Forum:New Visual Editor: Problems and Suggestions

This thread covers feedback (suggestions and bug reports) about the new editor.


 * Archive - Forum:New Visual Editor: Problems and Suggestions/archive

Template Display
Only the name of the template is displayed in the visual editor. It can be very clumsy if you use quite many templates in the page. Suggestion: It should display the template code rather than the template name, e.g. display rather than

I use template bc as an example to illustrate the problem.

 Level 0:

It will displays like the following in the visual editor:  Level 0:
 * bc
 * bc
 * bc
 * bc
 * bc

Here is the actual screenshot taken:  Every entry looks the same in the visual editor. It becomes clumsy and inconvenient.

I hope the visual editor displays in the following manner:  Level 0: And I can edit the template code directly, not through the dialog.--MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 17:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it displayed the template code, it wouldnt be a wysiwyg/visual editor now would it? Thats what the source/raw editing mode it for, to edit the wiki TEXT directly. If you are comfortable with editing wiki formating text directly, you can always just disable the editor from loading at all in your preferences. --Uberfuzzy 18:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's still the visual editor since other wiki effects should be rendered (e.g. bold, italic, underline, lists, tables and so on) and I'm happy with it. Make sure you don't confuse between wiki texts and template texts. I see few benefits in showing the name only rather than in full. Showing name only don't make sense in some situations. As shown in the example above, all entries look the same, making it confusing and harder to work.
 * Don't display in this way:
 * Display it in this way:
 * I can work with the wikitext (raw) mode but other visitors can't. There are many on the pages which confuse them when the visual editor is on.  is only a simple template to create a specific kind of links. Visitors do use a lot. The visual editor makes them more difficult to work with templates. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also noted below: the template flow in the new editor is certainly something I want to look at again. Unfortunately, there are also some restrictions which prevent us from showing templates inline in their final form ... however, on the other end, returning all the wikitext in the WYSIWYG editor is also not ideal. One possible solution could be to indicate that a template can have/has extra parameters - and show that more clearly on the input screen. 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the complain recently received from my visitors:

Quote:  yo dawg i tried editing that wiki-article to add 1 brute, but i dunno how to do it with that bc-thingy

"bc" is the name of the template. They are confused about it since the visual editor only shows a lot of "bc". My visitors aren't proficient at wiki-editing. The visual editor is meant to help newbies and encourage them to participate.

To clarify, I'm not asking to show all wikitext in full (i.e. as source code). I'm asking to change ONLY how the template is displayed, not others. There are currently three forms of display:
 * the final output of template (the best but not possible technically)
 * display the template code in full (similar to how Wikipedia full editor works)
 * display the template name only (Wikia's visual editor)

It's still inconvenient even if I can mouseover to view the extra parameters. Mousing over to each entry just to know the difference is inefficient and clumsy. What can be better than this when we can view the difference at a glance?

Wikipedia full editor is superior than ours. I believe we should follow how Wikipedia full editor works in this case. If we display .....  in full in the visual editor, why not for the template? Displaying template name only serves no good purposes. It even confuses my new editors. Displaying template in full may not be ideal, but it's currently the best possible option available.

I'm seriously thinking about removing the template just to overcome the usability problems of the visual editor, so as to accommodate to my visitors.--MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Auto de-wiki is not good
I find that the visual editor will de-wikify most (all?) wiki symbols or HTML symbols. Examples include ==== 4th heading ====, &lt;ref&gt; ( source ) &lt;/ref&gt;, &lt;references/&gt;, to name but a few. The visual editors treat all such inputs as PLAIN TEXTS. Other visual editors like the blogging editors, forum editors work in the opposite ways. They all accept typing some HTML codes (blogging) or BBCodes (forums) in the visual mode. The codes will still be rendered when sent.

Your visual editors couldn't contain all features in the toolbars. Manual insertions of some codes are inevitable. Think about it. You have to keep toggling back and forth just to put a 4th heading, or a source, or a reference list and so on.

Change the behavior of visual editor so it doesn't de-wikify most or all codes by default.

Consider adding an icon for instead, so people can de-wiki the codes with 1 click when they really need it. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what your saying, but your looking at it the wrong way. The idea is to not have people typing ANY code, what so ever, manually into the editor. If you know what your doing with the code, then switch to source mode and type in code. Headers, tables, templates, formatting, should all be done via the toolbar. Anything you actually type should be left as exactly as is. Its called "What you see is what you get" for a reason, if you see a link, you should get a [ and [ and link and ] and ], not a link. --Uberfuzzy 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikia introduces new paradigm into usability: We know how you want to use our features, it's the users who have to learn what to want! -- ◄mendel► 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Nice put! Gonna give up. Apparently great but brings more headache than relief. Good examples: Table! Table is really hard to work with in source mode for novices and intermediates. Bad examples: 4th or higher level headings, horizontal line, simple formatting and style unavailable in the toolbar, template display and insertion.............. If the developer can transfer a few good features to the old editor, very happy to stay with the old one.
 * There are currently 3 modes, the visual mode, the wikitext mode (in visual editor), the old editor. The wikitext mode in the visual editor still causes some problems. Wanna work with old editor, except when I have to work with tables. I hope we can save two settings, one for visual table editing, one for the rest. Keep toggling is very tedious. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 07:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My reply is as follows: Quote:  The idea is to not have people typing ANY code, what so ever, manually into the editor. But we are far from it. I have yet to see any visual editor which can let us do all the effects via the toolbars. What are we going to go if the toolbars don't provide what we want? Visual editor is to help people to type fewer codes, but not prevent them from typing any code. People can't type code =/= People don't need type code.

Quote:  If you know what your doing with the code, then switch to source mode and type in code. Well, in fact, most people who have to type a few codes are NOT experienced coders, including me. Many are still novices and visual editors do help significantly and encourage their participation. However the current behavior of the visual editor causes more problems than benefits. Hmmmm.............

The intention of visual editor is to encourage participation. Telling people to switch back to source mode just to type a few codes IS NOT user-friendly, and is going to discourage participation. They don't do it when they feel hard to do.

Quote:  Headers, tables, templates, formatting, should all be done via the toolbar. Your toolbars only have ten something but there are over 100 styles and formatting people want to do. Let's say I want to make a 4th heading, or put a horizontal line, or change the size or color of the text, or put a reference, or put a gallery............... How to do?

We type directly in the past. It takes only 1-2 seconds. Fast and efficient. Tell us how to teach people to insert templates in the new visual editor without being so clumsy, slow or inefficient.

Quote:  if you see a link, you should get a [ and [ and link and ] and ], not a link. At least many visual editors (blogging and forum) don't work in this way. I doubt how many times when people type link, they want link rather than link.--MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 07:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please do not use blockquote when commenting sections of other peoples comments? i keep thinking those are examples due to the indentation they have in respect to your own comments.
 * Now about subject i prefer to use old editor because i already have tools that aid me also with the new editor i have to keep switching back to source because i need to edit something that the new editor cant do or im working with long complex templates and the new editor crashes changing modes--
 * So what should I do if I want to quote and reply (just like what I did in forums)? This seems the best way to do. Years have passed. The forum features of wiki is still the worst I have ever seen. I think the Mediawiki development team should just implement some open-source forum software into wikia.--MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 14:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i remind you this is a wiki-page with a forum like interface (see Help:Forums. Thought there are phpBB forums but have to be request and are "experimental". For the open-source there is MediaWiki you can create an Extension and submit it and then ask for the addition to wikia --
 * That is it! A true forum rather than a pseudo one. The so-called wiki forum misses most of the basic forum features. Frankly it's pretty hard to read and reply in long discussions. I'm afraid I'm not skilled enough to create an extension for Mediawiki. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of thoughts about the above notes: Thanks for your suggestions, and all your thoughts are appreciated. Please, add more! 11:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is intended as a Word-like editor, not a forum-like or wikitext-like editor. MS Word is what most people are used to. Though much of our audience is geeky, we do not wish to restrict ourselves to this group and scare off newbies.
 * 2) Lack of headings options below H3 - this is fair, but we don't want to clutter up the interface. Generally, once you're below H4, you're getting the to the point where the page should be reorganised or split up. I will make a note of this.
 * 3) References: we plan to support these in future. They're near the top of our list.
 * 4) Formatting: wiki article formatting should be simple. While some people like to design stuff with spans and div styles, you really should avoid it as much as possible, as it's complicated, hard to maintain and use. However, classes and IDs are more reasonable: but if you're advanced enough to use them, you're advanced enough to switch to source mode as and when needed. The editor is not intended to entirely replace the old editor, but to make the large majority of the tasks easier.
 * 5) Template addition: we are not entirely happy with the template usage flow at the moment, and it's also on our list to improve.
 * 6) Wikitext-in-WYSIWYG. This is currently top of our list of features to work on: we totally understand lots of people want to type link or ~ . It's simple and fast. Our intention is to allow you to type them and then convert them via a click.
 * 7) Stability: Cizagna, do you have any specific situations where crashes/breakage happens?
 * I will double check it as it was back in Nov or Dec when i made it crash a couple of times. --

