Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Bring back the 3.1 standard editor as an option


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
138 replies to this topic

#1 insectdude

insectdude

    IPB Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:15 AM

Apologies in advance for the length of this post.

It seems to me that most people who are seriously unhappy with the switch to CKEditor - including myself - are primarily users of the non-RTE mode.

The standard mode of the 3.2 editor has so far proved to be very buggy - I personally have submitted 8 different bug reports in the last 3 weeks related to it. Most serious was a bug involving the img tag which allowed an attacker to insert any arbitrary Javascript which would run whenever the post was viewed (you won't see this bug in the tracker as it was made private - it is fixed in 3.2.3).

Bugs aside, we also have the complete removal of bbcode insertion buttons in the standard mode. You have to type every single tag manually. I haven't used a forum editor for many years where this was required.

Also, the autosave function which was touted as one of the major advantages of the new editor, does not function in standard mode. I'm not sure if this is intended or a bug - I've submitted an issue in the tracker to find out.

I know there were many complaints about the RTE mode of the 3.1 editor. However, I'm not aware of any complaints from users of the standard bbcode mode. Personally I was extremely happy with it, the buttons saved me a lot of time and I never experienced any problems with it. My members were happy too, and all knew how to use it because the concept of bbcode has been standard across forum software for many years.

In short, there's are no advantages to the 3.2 editor for standard mode users, and many disadvantages.

The primary issue given in Matt's blog back in February for changing to CKEditor was the difficulty of maintaining and developing a rich text editor with constantly evolving browser standards. So the decision does seem to have been driven by the RTE mode.

My suggestion therefore, is this. Bring back the 3.1 standard editor, without its RTE mode.

Make it possible for admins to choose between using CKEditor, with its two modes, and the 3.1 bbcode-only editor as the default option. Let members choose too in their User CPs. Those happy with CKEditor could continue to use it, while those who are upset by all its missing functionality and bugginess can switch back.

IPS wouldn't have to maintain its own proprietary rich text editor as this mode would only be available for those choosing to use CKEditor. And presumably the amount of development involved in making the standard 3.1 editor compatible with IPB 3.2 would be minimal, compared to further hacking CKEditor to support raw bbcode insertion.

I would be more than happy to sacrifice the ability to switch between standard and RTE modes in the editor if it meant I could get all the other 3.1 functionality back. It seems like all the development time needed to adapt the 3.2 editor to restore full bbcode functionality is a waste when you could probably satisfy most complainants by simply integrating the 3.1 standard editor and giving admins this option.

Please at least consider this. Not everyone wants to use a rich text editor on forums.
  • Donkerrood, PrinceOfAbyss, Lockjit and 8 others like this

#2 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:28 AM

*snip

YES.... as a coder... ive NEVER had any use for ANY RTE... all it amounts to is an annoyance... CKE triply so...
1000% agreed.... 3.1.x I never had to be afraid of codebox usage.... let the folks have their glorified garbage chomping RTE... give us back the WORKING simple bbcode editor.
  • PrinceOfAbyss likes this

#3 Lewis P

Lewis P

    *insert witty comment*

  • +Clients
  • 2,098 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:30 AM

No thanks. Like anything, it just takes time to mature. CKE in 3.2.3 is the best one yet as far as I can tell.

Oh, and it means more debugging for making apps that use the editor - it's already a pain to get working right!
  • AndyF and Marcher Technologies like this

#4 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:32 AM

No thanks. Like anything, it just takes time to mature. CKE in 3.2.3 is the best one yet as far as I can tell.

Oh, and it means more debugging for making apps that use the editor - it's already a pain to get working right!

...no argument sadly... it IS a flat pain to get working proper... can we win for losing???
can we get a TRUE STD editor out of the CKE(AFAIK STD!=no bbcode buttons)?

#5 Lewis P

Lewis P

    *insert witty comment*

  • +Clients
  • 2,098 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:36 AM

can we get a TRUE STD editor out of the CKE?

I haven't personally even looked at the CKE source, but I don't see why it couldn't be made to work correctly - even if it takes some work and lots of maintenance, anything is possible.
  • Marcher Technologies likes this

#6 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:39 AM

I haven't personally even looked at the CKE source, but I don't see why it couldn't be made to work correctly - even if it takes some work and lots of maintenance, anything is possible.

I have... its... eesh... a mess..
CKE in IPB is run through IPB internal bbcode processing...
Which is precisely why even going through all the motions of "enabling" a CKE advanced feature wont help unless its in the IPB core.... which from what im being told, is a similar issue to the simple buttons gone poof.

#7 insectdude

insectdude

    IPB Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:41 AM

Like anything, it just takes time to mature.

