Do we really want to use the term "html" in the admin area?

[mattcowen]

This is a question about labeling in the admin area of the CMS (I don't seem to be able to label this as a question).

I know what HTML means and I'm sure whoever is reading this knows what it means however I have CMS admin users that see this and have no idea what it means. They would rather not click the option that "edits HTML" because all they want to do is "edit text" or even "edit content". This makes it harder for non-technical people to use the new layout tool (which is great) in the CMS without some level of training.

I just wondered what other people feel about using terms like HTML and whether targeting more technical individuals is the objective or at least individuals that need to go through some level of training to use the CMS.

Matt

[sebastienros]

Where is that? Sometime you are really about to edit the HTML ...Who doesn't know HTML? My mother knows it.

[mattcowen]

I'm looking at the new layout part.

However much I think I know my users, I am always surprised. I've worked for schools, colleges and sports organisations and I can find many people between the ages of 16 and 80 that don't know what HTML means yet want to update a website. Scary I know but that is the reality for me.

What I would like to do is remove "Text" as an option. I don't see when my users would ever know when to use "Text" over "HTML". I would then like to be able to rename the HTML option. Could the translation be used somehow or is that overkill?

[dcinzona]

What about for those that do want to edit HTML? Changing the nomenclature may confuse many other people, especially if they don't have the benefit of following the reason behind the change. They will just see that "HTML" disappeared and may think that it's no longer an option? Totally understand your concern about customers who want to edit web content, not knowing HTML. IMHO, that's a REALLY bad practice, unless all of the content is structured content: i.e. change text in paragraph 1, header, title, etc.

[mattcowen]

I'd be interested to know under what circumstances would you, as an everyday user, know that you need to add or modify HTML rather than just plain text? How would they know which to do? Would you not therefore always be wanting to give them a WYSIWYG editor?

Or to put it another way, when would a user NOT be happy with using a WYSIWYG editor?

Maybe that's the point, there is a difference between the preliminary build of a website which is carried out by a professional developer/web designer as opposed to its daily maintenance.

[dcinzona]

Well, if the user wants to create columns or change the layout of the content on the page / blog post (this happens pretty often), they may need to do this via HTML. We also run into a pretty steady issue (actually, not so much anymore) with users pasting in the content they wanted from Word and, with that, adding a bunch of random styles and classes to the content, changing / breaking the typography that goes along with the rest of the site.

In fact, having completely structured content may be the best option (in a perfect world), where the user doesn't have control over styling of content, completely removing the requirement of a wysiwyg editor. This method also helps maintain a strong style and branding presence throughout all content on the site. The downside is the level of effort for making all content structured, and then potentially having to change layouts / designs in the future.

That said, a knowledge of HTML (even basic), from my perspective, should be a requirement when posting content to a website. Otherwise it's like having your buddy who knows nothing about cars come in and try to change the oil... In my experience, it has lead to problems.

The solution we use in-house is to provide small training sessions to anyone that can alter content on the website...and for staff who need content altered but have not received training, they delegate the task to someone that has had the training (or IT)