NewRockRabbit

I don't know why you don't see this in 3.3.x, but I observed this from the very beginning. The Firefox bug you reported was already in 3.2.x  when CKEditor was introduced. I recently upgraded from 3.2.3 to 3.4.3 and I don't see any difference in Firefox behaviour.

Wierd - I went from 3.14 to 3.3.1 and have never had this problem pasting in FF in the IPB editor nor have any of my users.

Anyway, its such a basic requirement for an editor and FF has such a significant user base, that I'm simply amazed an editor is being used with such a significant usability glitch.

Just looked at my post and it says 3.49 undefined in the quote - where on earth did that come from????

I think that the problem with the 3.4 editor goes beyond the BBCode and HTML issue.

I currently use 3.3.1 and the editor works fine for me. All my users want to do enter basic text, paste the odd image and text,  and paste in links - no-one posting on my forum uses BBCode or HTML.

But if I update to 3.4, my users will lose the ability to simply copy / paste text, links etc into the editor if my use FF, 25% of my userbase. Now I'm sure there is a way round this, but nothing intuitive. I use a lot of forums and they all allow me to do a simple copy / paste into messages using FF - but not IPB 3.4.

I've reported this as a bug and been told its not a bug but a problem with FF. Be that as it may, its not a problem with 3.3.1 not other forums I use. Whatever the cause, it makes it impossible for me to upgrade to 3.4. This IS a problem with the 3.4 editor.

I think perhaps IPB is trying to create an editor to be all things to all users and this strategy is failing. Maybe IPB need to cover two distinct editors, one with all the BBCode bells and whistles etc and one, simple editor for those forums which need little more than a simple text, copy/paste function.

I don't really agree with this.  When I browse a website, I never pay attention to the URL, and I'm a developer who understands all this.  The typical user (young, old, experienced, inexperienced) does not really care what the URL is - they care about what is on the page and reaching the page(s) they want to reach.  If the URL said "/this_is_a_nuclear_reactor" and the content of the page was about butterflies, some users may spot this and be curious what the deal is, but I think the typical user really just browses around the net, not really caring what it says in the address bar unless they run into a specified need to know.

But Google etc prefer a logical directory structure - their guidance and Matt Cutts have said so - IPB and IPC make it very difficult to create that structure.

DEVs have stated multiple times... Tell them what, specifically, you're looking for documentation for and they can write it up. 

 

Your examples are a start.  If you can elaborate on exactly what you're looking for they have a better chance of making it.  

But there have been many posts about lack of documentation, particularly in relation to IP.Content, but this rarely results in any any action.

For example, the documentation in relation to IP.Content is all over the place. You have a section called 'suite guides' with
an IPC heading but no guide. Then there are 'Community Articles' which contains a right old hotch potch of articles with a very narrow focus.
Finally there is 'old documentation' which has guides on IPC in three different sections - including a section called 'new documents' (new
documents within a section called old documentation? - go figure). Its not clear whether 'old documentation' is still valid, partly valid or irrelevant for current software.

The IP.Content documents in particular do not form a set of integrated documents but appear to be rather a collection of random articles on some specific aspects of the software. This is partly why the same questions about IP.Content keep coming up time and time again. Perhaps all the information is in the documents but it is very hard to find.

Until the documentation is structured in a logical way with clarity as to which versions of software it applies to it is very hard even to suggest what is missing.

Recently upgraded www.heosforo.net

I'm VERY impressed!