Standard Editor BBCode Buttons

[shought]

From reading the IPB Company Blog and some Community Feedback topics I gather that there are quite some IPB customers who would like to see the ability to make use of the BBCode Buttons in the Standard Editor.

Some examples:

-

-

-

-

-

In one of these blogs someone suggested making a poll. I searched but couldn't find one, so here it is.

As mentioned please specify the reason why you still use the Standard Editor (at times), if you do; it might help the developers understand why there is a demand for BBCode functionality within the Standard Editor.

[Wolfie]

No offense but I can tell you right now this will be a waste of time. The developers do their best to cram in as much stuff as they can without crossing the line into bloat and without doing so much that the next version never gets released. They do what they can within the time they can and as much as I would like to have certain functions available within the source/STD editor (which I prefer to use), it's not so important to me that I think they should stop everything else just to work on it.

[Makoto]

In some sense, I think if you want to use the standard editor, you should understand BBCode enough to write and use it yourself without needing buttons.

If it was possible to add support for BBCode buttons without requiring hours of work, I'd support it.

[KT Walrus]

I'd rather see support for BBCodes deprecated (only supported in old posts) and have buttons that insert the equivalent HTML in the WYSIWG editor. The standard editor would just be used for viewing HTML created by the WYSIWG editor (and allow direct editing of the HTML in the standard editor for advanced users).

BBCode served its purposes before safety checking HTML could be done by the forum software. Time to move on. It is almost 2013 after all.

[Marcher Technologies]

I'd rather see support for BBCodes deprecated (only supported in old posts) and have buttons that insert the equivalent HTML in the WYSIWG editor. The standard editor would just be used for viewing HTML created by the WYSIWG editor (and allow direct editing of the HTML in the standard editor for advanced users).

BBCode served its purposes before safety checking HTML could be done by the forum software. Time to move on. It is almost 2013 after all.

<blockquote data-time="1354933323" data-cid="2341979" data-author="KT Walrus" class="ipsBlockquote"><p>I'd rather see support for BBCodes deprecated (only supported in old posts) and have buttons that insert the equivalent HTML in the WYSIWG editor.&nbsp; The standard editor would just be used for viewing HTML created by the WYSIWG editor (and allow direct editing of the HTML in the standard editor for advanced users).</p><p><br></p><p>BBCode served its purposes before safety checking HTML could be done by the forum software.&nbsp; Time to move on.&nbsp; It is almost 2013 after all.<br type="_moz"></p></blockquote>

I would have no problem with that cleaned up a bit personally, but then again, this assumes everyone is happy to throw out disallowing html posting globally, which I think is sufficiently dead in IPBoard, is just filtered now. :unsure:

[Makoto]

BBCode served its purposes before safety checking HTML could be done by the forum software. Time to move on. It is almost 2013 after all.

On the contrary, BBCode still does serve an important purpose.

See spoiler and media tags, for example.

Trying to hack everything to function all pretty using purely buttons in the RTE is just bloat, slow and unnecessary.

[Marcher Technologies]

On the contrary, BBCode still does serve an important purpose.

See spoiler and media tags, for example.

Trying to hack everything to function all pretty using purely buttons in the RTE is just bloat, slow and unnecessary.

you miss it so hawd :smile:

<blockquote data-time="1354933323" data-cid="2341979" data-author="KT Walrus" class="ipsBlockquote">
have buttons that insert the equivalent HTML in the STD editor.
</blockquote>

have buttons that insert the equivalent HTML in the STD editor.

<spoiler>hidden</spoiler>

hidden

The diff is... what exactly so long as the replacements are done?

Also, a lot easier to implement if you think on it, a huge part of the framework exists to support it within the rte mode itself, is just escaping the result of what you would insert for rte, that, and swapping the bbcode system over to use lt/gt(not immediately even necessary, as the rte inserts bbcodes atm anyway).

It would also reduce the insane conversions possible/needed in the swap to do the latter as a note for the custom bbcodes rte'd.

