Board Thread:New Features/@comment-2240397-20160318153556/@comment-3032314-20160321191042

Dessamator wrote: DarthKitty wrote: Will users who set their preferred editor to "Source editor" have to go through the UI (and an additional server request) to get there? I'm sure that would annoy a lot of people, myself included. It won't generally be a problem because most handcrafted templates are likely to be incompatible with it, and if people really want the source editor then can always use the "?useeditor=source" switch. Perhaps they'll make a change to the edit dropdown to include the "true" source editor, just like ve & "re". Although creating a brand new infobox template with infobox "type" will always pull people into the builder. That could be changed I guess.

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&mdash;a WYSIWYG editor for portable infoboxes&mdash;if it didn't work with hand-built ones?

"[I]f people really want the source editor then can always use the '?useeditor=source' switch."

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

"Perhaps they'll make a change to the edit dropdown to include the 'true' source editor, just like ve & 're'."

With the VisualEditor at least (not sure what "re" stands for), the user's preferences are respected. 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. :)

EDIT: "re" probably stands for "Rich-text editor", a.k.a. the "Classic editor" or "that thing that everyone hated". I think it acted like the VisualEditor when your preferred editor was set to "Source editor", but there was no dropdown option to use it.