184
Not once in my 40-odd years of life have I used a WYSIWYG editor that, once committed/submitted/saved, actually gave me what I saw (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

If I see a gap between two lines of text, and that gap vanishes when I commit the document to the web or save it to a file, then it's not 'WYSIWYG'. But this has been my experience with 100% of such editors.

I propose a new acronym to replace 'wizzy-wig':

WYSMBWYGIYLBIACWBFRTWNBMCTYSSIYUC

What You See Might Be What You Get if You're Lucky but it Almost Certainly Won't Be For Reasons That Will Never Be Made Clear to You So Suck it Ya Ugly Cunt

Not as pithy, but at least it's accurate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 4 months ago (14 children)

It certainly has been marketed as one, but regardless, it is one. The commenter you've replied to isn't saying otherwise, they're saying it's difficult to achieve the desired outcome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago* (11 children)

    Wow congratulations for dusting off the 36 year old marketing material! I'm not sure features in software respect 36 year statutes of limitation though. I suspect it no longer lives up to this claim. At least in my experience it doesn't, unless you count only in print preview but not in actual editing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I don't believe Word ever claimed to be WYSIWYG.

    Key word: ever

    It's always been a WYSIWYG - hell, one could argue it popularized the term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Hah, just a quick search for the image, but the point is that your average word processor is WYSIWYG -- so much so that the phrase has fallen out of fashion, because any other concept (e.g. a TeX client like LaTeX) is foreign to your typical user. You edit the formatted document directly, and it'll always look the same on screen and print as it did at the point of edit.

    Granted you can enable alternate views in MS Word, like draft layout or web layout, but they're not the default.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Lol the double-down is always funny.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    Everyone else here is getting the same page layout from Word in print that they see on the screen!?! Honestly more surprised than anything. I don't remember it ever happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    With default settings, I do. Every document I remember. The only difference is semitransparent header and footer in the GUI. Maybe you've enabled the fullscreen/reader view that usually breaks everything, or it's default on web or mobile.

    I achieved high proficiency with Office 2013 and honestly, it's not fully WYSIWYG, you have to do things like toggle field codes for some advanced stuff but 99.9 % of work done by Word users is in WYSIWYG mode. As for what-you-see-is-what-you-want? Well, hard no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Who said anything like that?

    But also yes. If you're viewing a Word doc in page view, it's going to look the same when you print it.

    That's true for when you use it as well. Apparently your memory is terrible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •