Christoph Rabel 4 Years Ago - Edited Thanks for the info! A reworked editor would be quite nice. In general, AlloyEditor works quite well for some usecases, but we often had to change something because clients required it. It was really annoying to change its behavior, add or remove items. We e.g. had to remove the h1 tag since a page should only one h1 tag and editors should not be able to use it. Or another client wanted table support (a standard feature of CKEditor). Or instead of the image tag a <figure> tag should be used/inserted. And so on. Long story short: When you remake the editor, make it easy to add/remove features. You won't be able to accommodate all needs OOB. But making it extensible would help me do whatever my client requires without too much ado. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Lee Jordan 4 Years Ago - Edited This is very positive! To Christoph's point "make it easy to add/remove features" ... this is crucial, but let's go beyond crucial. Let's bake it in. Let's create a fluid editor not ridged one. Consider that it is much more efficient for the vendor to make ALL features available OOTB and offer a configuration UI which checkboxes for portal admins to turn off features. It's far easier to do that than intentionally put out a product with less features and expect the community to deal with it and put the features back. To that end, may I suggest configuration profiles please? Ship it with the configuration profile that Liferay deem appropriate like the application decorators "Barebone", "Content Generation", "Content Review", "Full Power User" and don't mandate that we can only choose one profile for the whole portal right? Blogs may require one profile that gives priority to quotations, citations and image manipulation, web content may (should) require the Full Fat experience, threads may just need Barebone. And allow the content creator to Choose which tools they need and to that end these profiles shouldn't be configuration settings at all they should be a dropdown list right there for the user to choose what editor mode suits best the task they have in-front of them. In time I believe TinyMCE would have been the better choice. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Krzysztof Gołębiowski 4 Years Ago - Edited I like the way Liferay decided to go with WYSIWYG Editor, so far in my career I've never had to replace default CKEditor with any other tool. The only action that always happens is extending its features with plugins or modification of existing functionality (e.g. removing h1 tag already mentioned by Christoph). Currently, the only feature that is missing in current CKEditor is the possibility to define different editor configuration for different roles (a bit similar case to what Lee said). I was asked for this a few times already and usually, my client wanted very basic controls for regular editors (e.g. headers and two/three styles) and then full-featured CKEditor menu for Reviewers or Admins. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel Christoph Rabel Krzysztof Gołębiowski 4 Years Ago - Edited In my experience, so far, the limited editor is perfect for the new content pages. Simple html is enough there. If they need something "special", we can make a widget for that and they simply place it wherever they want. That's pretty neat. But it is not so nice for Webcontent. It is too limited. I also fully agree with Krzysztof, different "kinds of editors" should see different menus. The skill levels are vastly different, in each company we have editors who are overwhelmed by many buttons. HTML? -> Panic! And others who are perfectly able to edit the html. So, long story short: Thumbs up for that request! I'd like to add something: One thing that needs a lot of love are images. It is still terribly hard to create a webcontent with images. 1) Please try to resize an image by dragging the corner to exactly 320px width, I dare you. 2) Extra settings for images: Border yes/no. Margin please (When I place to images next to each other, there is no gap between them. That might be what I want. Or not). Subtitles, please. figure tag, please? And so on. 3) Technically resize the image to that width to decrease the image size (we already talked about that at Devcon, it isn't editor specific) When you look at Wordpress, the handling of images in blog articles is something they do pretty well. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel Lee Jordan Christoph Rabel 4 Years Ago - Edited It's so frustrating to see this because shouldn't we be moving away from CK at this point? "When you look at Wordpress, the handling of images in blog articles is something they do pretty well." <-- It's Tiny MCE. Sorry for sounding like a broken record. Please take a look at the Demo of Tiny MCE https://www.tiny.cloud. Currently the demo has the mode switcher implemented "Classic", "Inline", "Distraction Free". That's all we need, for the user to choose which mode they want to edit in and it's right there in front of our faces. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Christoph Rabel Krzysztof Gołębiowski 4 Years Ago - Edited In my experience, so far, the limited editor is perfect for the new content pages. Simple html is enough there. If they need something "special", we can make a widget for that and they simply place it wherever they want. That's pretty neat. But it is not so nice for Webcontent. It is too limited. I also fully agree with Krzysztof, different "kinds of editors" should see different menus. The skill levels are vastly different, in each company we have editors who are overwhelmed by many buttons. HTML? -> Panic! And others who are perfectly able to edit the html. So, long story short: Thumbs up for that request! I'd like to add something: One thing that needs a lot of love are images. It is still terribly hard to create a webcontent with images. 1) Please try to resize an image by dragging the corner to exactly 320px width, I dare you. 2) Extra settings for images: Border yes/no. Margin please (When I place to images next to each other, there is no gap between them. That might be what I want. Or not). Subtitles, please. figure tag, please? And so on. 3) Technically resize the image to that width to decrease the image size (we already talked about that at Devcon, it isn't editor specific) When you look at Wordpress, the handling of images in blog articles is something they do pretty well. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel Lee Jordan Christoph Rabel 4 Years Ago - Edited It's so frustrating to see this because shouldn't we be moving away from CK at this point? "When you look at Wordpress, the handling of images in blog articles is something they do pretty well." <-- It's Tiny MCE. Sorry for sounding like a broken record. Please take a look at the Demo of Tiny MCE https://www.tiny.cloud. Currently the demo has the mode switcher implemented "Classic", "Inline", "Distraction Free". That's all we need, for the user to choose which mode they want to edit in and it's right there in front of our faces. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Lee Jordan Christoph Rabel 4 Years Ago - Edited It's so frustrating to see this because shouldn't we be moving away from CK at this point? "When you look at Wordpress, the handling of images in blog articles is something they do pretty well." <-- It's Tiny MCE. Sorry for sounding like a broken record. Please take a look at the Demo of Tiny MCE https://www.tiny.cloud. Currently the demo has the mode switcher implemented "Classic", "Inline", "Distraction Free". That's all we need, for the user to choose which mode they want to edit in and it's right there in front of our faces. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Adam Steiner 3 Years Ago - Edited Looking through the linked Jira stories, it looks like this work (well some of it) was pushed off to 7.4 (some indefinitely). I'm curious though...If you guys plan on rewriting the editor, why use CKEditor 4 as your base? Why not start with CK5? Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel