A post on the Zemanta blog publishing assistant drew a comment from the folks at Kaalga. Kaalga is a Firefox extension (in Beta, I believe) that uses –
OpenCalais (Reuters) semantic API to suggest phrases in your text suitable for linking, and Google search to present relevant links for selected phrases.
Amit Aviv and Ori Mosinzon from Kaalga, both of whom are genuinely interested in getting user feedback, struck up a conversation with me and asked me to try their program. After I couldn’t get it to work, I realized it was because I use an HTML post editor and Kaalga only supports WYSIWYG editors at this time.
All of which prompts the questions –
Do you prefer WYSIWYG or HTML editors, and why?
Have you tried Kaalga, and if so, how do you like it? I know Amit and Ori will be interested to know how it works for you.
I prefer using the visual (WYSIWYG) editor, since I’m generally much too lazy to learn html. Despite that, I’ve managed to pick up a thing or two (usually just enough to get me in trouble!). But I’ll stick with WYSIWYG, thank you very much!
Robert, I’m lazy too, but started with an HTML editor because at the time we didn’t have a WYSIWYG option.
I prefer visual but will also switch to HTML when I need to just get something done and coding it is faster. I have not tried Kaalga but may give it a shot just to see. I use Zemanta thanks to your recommendation and it has definitely been a useful timesaver.
I am much more of a WYSIWYG because of the tools that you can add on. I prefer Dreamweaver and that give my clients the ability to manage and update their own content using Adobe Contribute.
I find It much easier to do templated sites. This make updating simple thinks like ©2008 faster and more cost efficient for clients.
Hi,
I am Amit from Kaalga, thanks for writing about us, and raising the question we were discussing!
Yes, we are definitely in beta.. but judging from the feedback we are getting, the product already gives value to bloggers.
@Karen: Please do give us a shot, our product is certainly not as comprehensive as Zemanta, but we do the linking part better.
*You get link suggestions from Google search, and not only Wikipedia
*The suggestions are marked in context
*You can select any text and get search results, and link directly without leaving your editor
(It works OK side by side with Zemanta)
I prefer WYSIWYG editors with access to the html source. Once the editing gets a little complicated, you need to stick your nose into the html tags.
I’ve been working with something like that for almost two years at my current job and I absolutely love it.
HTML text editors are too hard for me – I just want to input something and see the final result.
That said, I like programs like Wordpress, which allow you to use either. That way, I can apply the two html tags that I actually know.
I’m with those who said both, for I will use each one at different times for various reasons. If forced to choose I would pick html, for WYSIWYG editors do not recognize my Hawaiian diacritical marks. My own language aside though, I think that learning basic html becomes inevitable if you are to grow your skills and knowledge base of web publishing; even if you do not draft with it, knowing html helps you troubleshoot weird errors that can sometimes occur with WYSIWYG (essential if you administer a blog where guest authors can post drafts) —anyone else getting a flashback of screaming at the screen, “No, I do NOT see what I gave you!” I was never happy with how my photos showed up until I used html for publishing them.
Remember our Google apps discussion the other day? I used to be a big fan of Google docs, but stopped using them for everything but collaborative drafting with others when the html option disappeared in one of their new feature upgrades. I keep checking to see if it comes back.
My favourite editor is Dreamweaver, especially because you can change to HTML code. I think that you cannot do without knowing the basics of HTNL – because every WYSYG-Editor has its limits, and then you need to go into the code to fix things. I used to do a bit of teaching other people how to put up a website and how to put up web pages, and I always tried to teach them the principles of how webpages are built. One example: images. Everyone who works with print pages knows that images are imbedded in the document. not on webpages, where you have to upload them separetely and then the images are only referred to in the document. If people don’t know that they change their pics and upload only the pics or only the document and then they are surprised that the page doesn’t show the newest changes.
Thanks to all for sharing your ideas and preferences. There are many more nuances to the use of these various editors than I imagined. Ulla, someday I’d like to learn your teaching principles of Web page structure. Rosa – why would Google eliminate such a beneficial feature of Google Docs, I wonder?
I wish I knew Brad; how I would love a crystal ball into the thinking of the Googlies! Html is coding; perhaps it has something to do with deterring potentially messy hackery?
Today is one of those days the server nearest me is particularly stressed out… haven’t been able to get into Google docs at all to take another look.
Heck, I prefer WYSIWYG. It just doesn’t always work!
I use WordPress and have disabled the WYSIWYG feature. It kept changing what I wrote, so I’ve learned enough HTML to do what I want to do…reliably. When the HTML that I know becomes automatic I add a little bit more. That has been a good choice for me. I’ve also learned enough CSS to modify my theme to suit my fancy.