I voted yes by the way, i would very much like to stay in std mode(RTE kills my posts too often), but am not pleased with typing everything out.

[shought]

No offense but I can tell you right now this will be a waste of time. The developers do their best to cram in as much stuff as they can without crossing the line into bloat and without doing so much that the next version never gets released. They do what they can within the time they can and as much as I would like to have certain functions available within the source/STD editor (which I prefer to use), it's not so important to me that I think they should stop everything else just to work on it.

The developers have acknowledged the large user base requesting for this functionality before, however (as it seems) at some point they decided their personal feelings (or sense of some 'greater good') about this functionality were more important than what quite some users requested.

In some sense, I think if you want to use the standard editor, you should understand BBCode enough to write and use it yourself without needing buttons.

If it was possible to add support for BBCode buttons without requiring hours of work, I'd support it.

This reasoning is flawed. You're basically saying that any programming (PHP writers, ASP writers, etc.) tool should be abandoned, because you should be able to write the code yourself. The buttons are about increasing productivity, not about whether you understand what you're doing or not.

Of course I have a sufficient understanding of BBCode to write it myself, but that doesn't take away the fact that it increases my productivity when these buttons are enabled; it's much faster to select some text and press the bold button than to go to the place where you want the boldness to start, insert [ b ] and then go to the place where you want it to end and insert [ / b ].

I'd rather see support for BBCodes deprecated (only supported in old posts) and have buttons that insert the equivalent HTML in the WYSIWG editor. The standard editor would just be used for viewing HTML created by the WYSIWG editor (and allow direct editing of the HTML in the standard editor for advanced users).

BBCode served its purposes before safety checking HTML could be done by the forum software. Time to move on. It is almost 2013 after all.

BBCode still serves a useful purposes for communities (or forums) where HTML is disabled (which I would imagine accounts for a lot of the IPB communities out there). Besides that you're not discussing the actual point here: if BBCode were to be deprecated the alternative would be a WYSIWYG editor and a standard (HTML) editor. I would still like buttons such as 'Bold' to be available in the standard (HTML) editor, if this were the case.

[Wolfie]

The developers have acknowledged the large user base requesting for this functionality before, however (as it seems) at some point they decided their personal feelings (or sense of some 'greater good') about this functionality were more important than what quite some users requested.

They do what they feel is best not only for the clients but best use of the time allotted for the next version.

[shought]

They do what they feel is best not only for the clients but best use of the time allotted for the next version.

Of course, I never suggested they didn't.

However what they think is best for all clients isn't necessarily best for all clients, that is what I suggested.

Hence this poll.

[Makoto]

you miss it so hawd :smile:

Was there a point to your statement? The only thing you did was replace the brackets with < >'s

How exactly is that going to make things any different? You want people to use fake HTML instead of BBCode? That is silly. By the way, Hawd is a region of thorn-bush and grasslands in the Horn of Africa. I think you meant to use "hard" there.

This reasoning is flawed. You're basically saying that any programming (PHP writers, ASP writers, etc.) tool should be abandoned, because you should be able to write the code yourself. The buttons are about increasing productivity, not about whether you understand what you're doing or not.

Of course I have a sufficient understanding of BBCode to write it myself, but that doesn't take away the fact that it increases my productivity when these buttons are enabled; it's much faster to select some text and press the bold button than to go to the place where you want the boldness to start, insert [ b ] and then go to the place where you want it to end and insert [ / b ].

What? Where did I say that? Also, who in the hell uses buttons on an IDE for efficient programming? You use keyboard shortcuts to complete statements if anything, you should very rarely ever need to use any "buttons" to insert anything but a codes framework. It's cumbersome to rely purely on graphical buttons to do almost everything you need.

If you just want to click on buttons to apply formatting to everything, why do you even want BBCode buttons? Why not just use the RTE as is? If you want to go in and fine tune something after you write it, just switch to the regular editor and do it that way. It's perfectly efficient in that sense.

[Marcher Technologies]

If you just want to click on buttons to apply formatting to everything, why do you even want BBCode buttons? Why not just use the RTE as is? If you want to go in and fine tune something after you write it, just switch to the regular editor and do it that way. It's perfectly efficient in that sense.

