#250

I also cannot wait for this feature.

I hope they will provide an API for it as well so that plugins like Dataview can also take advantage of it.

#251

Please do include the ability to show backlinks below along with the WYSIWYG mode, just like the preview mode… that would be superb! Being able to see the backlinks while editing would bring the useability of backlinks to a higher level.

3 Likes
#252

As a fan of Typora I’d also vote +1 for this feature. Glad this can be achieved with CSS like others have pointed out, but it should be available built in.

1 Like
#253

@rolle : CSS can only achieve an approximation but there are differences with the real thing.

#255

@rolle : CSS can only achieve an approximation but there are differences with the real thing.

I know, but it’s better than nothing. And works perfectly for me at the moment with headings, paragraphs, links, lists and code blocks. Let’s hope it gets officially implemented in some point.

#256

Just in advanced, I want to ask for more full featured WYSIWYG editor, if possible.

I disagree about this. Obsidian should only support the things that are supported by Markdown because of the simplicity. There are other tools for WYSIWYG experience like Google Docs and Joplin for instance. This topic is about live markdown edit (like in Typora) so full scale WYSIWYG is kinda out of scope here. There are already some discussions about this: WYSIWYG editor - difficult to develop? - #6 by danbburg

2 Likes
#257

@rolle: that’s good. I also use code to approximate certain WYSIWYG features. I too can hardly wait for the real thing to come out. :grinning:

#258

I disagree. It should support what it is capable of supporting.

Does difficult means impossible?

1 Like
#260

Thank you @ryanjamurphy for the update. Glad to see that WYSIWYG is among the features that the developers will be working on next. I have been waiting patiently for this feature so that I can use Obsidian as my second brain. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#261

Just like @MitchWagner said, WYSIWIG editors are great if done right.

Typora’s solution is, frankly, not good. That hopping around just gets on my nerves, and also re-editing text seems to be a pain in the neck.

The best way to implement a WYSIWIG editor (triggered with an WYSIWIG editor button) is implementing a separate mode, something akin a standard text editor with buttons and shortcuts for Bold, Italic, quotes, bullet-points, link, embed (with drag and drop!!) etc. These actions will be translated in Obsidian’s markdown flavour in the background. Once you are finished, you click the Preview button or Markdown edit button to access the other modes.

This would also facilitate straightforward export to .odt, .docx, .rtf and similar text formats.

I don’t use Bear, but from what I’ve seen in videos it works well (except that I don’t want to view markdown special characters inside the text while I’m working, as they are confusing when trying to just write).

1 Like
#263

A go home solution would be, the devs should allow plugin devs to hook in a customized WYSIWYG editor like TinyMCE or CK editor.

Customized in the sense, an editor with added buttons for Backlinks/Wikilinks/Internal Linking and other Obsidian specific syntax.

Take the case of CK editor, It is just a basic Html WYSIWYG editor, which has a clean interface with a top ribbon, it takes user input and spits html in background.

As you know Obsidian renders html, this will not be any problem, for user as well as Obsidian.

Also, for them who say about format/data-lockin, the answer is, markdown is not any less a mess, and html is going to have support any way.

hope you got it right.

1 Like
#264

@AND

  • To state Typora’s solution is “not good” is a subjective statement. It might not be good for you, for others obviously it is otherwise not so many people would be using it.
  • if WYSIWYG is implemented, what I understand from Licat’s remarks, is that it will be a 3rd mode in addition to Edit and Preview, and the user can choose which one to use as a default.
1 Like
#265

@Klaas,

Of course it is a subjective statement. I can’t claim to speak for you or anyone else. But that hopping around and dynamic conversion is hardly conducive to writing work.

If it is a separate mode, like a standard text editor a la WordPad on Windows, that’d be awesome.

1 Like
#266

@AND : quite frankly I have no idea what you mean by “hopping around”. Be that as it may, that is your view and your experience, I cannot change that, nor would I want to :grinning:

I just thought your statement “Typora’s solution is, frankly, not good” is a generalized, as if it applies to everyone’s experience.

Anyway, it seems to me we agree on the basics.

1 Like
#267

By ‘hopping around’ I mean, for example, typing out a link to be embedded (you know, with the square brackets, parenthesis and all that), and then when the typing of the link syntax is finished, it suddenly converts to the link, cutting down on half or even more of the text and makes the caret jump back. Just look at the video of Typora among the first posts. That dynamic conversion is too dynamic. It also forces you to learn markdown, which some users would avoid if they could.

Instead, in a regular text editor one would simply select text, press CTRL + K, and put in the link. No jumping around, no conversion (except maybe underlining the link text).

It is my subjective opinion. However, I have this feeling that a Typora-like solution would be too messy for many other users as well. I guess we need to ask them. But I also have a feeling that having a classic editor a la WordPad or LibreOffice Writer would be preferred to Typora’s solution.

2 Likes
#268

If one is not prepared to learn Markdown, what is the point of using it? Using LO Writer means having to learn how to use LO Writer.

If that is the preference then why not use one of those?

I see what you mean. It seems to me that that is the idea of WYSIWYG, and I cannot see Obsidian doing it any different.

Still, we’re speculating about what the WYSIWYG feature in Obsidian will look like, if we get it.

#269

Everybody, don’t get too fixated on Typora. It was an example to make people understand the feature.

@e12p3 If you want more than a markdown WYSIWYG editor, I think it’s better you open a separate Feature Request.

2 Likes
#270

I don’t understand your attitude. Just as you give your argument, I present mine as well.

Markdown is a formatting tool, and just like I can—but don’t want to—understand Microsoft’s .docx xml, I don’t want it to be mandatory to regularly work in markdown (but would like to retain compatibility). Mainly because it’s tiresome. I just want to type, and I’m a visual person, preferring buttons instead of complex formatting syntax. Which doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a separate markdown editor for those that want it, like you.

Regarding your second question, I could as well ask why don’t you use Typora, then. The reason why I believe there should be a standard text editor is because I want to keep everything in one place, and not jump around between programs. But you, unlike me, already have got a pretty good markdown editor (that can, of course, be improved). Why have another quasi one?

Regarding the third comment, I don’t think the idea of WYSIWYG is a quasi-typora-like markdown-focused editor, but exactly a classic text editor that shows no markdown (while formatting everything in markdown, html, or whatever else in the background).

In short, I am focused on the content creation itself, and don’t want formatting to get in the way or present any significant amount of friction.

2 Likes
#271

Everything can be optional. I don’t see any reason why Typora type features contradict full-featured WYSIWYG.

From my understanding from reading this topic there are some users who don’t want something as if it contradicted something they want. I am not a developer but I believe it can be done in such way that things are optional.

Why not having WYSIWYG editor that is activated / deactivated in options?

Because of backlinks and other features that Joplin or LO Writer don’t have.

Of course everything can be learned. But this is more important issue than only about what someone wants to learn. It is a question about what developers want Obsidian to be and for what kind of users. Only for markdown lovers or for a broad range of users who don’t treat it as a markdown editor but just an editor with some other excellent features that they want to use.

This is the question for developers to think about and decide for who they do this program.

Again, because they don’t provide the same features.

Sure. Good point. But the approach: “I want this, you want this, let’s figure out how to put it together” is much better than “you can use something else”.

2 Likes
#272

@e12p3 please open a separate feature request for this. It has additional considerations technically that are out of the scope for markdown.

In addition to that, we don’t want to conflate support for markdown WYSIWYG and support for an HTML editor. It will make it easier to spot how many other users are interested in that.

2 Likes