hey @cgrunenberg
the post was to both acknowledge the progress and substantially react to some user remarks & evaluations, like the one of @iHuman (the OP)
but:
yes. I agree in a way.
besides my personal acknowledgment of (unexpected) progress, I just wanted to additionally point to the “in a way”, which in your reply translates to “pretty much WYSIWYG”
it reflects my opinion & feel that ‘WYSIWYG’ is a holistic concept. either something is 'WYSIWYG, or not (really). of course there can be something like ‘elements of WYSIWYG’.
maybe some people even can subscribe to the notion of ‘more’ and ‘less WYSIWYG’…
but, I think aside from that part, some people (like me) might be wrongly aligned as to expectations when reading announcements like
“Edit Markdown documents with the improved WYSIWYG editor".
that is also bec the bar for MD WYSIWIG by now is one where people don’t expect to see the the MD-markup right on par w the content (or at least where this is optional or by choice).
so I just wanted to point to ambivalent labeling as to the description (in announcements) and general ambivalence involved. like expressed in adjectives like “pretty WYSIWYG”.
the general background of course, contributing to the (perception of) ambivalence and different, sometimes irritated expectational horizons, is a deeper discussion.
and I don’t want to repeat it here, but point to it, bec I think it comes to play when reading (again) of different ‘umderwhelmed’ users as to MD-editor:
DT has this slightly schizophrenic approach of being an environment for notetaking (w/ hardcore users regularly declaring this is where ‘they do it’) and providing a sufficient environment for PKM, journalling etc (plus a lot of explicit scaffolding for that, like templates, editor settings, inline gen-LLM etc), but then it kind of makes a habit of pointing to ‘we are not a notetaker’ whenever non-coding people articulate their wish (need?!) for a modern note-editor experience in the light of this.
in that light, talking of an “WYSIWYG editor” while simultaneously dragging feet about any acknowledgement of user input pointing to increasing need/demand for a ‘modern’ editor-experience just brings about threads like this one.
to give another example of the way I think the ‘schizophrenic’ situation for a larger part of DT-users (excluding those lovers of the original way’ of code-writing) builds up:
DT now in a great move has brought versioning. then, versioning only works when writing in DT. – so, anyone who wants to make use of this great affordance for writing/note-taking is thrown back to an improved but still slightly antique MD-editor (UX-wise). at the same time anyone pointing to painpoints in MD-editing is answered by protocol: ‘Go use a dedicated editor’.
… I think it’s these things that ultimately produce threads like this, produce a cohort of users underwhelmed by the MD-editor – and very strange discussions in the forums, often.
again, I think the new MD-editor is decent, it’s progress, and actually just good enough for me to seriously think about some overdue switching of my textworks into DT. then, there remain ambivalencies, as to the (non-)match of affordances and sometimes talks about DT and the real level of the “WYSIWYG” editor experience.
so, I wanted to reflect both sides & sentiments. something I rarely seen done in the discussions here…