How? when i swap, it mangles my input, when in RTE, everything comes to unmanageable sizes.
No, I do NOT want to stare a set of pictures down and try to arrange them in the editor, same for quotes, code, or any of this nonsense.
It is in no way an efficient editing mode.

Was there a point to your statement? The only thing you did was replace the brackets with < >'s

How exactly is that going to make things any different? You want people to use fake HTML instead of BBCode? That is silly. By the way, Hawd is a region of thorn-bush and grasslands in the Horn of Africa. I think you meant to use "hard" there.

My point is there is no difference..... bbcode is basically fake html with string operations performed on it.
You still do not get that bbcode is merely a syntax and strings, be it < > or [ ] there is 0 diff. Who is being silly? :whistle:
I have no problem with the editor inserting the html un-parsed for me to use in STD, and swapping to such on switch.
I do have a problem with the choice of having to manually type everything out, or having to try to re-arrange overblown parsed items in the editor.
I still copy out my post before I swap, or save, every, single, time, just in case I have to fix it, and often do need to.
I happen to very much appreciate this statement:

CKEditor (and others) are still What You See is What You Almost/Not Get editors. :cry:

[Makoto]

How? when i swap, it mangles my input, when in RTE, everything comes to unmanageable sizes.

No, I do NOT want to stare a set of pictures down and try to arrange them in the editor, same for quotes, code, or any of this nonsense.

It is in no way an efficient editing mode.

You are entirely correct. But that's because the RTE right now is mildly unstable and needs improvement. Ideally, if it worked as intended, it would be efficient I can't stand trying to manage everything in the RTE as well, so I know where you're coming from there. But when I want to attach an image, I just type the BBCocde tag out by hand, as I usually do. Though I understand not everyone is used to doing that and for some things (such as lists) it may be easier to have the old BBCode buttons back.

My point is there is no difference..... bbcode is basically fake html with string operations performed on it.

You still do not get that bbcode is merely a syntax and strings, be it < > or [ ] there is 0 diff. Who is being silly? :whistle:

I have no problem with the editor inserting the html un-parsed for me to use in STD, and swapping to such on switch.

I do have a problem with the choice of having to manually type everything out, or having to try to re-arrange overblown parsed items in the editor.

I still copy out my post before I swap, or save, every, single, time, just in case I have to fix it, and often do need to.

I fully understand what BBCode is and how it functions, trust me.

I completely agree that the editor right now is a bit of a buggy mess, though it has improved to some extent.

Keeping in mind that you don't need to switch just to add simple BBCode tags in, such as image tags. So you don't have to worry about the RTE mangling your code for everything.

[Marcher Technologies]

Keeping in mind that you don't need to switch just to add simple BBCode tags in, such as image tags. So you don't have to worry about the RTE mangling your code for everything.

I miss those days.

Those days were.... nice. Such is not the case in 3.4

Either type everything manually in std, or switch to RTE and back incessantly. I used to use simple tags(code is actually relegated to simple imo) typed out in RTE, insert complex formatting like alignment, font, and lists with the buttons.

No longer possible.

[Makoto]

I miss those days.

Those days were.... nice. Such is not the case in 3.4

Well, I don't have much to say to that, other than I hope that doesn't become a global phenomenon.

Who knows though.

If so many people so badly want the old editor back, I wonder how hard it would honestly be for someone from the community to maintain a list of file edits to apply to bring it back.

[shought]

What? Where did I say that? Also, who in the hell uses buttons on an IDE for efficient programming? You use keyboard shortcuts to complete statements if anything, you should very rarely ever need to use any "buttons" to insert anything but a codes framework. It's cumbersome to rely purely on graphical buttons to do almost everything you need.

If you just want to click on buttons to apply formatting to everything, why do you even want BBCode buttons? Why not just use the RTE as is? If you want to go in and fine tune something after you write it, just switch to the regular editor and do it that way. It's perfectly efficient in that sense.

