That a source editor has not been permitted makes me fear that Lucy does not have such a wonderful, human-readable, human-editable source code behind it as wikitext. I think the key reason we want a source editor is we want exact and specific control of how people see the content we place on the wiki, whether that is a specific design of a template or the positioning of text and images.

It's very possible that future iterations of the new editor could refine this sort of customisation and totally rid of a need for a source editor. Right now, what you put into the editor is exactly what you'll see on the other end, and that's something that is hard to do on a web interface. Since it is a work in progress product, I expect more and more ways of presenting and positioning content in the ways we want in the future.

There never was a point-and-click GUI that couldn't be severely beat by efficient usage of the keyboard. Ask users of the text editor Vim.

I look forward to never making an edit to any wiki with Lucy enabled in my life, if point-and-click (and avoidance of Monobook) should be obligatory.