On Wed 25 Apr 2007, "M.B.Gaved" M.B.Gaved@open.ac.uk wrote:
I waver between simplified wiki-markup, html, and WYSIWYG editors. I could be argued that far more people are exposed to word processors than html. I really don't know about the amount of HTML usage but I think that in some cases even this is too much to ask. I think it depends on the audience you are trying to encourage to contribute to the wiki. In the Milton Keynes Open Guide I'd say we see very little evidence of HTML usage by contributors, mainly just plain text entries. Love to hear everybody's opinion on this!
A few quick thoughts:
I don't think there is a best solution - I think it all depends on your audience. How do you find out what your audience finds least annoying/confusing? Talk to them, and listen to their answers.
Different OpenGuides might need different solutions!
I had awful trouble trying to edit the Wiki Wednesdays wiki earlier today because it dumped me into the "word processor" view and so I couldn't see how previous editors had achieved the results that I was seeing on the page. I figured out that I needed to switch it to the "Advanced" view, and all became clear.
I say if someone wants to use HTML, then let them. If someone wants to use wiki markup, then let them. I have no objection to both being used on the same page - I don't think consistency is necessary here, because you can see the results in the preview; you can see whether what you're doing has your desired effect, and the existence of more than one way to do something is really not a shatteringly new concept.
Kake