Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-33168089-20170821015513/@comment-27345308-20170918185831

Fandyllic wrote: A) You're talking about fully WYSIWYG editor that replicates at least 80-90% of the source editor capabilities which Fandom doesn't have nearly enough dev resources to pull off. Aka it's a pipe dream. Correct, that's why you can submit feedback on Lucy hoping that feedback will be used in a new visual editor that will replace two currently crappy ones. If Wikia actually wanted to replace the actual editors they wouldn't make a team that small for implementing Lucy. Fandyllic wrote: B) I mentioned a pseudo WYSIWYG editor, because that's the best we can hope for. Atlassian has already pioneered the WYSIWYG editor as the prime method of content creation in Confluence (corporate wiki that's major feature is tie in to JIRA) and guess what happened? They took away most of the markup editing support and have almost no customizability. Does that sound like a viable direction for Fandom content creation? Sure if you want crappy cookie-cutter wikis. I'm sure Wikia will be able to provide more customizability in a WYSIWYG editor. A Staff member mentioned implementing widgets that could be populated with JavaScript into Lucy (though I'm pretty sure that hasn't been implemented yet).