@Kirkburn Here's my reply: After all, the real problem is, in case if you don't see, it makes it more difficult not only to experienced editors, but also to new editors. Simply put, your visual editor fails to satisfy both advanced editors and new editors. Yep! I am meant to say new editors too.
 * 1) OK. I want to stress that I want it to be a Word-like editor too. I'm also putting newbies in mind. We concur in this matter.
 * 2) However we have to realise our visual editor is still far from a proper Word-like editor. It would be great if it finally come out to be a true Word-like editor, but it isn't now. Number 1 difference is I don't have to switch in Word. The interface of Word provides everything (styles and formatting) I want. Tell me, how can I put a H4 heading in the visual editor? Your interface simply don't allow styles and formatting not listed in the toolbars. Word doesn't. We can do all styles and formatting without switching off the Rich Text Mode (Well! It actually has no such needs!).
 * 3) Well, it's initially a response to the above. It's because he says visual editor is meant not to type any code. I simply point out there are too many things we can't do in visual editors. His target hasn't been met. Heading is only one of the common examples.
 * 4) References: Good!
 * 5) Formatting: Well, one point of reminder, Wikia isn't Wikipedia. If it were Wikipedia, it might be true. It's Wikia, a site which host thousands of sites with very different purposes. Different sites can have very different styles. Don't you think there isn't "one size fits all" in the world?
 * 6) "The editor is not intended to entirely replace the old editor, but to make the large majority of the tasks easier." Yep! I agree. But if it's meant we should switch to source code mode just to put in  . That's not okay. Newbies knowing how to put  is nowhere near to wiki experts. ;)
 * 7) Template addition: Here's another example. Creating redirect pages can be a problem, for example. It's really dumb that we can't type the command #REDIRECT somepage directly in the visual editor. Please go and take a look at other visual editor. They always treat them as the code, not the plain texts.
 * 8) Wikitext-in-WYSIWYG: Why not just let us insert wikitext directly? I think it's pretty weird to think when people type wikitext, it's meant to be plain text, not wikitexts. Wikipedia full editor allow it. Tons of other visual editors allow too. It can solve most of the problems addressed above.
 * 9) Stability: I did encounter stability problems, but I'm not sure how it happens. I'm working with a few tables. All wikilinks and nowiki tags are broken when I press sent. I will give you an example when I found the link.

I do think visual editor is the right step to do and is not a bad addition. Thanks for your efforts. I appreciate it even if I left many criticisms. I'm doing it with the best of intentions. Hopefully you won't take it as offense. Keep up your work. See you! --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Previously, Wiki users mastered the learning curve towards advanced page design by copy & pasting other people's designs and then fiddling with them. This is pretty seamless if you start off with the source editor anyway (and you may have noticed some features by simplying doing beginners' edits, such as how templates are used), but if it requires a conscious decision to step away from the visual editor and thus abandon everything you have learned so far about wikiediting, it seems to be a huge break. I find that semiadvanced users are able to use simple classes on tables if they have examples (such as class=sortable). -- ◄mendel► 23:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
Some of these requests may be pie-in-the-sky, but I figured I'd give it a shot. I'll add more as I think of them.
 * Allow PRE to have a right-click menu to make it do &lt;tt&gt; or &lt;code&gt; instead.
 * Allow S to have a right-click menu to make it do &lt;sup&gt; or &lt;sub&gt; instead.
 * In table menus, add a class entry field to Cell and Table properties. Add a Row properties choice with alignment and class entries.
 * Add a menu to insert HTML entities, like &amp;copy; ( &copy; ), &amp;reg; ( &reg; ), &amp;lt; ( &lt; ), &amp;gt; ( &gt; ), &amp;rarr; ( &rarr; ), &amp;larr; ( &larr; ), etc. Maybe even &amp;#91; ( &#91; ), &amp;#93; ( &#93; ), &amp;#123; ( &#123; ), &amp;#124; ( &#124; ), &amp;#125; ( &#125; ), etc.

