Soon to Be Released CKEditor 4 Features New Skin And Inline Editing 69
PsxMeUP writes "CKEditor, one of the world's most popular WYSIWYG HTML editors, is getting a new default skin. The winner, Rafal Bromirski, will also receive $1000. The new design is going with the trendy monochrome look. The skin will be used with the soon-to-be-released CKEditor 4, which will feature inline editing."
I recommend checking out the inline editing demo. Who needs textarea any more?
Slashvertising. (Score:0, Insightful)
Never heard of CKEditor and I could care less that version 4 is out, let alone that yet another pointless closed source editor gave some sucker $1000 for doing something that they SHOULD have paid their employees a lot more to do.
More Gray?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, what is wrong with color in a UI?
Noooooooooo! (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank $DEITY this is an option. (It is an option, right?) A bit of color is a GOOD thing. With monochromatic icons, you need to inspect each icon carefully to discern its shape. With color, your eyes can quickly jump to the right one, especially if you've used it for a while. It just becomes automatic, like muscle memory.
The old icons were great. The ones that were just for text were black (bold, ital, underline, left/right/center). Text+decoration were black and colored (lists, indent, super/subscript). Separate functions (import from Word, clean up, spellcheck, table) were colorful. (As were "text color" and "highlight", FFS.)
This is NOT progress. :-|
Side note: Today I learned that "Noooooooooo" in a subject is OK, but one more "o" results in "Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Too much repetition." Remember: Ten "O"s, kids. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
Re:Noooooooooo! (Score:5, Insightful)
With color, your eyes can quickly jump to the right one...
Which is great for people with color sight. As a colorblind person I can testify that this is of no use to me whatsoever. Now, before you 'color' (<- clever, no?) me an activist lemme just say that this is not a big deal to me, I'm comfortable in my disability and am not advocating some kind of radical, PETA-esque change in society. But your very first statement; "With monochromatic icons, you need to inspect each icon carefully to discern its shape.", well, sorry but I just don't find this to be too much of a burden. Yes, I do it as a matter of course. But do you REALLY need the extra help?
I like the trend to less chromatic styles, its helps me and I believe it lends itself to a more streamlined, uniform look for all of us. Its hardly anything to get activist about, but like the 2nd law I tend to less complexity anyway.
Re:Noooooooooo! (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew someone would bring this up. No, it's not much of a burden, but if color makes it better for fully-sighted people (who, by the way, greatly outnumber people with any amount or kind of color blindness -- not that we're therefore more important, it's simply a question of what does the most good for the most people) then why not leave it in? Plus it's not like I'm advocating making a TV louder, which would help a hearing-impaired person watch a show but would cause discomfort for others. If something helps one group and has no impact on another, why not do it?
Totally blind people can't see icons at all. Does that mean the icons should be replaced with BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE STRIKETHROUGH NUMBERED LIST BULLETED LIST INDENT OUTDENT SUBSCRIPT SUPERSCRIPT TEXT COLOR HIGHLIGHT COLOR MAKE LINK BREAK LINK LEFT ALIGN CENTER RIGHT ALIGN so you have the same experience a blind person has with a screen reader? After all, it's not much of a burden on you, right?
That's what separates something that is merely "usable" from things that are truly "good" -- a thousand little details, all adding up to a better experience. Is this the end of the world? No. Is it a step backwards? Yes.