You didn't say it with that many words, but your reasoning was extendable to the argument I used.

In some sense, I think if you want to use the standard editor, you should understand BBCode enough to write and use it yourself without needing buttons.

If it was possible to add support for BBCode buttons without requiring hours of work, I'd support it.

(In bold) you state that the fact that I am using the standard editor suggests that I (at least should) understand BBCode enough to write it myself, without buttons (or keyboard shortcuts, for that matter, if it were possible to press 'Ctrl + B' to wrap the selected text in bold tags it'd be fine with me as well).

So I extended that argument into me understanding PHP for instance: should the fact that I understand it enough to write it myself be a reason for me not to use buttons (or keyboard shortcuts) which increase my productivity? Same argument, slightly different situation where it becomes more clear (in my eyes) that the reasoning is flawed.

The reason why I want to be able to productively use the standard editor and suggest my staff members to do the same thing is because using the standard editor actually makes you understand what you write (or at least provides the possibility). In the RTE editor you just click some buttons and stuff changes without you realizing what you're actually doing. If errors occur (which happens all the time) most members won't have a clue as to how to fix them because they don't realize there's simple BBCode 'behind' those visual flaws; they end up asking a staff member to fix their posts.

[Temp Forum Account 2012]

After I upgraded my forum to 3.3 it was a real nightmare. Almost everyone had problems using the new editor because it has various bugs in various browsers (I have yet to find a browser where everything works). Someone is whining whether the programmers should spend "hours" fixing the RTE editor. Well they wasted hours of my time by doing next to zero QA before cramming a new editor in. I won't upgrade to another version of IPBoard until the editor is completely fixed to my satisfaction. Based on the inane comments from IPBoard employees, I expect this to be never. That's fine, I know Javascript, HTML, and PHP as well as any of them, so I'll simply hack the existing codebase into my own forked version of IPB. As far as I am concerned, Invision Power can suck it. Upgrading to 3.3 was the dumbest thing I ever did.

[Lewis P]

And what version were you using previously? Because the new text editor came into play during 3.2.x....

[mat206]

The beauty of bbcode is that a simple bbcode can be expanded to become complex html we wouldn't want the user to have to type in for consistency purposes. The stupid thing going on here is that they keep trying to translate bbcode to html so that your bbcodes are mangled when you go back to edit the same post. I really don't get why they can't leave the post intact as is with all the bbcodes left alone. Filter whatever html is generated and translate the bbcodes in the cached format. Just.. don't ever, ever, ever change what the user entered into the editor.

Like.. ever.

[PeterUK]

While I would like to see the buttons back, I do understand why they're not.

The editor is CKEditor, and it physically doesn't support having the RTE buttons turned on while RTE mode is turned off, including that functionality would mean ripping into CKEditor source to enable them and probably making it so that it was pretty impossible to keep the CKEditor base up to date because of all the changes. Someone should have really thought about this before promises were made to the community regarding it, because I believe Wolfie is correct in saying it will never happen.

Not to mention that since CKEditor doesn't support BBCode the buttons would all have to be modified to insert BBCodes rather than HTML.

[jchoate]

Much like many who not like Windows 8 because it changes a mode of operation that they have learned and mastered over the last 20 years, some of us that have been using IPB since day one (and it's precursors) and "know" the BBCode by heart. It's ingrained in how we use the forum. When it changes, it disrupts the flow and forces a relearn.

It would also be nice if the editor would parse correctly and not leave a bunch of raw HTML on display in a post when someone quotes another post.

[shought]

I really appreciate the input from the staff in this topic, by the way. Must make all those customers feel like someone is actually listening to them.

The fact that you (IPS) provide the best forum software out there (no, really, don't kid yourself: IPB is still the best forum software out there and I recognize that) doesn't mean you can just slack of and ignore a lot of users. If you do competitors will catch up and start gaining market share on you guys.

[Darksbane0]

Well IPS has commented on this topic multiple times before. I disagree with their position and hate the RTE but I doubt after all this time there is anything we could do to change their mind.