Also, are there any complex wikis that have this New Visual Editor? I'd like to see how it renders some of the more complex templates. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 12:54 PM PST 27 Apr 2009


 * None that immediately come to mind, but anything created since about last November should have it. However, complex templates should pose no issues - they aren't rendered inline, and the popup previews should render the same as the final result. Good to test, though.
 * As for the ideas, rather interesting. Thanks! 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tables formatting
One problem with the Rich Text Editor that has moved us to request Wikia staff to disable it at our wiki, Sryth Wiki, is that when a user edits a table that is formatted like this: using the Rich Text Editor, the table gets formatted like this: These changes make nigh-impossible to quickly check for changes in the page's history, so an editor has to manually change the table code to the previous format only to be able to check for changes in the table. Scarbrowtalk 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat unavoidable, unfortunately, due to how FCK works with tables. However, it will only happen once to them, as they get converted to the slightly longer form. 14:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be quite a problem for a table like this one. Glad we don't have it on fr.guildwars. — TulipVorlax 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly I recognise the possible issue there. I will bring it up, though I cannot promise anything. However, there is the ability to switch off the new editor on specific pages if it is going to be a major issue (see Help:New editor for more info). 18:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A fast way to do is to add dummy HTML comment in a specific page. Actually it's weird that we are disallowed to use visual editor at all once the page contains HTML comments. Consider Wikipedia-like sites. They may occasionally use editors' notes. It will make the visual editor pretty pointless. Wikipedia full editor doesn't have such restrictions. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why couldn't I edit the some wikitexts
Let's say we put things like in the page:
 * ..... < /pre>
 * ..... < /ref>

The visual editor can display them in full (unlike the template, only displaying the names) but it doesn't allow us to edit directly. Why not? Wikipedia full editor allows us to edit them directly. Just point to there and type. Hopefully we can do the same here. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 19:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Creating wiki links become more painful in new visual editor
If we want a fast wiki link in the past, we simply highlight the word and click http://images.wikia.com/common/releases_200904.5/skins/common/images/button_link.png. Talking about 1 second time.

Now the visual editor presents us with a new dialog. It's nice but it doesn't take efficiency into account. No making each wikilink becomes slower and painful. Imagine if we want to make like 10+ of links. We have to load 10+ dialogs. Loading --> Dialog pops up --> type and press ok. Talking at least about 5 seconds. 10 seconds vs 50 seconds per 10 wikilinks.

You may leave the dialog option, but please add the simple shortcut too: http://images.wikia.com/common/releases_200904.5/skins/common/images/button_link.png.

It also adds some unnecessary junks. For example if the link name and the text is the same, it is displayed as link rather than link. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 19:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good point. The link creator button should have a quick link mode that doesn't ask for a label. Personally, I only use the new visual editor to find bugs and make suggestions. It is way too clunky to actually use if you are comfortable typing out wikicode. I'd rather most of it's features just be optional. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:44 PM PST 30 Apr 2009

How to reproduce the link switching bugs
Setup:

Create two sections (you can actually use 1 section but read on anyway) Sample text:

Section A

 * gen (Stat at Lv2: HP 71, 2-3-4 // Speciality: Extra Thick Skin, Net // Weapon: None)

Section B

 * punching-bag (Stat at Lv2: HP 77 2-2-4 // Speciality: None // Weapon: Knife)

Steps:

Make sure you turn on rich-text editor! 1) Edit Section A. Cut a statement with external &/or internal links. Save it. 2) Edit Section B (or re-edit Section A). Paste the statement. Save it.

Result:
 * All links are screwed up.

