A WYSIWYG editor that works with safari?

techmate

I primarily use safari but cant find any basic comment editor add ons for vanilla that with safari. Is there one?

Stash

Get Safari 3 - it's a well known fact that Safari 2 sucks at JS

techmate

I saw one in another vanilla forum and it has basic features such as bold, linking, img, code,etc.. and it works in safari. I dont know if Im ready to use a beta version of safari just yet.

Wanderer

The Safari beta 3.0.2 works great, the problem is getting everyone else to use it!
I suppose the solution is to wait for Leopard and hope the uptake is as quick as Tiger was.

Posted: Friday, 6 July 2007 at 5:28PM

techmate

Good to know. Ill be on board. I pre-ordered Leopard. How stable is beta of safari?

Wanderer

Safari beta is very stable, I have only had one crash and that was a very JavaScript-heavy page which also crashed Firefox.

My favourite new feature is that it warns you if you attempt to leave a page with a partially filled in form.

Also it has "Reopen Last Closed Window" and, contrary to someone else's statement, it also has "Reopen All Windows From Last Session"

The pop-up blocker is a real one, unlike Exploder and others it does not block all external windows, it allows all genuine pop-ups via links but not auto-scripted pop-ups.

Try it, you'll never look back. Unfortunately you can't run Safari 2 and the beta at the same time as the beta also updates some frameworks but it comes with an un-installer which puts everything back as it was should you decide to go back to 2.0.

Check out the 12 reasons you'll love Safari.

Posted: Saturday, 7 July 2007 at 11:21AM

ithcy

i have a "1 reason i don't love safari": apple's stupid insistence on using their own UI toolkit on windows. so i have 300 applications that look and act predictably, and 2 that don't (itunes and safari).

Minisweeper

err, ithcy, I think you'll find that's reason #2 of why you'll love it. Clearly you're just wrong, yeah? I find it interesting to note that MS office for mac doesnt impose the windows user interface on mac users...I guess that's just cause the windows UI sucks?

ithcy

"Clearly you're just wrong, yeah?"
yeah, probably

it's not that i don't think the windows UI sucks - i'm no fan - it's just that i like consistency. if i'm using 5 apps at once and switching between them, resizing, scrolling, etc - it slows me down a lot to have scrollbars and window borders acting differently on some apps.

Wanderer

If MS Office for Mac imposed the Windows interface on Mac Users there would be a revolt. Anyway, the Mac Office guys are died in the wool Mac users and proud of it they say.

And you do have consistency, all your Windows apps use the crummy Windows interface and iTunes and Safari use the nice interface. And if "different" scrollbars and such slow you down methinks you have bigger problems than you think. (That's a joke son!)

Posted: Monday, 9 July 2007 at 8:20AM

Minisweeper

I really dont see how that's consistency...it's consistently different? is that it?

ithcy

i think you're both hoping that i will try to defend the windows UI and then you can have fun practicing your macinsults on me. sadly for you, i'm a linux guy who is forced to use windows much of the time, and i hate it probably more than you do.

i'm serious about consistency. two interface styles at a time is one too many.
witness:



*makes the sign of the cross

i have had to use that... thing many times. (it comes bundled with motherboards with a very common sound chip.) and it's not the only app with a "creative" interface. of course itunes is not so bad, but it does add to the problem.

Minisweeper

Me? Macinsults? I'm a windows user...

Stash

If you're going to offer a different interface, you should give people the option of sticking to the expected one when you first fire up and let them decide. Unless you're doing something completely different of course - which neither Safari nor iTunes are. OSX and Windows are very much a variation of each other and not radically different.

Can someone please explain to me how the OSX way of doing the following two things is superior from a user interface point of view than the Windows way?

1. You can only resize a window from the bottom right corner of a window instead f from any corner and any edge.
2. There is only ever a menu bar visible for the application you have active, instead of being able to (should you choose to) tile a few apps on a screen and jump directly to the menus as you go from app to app instead of having to always go to the top left of the first screen?

I'd like to understand the thinking behind these, but no one's ever explained it to me.

Wanderer

[-Stash-] mate, the behaviours you mention are so freakin' annoying to me when I am forced onto a PC.

Now to be fair, I will admit that this behaviour, (although completely foreign to me and makes me look for the nearest mens' room), is what a Windows user expects. Fair enough, stick with it if it's a deal breaker.

I have never, ever, had kittens because I have to use the lower-right corner of a window to resize it.

As for only one menu bar? It makes sense because, although I might have 12 open, I only want to interact with one application at a time.

I used to use a utility, the name of which escapes me, that skinned the Mac OS X interface making it look and behave differently. One skin actually allowed window resizing from the edges. It was a novelty, I used it for a week, then consigned it to the trash.

For my money, it's not the actual little things like these that annoy me, it's... oh let's not get into that mentality thing again.

Sorry I don't think I explained anything did I? Horses for courses I guess.

Posted: Tuesday, 10 July 2007 at 8:33AM

ithcy

the name of which escapes me

kaleidoscope?

Wanderer

That's it, Kadiddlescope!

Posted: Tuesday, 10 July 2007 at 10:49AM

Stash

I understand that most (all? some?) Mac users aren't bothered by the limited nature of the windows resizability, but I still await the reasoning behind it - I'm glad you agree that it is expected behaviour in Windows though

The multiple menu thing - do you not use multiple screens?

Wanderer

[-Stash-], it worries me greatly when you agree with me, that's twice in two posts today! :-)

Yes I agree it (resizing from all edges) is expected behaviour in Windows, but so are viruses and the blue screen of death!

There's no reasoning to understand, in Australia, when we open a window in our house we only have one handle, we either slide it left or right, or up or down or out then in, but always only one handle and always where we expect it and it always works.

Again, it's a what-you-get-used-to thing isn't it? I've never had it, I never miss it. For years we've been able to drag windows around using the bottom edge as well as the titlebar, but I rarely use this feature because I forget it's there and frankly I've had many years of just using the titlebar area.

Yes I use multiple screens, not regularly but sometimes. There is a Preference Pane in OS X that allows you to select which monitor to display the menubar on, usually the default works for me and again, it's expected behaviour so I don't get any less sleep!

Posted: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 at 9:02AM

ithcy

when we open a window in our house we only have one handle

one handle per window. several distinct window handles per environment.

ok, that's just the devil's advocate talking. truthfully, the mac menubar style makes more sense to me.

Minisweeper

I think wanderers analogy was trying to explain why you can only resize windows from one corner not why you only have one menubar. They have started inventing 2 handle windows now though so you can open them in different directions. Theyre revolutionary.