The message 200312040944.44929.gt@pobox.com from Graham Trott gt@pobox.com contains these words:
On Thursday 04 December 2003 00:02, Anthony Anson wrote:
Joe Public is quite capable of using an ordinary HTML editor, or even copying the codes from a small document on paper (yes, RL rears its ugly head) into an ASCII program such as Notepad and just renaming it with a HTML or HTM extension.
Capable, yes. Willing, not so sure. People who use Windows expect a fully graphical approach to anything, whether it does the job better or not. Once persuaded of the benefits of manual mark-up they're surely capable, but if they're only doing lightweight HTML the problem is in making that first step.
Hmmm. Seems that lightweight HTML is the ideal starting-point. Positioning text-boxes and objects within them is not an ideal position for 'the off'.
Once the new user gets his head round the concept that what appears to be at first sight a non-graphical approach is displayed on a screen and ipso facto 'graphical' without the pretty bits, the battle is won. It's taking the plunge and finding the water really is warmer than it looks.
Many Windows users regard Linux as "DOS but more complicated" and therefore a retrograde step back from the wonderful world of on-screen widgets. The way to tempt them in is to provide familiar eye-candy, not lecture them with a stern, Spartan "Do it this way, it's good for you".
Candy is dandy, but writing is frighting?
I wouldn't dream of advocating something 'because it is good for you', having memories of being at boarding school and being dosed with all sorts of medicines and supplements ('iron' springs to mind) because I was ailing fast, and no-one recognised lead poisoning....
As has been said earlier, WYSIWYG is NWYSIWYG: quite the reverse, and tends to bork anything except in the browser it was intended to be viewed in. (No prizes awarded for correct identification of respective elements.)