Is it helpful for you to pin which part is causing problems? How long could you fix it? This bug is really critical and annoying which affects us on a daily basis. --MyBrute Resource Center@Ronga 05:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, this is a cutting and pasting issue? That's one I managed to reproduce fortunately, will pass this on. Thanks for the extra info! 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick update on this: we are working on various fronts to prevent this issue from occurring. At the moment, part of our solution (which is live) is to prevent copying and pasting in situations where such breakage would occur. The explanation of why is fairly long, but a quick summary would be that if you imagine different parts of the page code are numbered: when you copy sections it is possible these numbers will show up twice on the same page, confusing the editor. 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick summary of suggestions and notes so far
19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reintroduce edittools in some fashion.
 * Tweaks to how templates are displayed.
 * Changes to how certain types of wikitext is wrapped in nowiki makers by the new editor
 * Table formatting uses longhand, rather than the sometimes more useful condensed form.
 * Improvements to the display and editing of advanced wikitext.

Preformatted text is being corrupted by extraneous line-feed characters
I was sent for a real spin after using the Visual Editor to create a page that needed to show listings of code excerpts. Traditionally this would have been achieved using either HTML pre or code tags but I decided to let the new editors PRE tool take care of these blocks of pre-formatted text. (There being no CODE tool in that editor - which is fair enough.)

The result while entering the text was perfectly fine i.e. if WYSIWYG then I'd have been happy ... but it isn't WYSIWYG. (Unfortunately this lead me into a false sense of security.) Upon preview the text that was in PRE blocks get's extra line-feeds before and after each line. This massively increases the length of each PRE block to the point where readability is abysmal and article length is frighteningly long.

Making matters worse is the fact that switching to full (source) editor and then back to new editor adds even further anomalies - mostly in the form of extra new-line characters.


 * Review this revision history comparison for an example of the damage new editor does to PRE blocks: comparison

The HTML pre tag is not being used by the PRE block. Instead a single space indent is being used ahead of every line within the block ... including blank lines. Whether this is standard Wiki markup language or not I do not recall but it is definitely causing much grief to an article that would normally be quite straight forward to create and maintain.

Adding insult to injury - now that I am using pre../pre HTML tags to achieve the desired PRE blocks for these code snippets the new editor does not render these pre blocks correctly.

I have since added the __NOWYSIWYG__ special word to that page to default to the source editor. I hope this performance of the new editor can improve - I see it has been around for 2 months or so and nobody has yet commented in this feedback thread on the mishandling of PRE blocks.

najevi 03:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point - I am not sure why the new editor is not using  blocks. While a space at the beginning of a line is appropriate for single lines, it certainly isn't for multiply lines. I will bring it up.  14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some clarification after running a controlled test. (before and after is here) The line feeds are added even if I never switch to the WML source editor. These additional new lines are added: You can run a very simple test case in your favorite sandbox to demonstrate this. If you try it and it does not reproduce for you then post here and I'll take some screen shots for you. najevi 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) after the preview button is pressed
 * 2) after the saved button is pressed


 * Thanks ... I've been able reproduce it from your sandbox. Will pass it on to the tech team. 16:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI I have an example showing that    blocks can be significantly different from using a space indent. 60.241.171.136 08:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that really clear example - I've passed it on. In your opinion, which is "better" for most cases? I lean towards  here, given how it properly treats code as code.  10:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical tags and magic words on "Main_page" are corrupted by the new editor
Using the new editor to add to the Contents section links to half a dozen articles created in the first couple of hours after creating a new wiki yielded alarming damage to some very important magic words and tags used on that page.

This is best illustrated by viewing this history comparison of the vsk.wikia.com main_page.

Very important tags and magic words were mysteriously replaced by text from the article links being added in a completely separate section of that main page:
 * mainpage-leftcolumn-start
 * SITENAME
 * NUMBEROFARTICLES
 * createbox
 * mainpage-endcolumn
 * mainpage-rightcolumn-start
 * NOTOC
 * NOEDITSECTION

Once again the expedient fix is to add the magic word __NOWYSIWYG__ to that page to guard against future disruption but that is not as good as figuring out why the new editor is being so disruptive in the first place.


 * This could very well be related to the copy and paste known bug mentioned a few posts earlier.