It's nearly 4 months and 3 minor releases since 3.2 was launched and I've yet to see even an acknowledgement by IPS that the missing standard mode functionality will be added back (specifically the bbcode insertion buttons). They have many other things to be working on, such as all the addon apps. The 3.1 standard editor is already mature and proven. Why duplicate the effort? How long will we have to wait for it to happen?
  • PrinceOfAbyss and EBrown like this

#8 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:44 AM

It's nearly 4 months and 3 minor releases since 3.2 was launched and I've yet to see even an acknowledgement by IPS that the missing standard mode functionality will be added back (specifically the bbcode insertion buttons). They have many other things to be working on, such as all the addon apps. The 3.1 standard editor is already mature and proven. Why duplicate the effort? How long will we have to wait for it to happen?

while not on a user-by-user basis... i do happen to know if twas a 3.1.x upgrade... the code is still there... in fact most apps have had to manually switch the call for 3.2.x... just saying, one could viably swap it back(though youd have to hunt down every swap to cke and revert the code)

#9 insectdude

insectdude

    IPB Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:47 AM

while not on a user-by-user basis... i do happen to know if twas a 3.1.x upgrade... the code is still there... in fact most apps have had to manually switch the call for 3.2.x... just saying, one could viably swap it back(though youd have to hunt down every swap to cke and revert the code)

That would make my site unsupported by IPS though, which is not something I'm willing to do at the moment. I'm not confident enough in my coding ability to make it happen either, sadly.

#10 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:48 AM

That would make my site unsupported by IPS though, which is not something I'm willing to do at the moment. I'm not confident enough in my coding ability to make it happen either, sadly.

never said I would recommend doing that... simply stating it is "possible"

#11 insectdude

insectdude

    IPB Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:50 AM

never said I would recommend doing that... simply stating it is "possible"

Yep and I appreciate the info. Maybe if it becomes clear that the old functionality is not coming back I might have to consider this more seriously.

#12 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 09:55 AM

Yep and I appreciate the info. Maybe if it becomes clear that the old functionality is not coming back I might have to consider this more seriously.

This is feedback of prime... a LOT of us have NO use for an RTE... fix "simple" mode please... buttons must be enabled.... pretty certain THAT simply would be answered with glee by customers opposed to CKE.

#13 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:01 AM

oh... and this:
$this->registry->getClass('output')->buildUrl('blah', 'publicWithApp')
is flat unacceptable....
Never before have i been unwilling to use a codebox.... which is saddening... as without it proper syntax highlighting vanishes.

#14 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:10 AM

oh... and this:

$this->registry->getClass('output')->buildUrl('blah', 'publicWithApp')
is flat unacceptable....
Never before have i been unwilling to use a codebox.... which is saddening... as without it proper syntax highlighting vanishes.

as a note... i did NOT doctor that
'
'


#15 insectdude

insectdude

    IPB Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:11 AM

I think that issue with using the ' character in the code box is probably a result of the fix to the img tag JS injection bug I mentioned.

#16 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:16 AM

I think that issue with using the ' character in the code box is probably a result of the fix to the img tag JS injection bug I mentioned.

so 1 step forward... 2 back with every "Fix".... Awesome.

#17 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:22 AM

Maybe this is JUST ME, but i feel the horse is being placed in FRONT of the cart here...
STD integration should be a higher priority than RTE....
AS once the STD is sorted... the RTE NATURALLY follows suit.

#18 insectdude

insectdude

    IPB Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 10:27 AM

On a similar theme I don't think ease of maintenance or development should be placed ahead of functionality or ease of use.

There's no point having an editor that's easy to maintain and integrate if it doesn't have the features that users want. That's a common mistake in software development. Users should come first.
  • T3XT3, rgf100 and Marcher Technologies like this

#19 Aisha

Aisha

    Unrequited Love

  • Visitors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,063 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:21 AM

Maybe this is JUST ME, but i feel the horse is being placed in FRONT of the cart here...
STD integration should be a higher priority than RTE....
AS once the STD is sorted... the RTE NATURALLY follows suit.

Pardon the tangent but...isn't that where you'd want a horse to be? O.o
  • Jay , Donkerrood, Ryan H. and 2 others like this
Last Updated --



I'm not a troll. I'm just misunderstood. I'm better than you though. Understand?

#20 Marcher Technologies

Marcher Technologies

    $life=FALSE;$code=TRUE;$time--;

  • +Clients
  • 11,762 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 12:47 PM

Pardon the tangent but...isn't that where you'd want a horse to be? O.o

totally meant reverse... cart in front of horse.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users