Board Thread:New Features/@comment-2240397-20160318153556/@comment-24473195-20160321205353

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'most handcrafted templates are likely to be incompatible'. Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of building this tool—a WYSIWYG editor for portable infoboxes—if it didn't work with hand-built ones?"

Well, I meant that currently they aren't compatible because the tool seems to mark the templates it created and only allows the GUI editor for those. Eventually all portable templates will possibly be edited with the GUI. In any case, a good GUI completely eliminates the need for a source editor. Few people know how to use the markup to generate a PDF document for example.

"That sounds like bad UX to me. Users shouldn't have to do extra work to access basic functionality."

A worse UX is one  with many options for a single action. Editing is a single action, whether you do it visually or using source. The more options, the worse a software tends to become and with more complex code and bugs to deal with. In fact, currently, Wikia has 5 different editors.

"Since my preferred editor is set to 'Source editor', when I click the 'edit' button I go there. If I want to use the VisualEditor, I can do so by clicking the dropdown. That's how the (new) Infobox Builder should work. :)"

That's not always the case, for instance, despite choosing the VisualEditor, in some namespaces it can't work properly, so it falls back to the source editor. When you add a category using the category tool at the bottom of every page, you aren't pulled into the source editor instead. So there are exceptions to the rule.

Although for consistency sake they may decide to follow the preferences.