I support the idea of a WYSIWYG editor but in it's current form it is generating extra clean up work. najevi 04:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is extremely odd, and certainly shouldn't be happening. Do you have any idea at what point during editing the magic words got corrupted? 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The lines I'd edited (on a freshly created new wiki main page) before noticing this bug were:
 * 1) (fill in topic)
 * 2) (Month) (Year)
 * 3) the table of "Add link to article here" within Contents section

I used the "Insert/Edit link" tool from the new editor toolbar to insert the internal links for about ten articles. I do recall discovering that if I left the "Link text" input box blank then the default text that would appear when I next checked the article link properties was (of course) the article title. Whether that is significant or not I do not know. najevi 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the steps - we haven't been able to reproduce it so far, unfortunately. 11:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Spell check is deficient compared to source editor spell check
One of two things is happening. Either the new editor is not picking up on certain spelling errors by using the red underline or after saving an article from within the new editor it is injecting spelling errors. (I doubt it is the later!)

It does highlight mis-spelled words but it seems to overlook some spelling errors with no apparent pattern that I can detect.

I suppose it could also be that the spell checker parsing is somehow slower in the new editor. Bottom line is that the source editor has superior ability to highlight mis-spelled words in real time. najevi 05:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What browser are you seeing this issue on? 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.0.10 The red underlines for spelling errors does not appear until after I press the preview button. This is different than the WML source text editor in which these red underlines appear real time while entering text for an article. najevi 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This may be a limitation of the editor itself - I'll bring it up and see if I can find out more. 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article with section edit links requires NOWYSIWYG magic word in each section
The magic word __NOWYSIWYG__ is supposed to suppress the new rich text editor and instead use the WML source editor by default. That does work if the page is opened for edit but not if only one section of that article is opened for edit.

A clumsy workaround is to add __NOWYSIWYG__ in every section but I doubt that this is desirable. najevi 05:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly not desirable! As far as I recall a NOWYSIWYG magic word anywhere on the page is supposed to affect section edits. It's possible this functionality broke during development - I will bring it up. 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Translate to Dutch
Hi,

If required, I'd like to translate the visual editor to Dutch. Just leave me a message if I have to do it. Tedjuh10 - Talk 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Defaul editor
I think it would be more effective if edit window was adjusted the same way (source view or WYSIWYG) as the user preferred earlier. Sometimes make many edits that require source editing, sometimes — WYSIWYG is enough. It annoying to switch every time to source. — Hellerick 14:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that switching is annoying every time, you can disable rich text editing via user preferences, under the "Editing" tab; but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "adjusted the same wa as the user preferred earlier". Do you mean have rich text enabled or disabled depending on the user's prior preference before the release of the editor? Wjxhuang,  the 888th Avatar  {Talk} 15:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean if the previous edit was made in the source mode, then the next time the editor should open in the source mode; and if it was made in WYSIWYG mode, then the editor should open in WYSIWYG mode. It's better than to go to your preferences several times a day. — Hellerick 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility problems
The rich editor does not work at all for Opera, and there are several bugs on Internet Explorer 8; it's like a completely different editor.--D. (talk · contr) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can confirm a lot of bugs for Internet Explorer; the editor is a thin band of grey and weirdness compared to what it is supposed to be. It actually reminds me of the bad old Office XP. I don't have Opera though, don't know about that. Wjxhuang,  the 888th Avatar  {Talk} 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It also does not work for Google Chrome: it simply doesn't appear just like for Opera. --D. (talk · contr) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Chrome and Opera are not currently supported browsers. It is entirely possibly they will become so in the future, but at the moment we are primarily aiming at Firefox and Internet Explorer.
 * Can you provide a screenshot of the IE8 issue? 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The new editor is completely non-functional for me in IE8 (it has the same behaviour in both normal and compatibility modes): I get a number of alert boxes saying "Unknown toolbar item...", and then there's just the loading animation, no editor appears. (Screenshot) --Onteron (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What Onteron says. You get bunch of alerts. The editor appears after all alerts have passed on Windows XP. The wikitext source makes the coding a huge mess. --D. (talk · contr) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We can confirm this and will get it fixed as soon as possible. 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)