[eviks]

> It’s for anybody, the way documents are for anybody. HTML is just another type of document.

You don't ask anybody to learn XML tags to edit a Word document in a plain text editor even though it's technically possible. Similarly, HTML is not "just another type", but one of the many poorly designed (especially so if CSS is added) document formats that no non-tech "anybody" should be exposed to

WYSIWYG is for anybody.

[jraph]

You need to learn WYSIWYG "codes" and "language" too. It's just that you probably already did so. "Select, then click on the B button to make it bold", or "click B, type, then click B again" is probably not straightforward at first.

I don't know why people shouldn't be exposed to markup.

I also don't see how HTML is a poor format. It has its issues but fundamentally? Seems fine.

It's cool someone tries to make it reachable to more people.

[eviks]

First, it's not a "just", but a huge benefit for the audience of "everyone"

Second, it's much more straightforward vs any tags (and remembering having to close them without any help in your plain text editor)

And is also much more discoverable in the intuitive interface with the full list of available styles right there with styled buttons so you don't need to think whether <u> is underline, underscore, or something else entirely.

That's the whole point of why this can't ever be for "everyone" - it requires too much knowledge that's not generally useful.

But yeah, with such a trivialization of the effort required, you'll never understand why people shouldn't be exposed to markup.

> It's cool someone tries to make it reachable to more people.

Not unless he misleads them

[crabmusket]

I'd really like for there to be a WYSIWYG editor that works on HTML, something the level of complexity of like WordPad (which can make RTF files). But supporting the full range of HTML tags like <details>, <table> etc.

[jraph]

> Not unless he misleads them

and

> trivialization of the effort required

I don't believe this is what's happening though.

Yes, that most people already know WYSIWYG has value, of course. And it takes effort to learn. But people can see for themselves if it's for them. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Most likely, people even starting to read this are probably ones who are already a bit curious or interested in this.

This is for people would could be thinking "HTML is code, it's impossible for me" when really they can understand and like. This things tells them "look, it might not be as complicated as you might be thinking. Try and see for yourself".

I don't see the drawback of doing this actually. I don't see the harm. However, I see value in making people realize that computers are not magic and that they can leverage them in other ways, and putting such tools within their reach.

So yeah, maybe not anybody, but probably many more people than one could think (professional or not).

It's also easy to underestimate people (ourselves included) and to think code like HTML is too complicated to understand for most people. It's actually not. Most people would understand the basics quite easily and making them realize this is quite nice.

What do you have so special that you could learn HTML? Nothing, actually. And it is quite important to be aware of this.

[eviks]

> So yeah, maybe not anybody

So don't make misleading claims it is for anybody

People can see for themselves, but if they're not mislead they can see it earlier without wasting time. Do you see time waste as a drawback?

[jraph]

Anything can be seen as wasting time. Why this particularly?

Life is a huge waste of time.

> So don't make misleading claims it is for anybody

Nothing is for literally anybody.

[blakewatson]

Yeah the implication that I guess I didn't make well enough is that it's for anybody who wants to learn it. It’s attainable without needing highly specialized or intensive training.