The author is ignoring the elephant in the room: WYSIWYG is for static, single format output. It doesn't define behavior.
Even after so many years, MS Word is still only suited for print and static digital facsimiles of print documents. It fails miserably at anything else it tries to do.
Fuck, WYSIWYG is not even suitable for creating good multiple resolution purely static output on nearly identical devices. For the simple reason that if you want to get that right, What You See Is Not What Everybody Else Gets.
WYSIWYG only has value in tight, never changing constraints, and those are actually disappearing more and more in favor of interactive, fluid forms of output.
WYSIWYG is not the future, it's a relic from the age of print.
If there is a way to make the power of raw code more user friendly and accessible, WYSIWYG isn't it. The whole acronym suggest something that doesn't exist and/or is utterly undesirable in a digital world.
HTML doesn't define behavior either, but it can be combined with tools that do (scripting languages), in the same way that WYSIWYG tools can. That's not a valid argument to prefer textual over visual representation.
Even after so many years, MS Word is still only suited for print and static digital facsimiles of print documents. It fails miserably at anything else it tries to do.
Fuck, WYSIWYG is not even suitable for creating good multiple resolution purely static output on nearly identical devices. For the simple reason that if you want to get that right, What You See Is Not What Everybody Else Gets.
WYSIWYG only has value in tight, never changing constraints, and those are actually disappearing more and more in favor of interactive, fluid forms of output.
WYSIWYG is not the future, it's a relic from the age of print.
If there is a way to make the power of raw code more user friendly and accessible, WYSIWYG isn't it. The whole acronym suggest something that doesn't exist and/or is utterly undesirable in a digital world.
What you see is not what I want to consume.