SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Editize 2.0 is out...

    .. and it's disappointing.

    It's still not good enough to substitute my current use of EditWorks. Why, oh, why not support for uploading of images? This a feature pretty much every client needs. EditWorks costs me a measly $20 per licence, and offers image uploading support. I have also extended the image part of the script with a simple resizing script (took me 45 minutes to write an implement), which resizes those huge JPEG:s my clients always upload. Due to the fact that editize is written in Java, it's MUCH harder to extend it.

    Editize is very powerful in the sense that it is cross platform and browser compatible, and produces nice XHTML (which certainly cannot be said for those other editors), but that is simply not enough to make up for it's very high price and lack of image support for real-life scenarios.

    For the price, I'm certainly expecting Editize to be able to both resize and handle uploads of images. Just my two cents. Image Upload and Image resize. Then, and only then, I will buy.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  2. #2
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    226
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with Mattias. We use http://www.cfdev.com/activedit/ for our admin panel and although it took a ~very long time to get to the newest versions, it was in some ways, worth the wait. Writes nicer code, allows for style sheets, uploads, and more. Only problem is, it appears just to work on Windows, but that's because Apple hasn't updated their Java applet scripting plug-in (or something along those lines...I won't pretend to know what that means).

    Editize is nice, but extremely overpriced. One big thing that does appeal to me is Mac OS X support...that's an awesome feature. But I can get an open source version of ActiveEdit for USD $399 and use it on as many sites as I wish. Editize would cost me USD $127 per license. ouch. I tried the demo and liked it, but that's a lot of cash to outlay. And the image upload function is essential.

    Are you listening Editize?

    geof
    Last edited by Geof Harries; Oct 3, 2002 at 06:31.

  3. #3
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Geof Harries
    Editize is nice, but extremely overpriced. One big thing that does appeal to me is Mac OS X support...that's an awesome feature. But I can get an open source version of ActiveEdit for USD $399 and use it on as many sites as I wish. Editize would cost me USD $127 per license. ouch. I tried the demo and liked it, but that's a lot of cash to outlay. And the image upload function is essential.

    Are you listening Editize?

    geof
    Actually, there are steep discounts. Also You must not need support which is free with Editize but costs $495 a year with this other product, at least according to their rate sheet.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  4. #4
    SitePoint Author Kevin Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We're listening...

    Image upload will definitely be incorporated into a future version of Editize, but for 2.0 we had to make a choice:
    • Let Editize support image uploads but require a particular server-side language and a particular image storage format (e.g. files deposited in a server directory) for it to work
    • Let you implement image uploads however you like in your CMS and let Editize use that image repository by implementing a language-independant method of supplying a list of images to Editize
    You'll find that all of our competitors choose the first option. If you don't happen to use the right server-side language, you can't run the script that accepts image uploads and you're dead in the water. Also, if you're trying to incorporate these products into a CMS where the images are stored in a database, you're also dead in the water.

    Editize's "image list" feature will work with any server-side language (or even just a plain text file!), and it leaves you the freedom to put your images in a database, in a directory, or anywhere else -- as long as they have URLs.

    Our rationale was that any good Web Developer can build a very slick image upload feature into a CMS, and it's not Editize's job to dictate how it should be done.

    That said, there's definitely something to be said for the "Insert Image" dialog having a 'Browse...' button that lets you seamlessly insert images off your hard drive. To support this, a future version of Editize will support a parameter for an image upload script that must provide a certain interface (e.g. accepts an HTTP POST containing an image file and responds with the URL for the image once it's stored on the server).

    Why wasn't this done for 2.0? For this release, the bulk of our development efforts went into completely revamping the HTML display engine so that it could handle most HTML 4.0 tags and most of CSS1. This allowed us to add support for linebreaks and images in this release, but these features are only the beginning! Now that we have a solid HTML renderer in Editize, we can concentrate on adding more tools and more formatting features (e.g. custom CSS styles). But rather than wait months to release an editor that takes full advantage of our newfound HTML display capabilities, we thought it was important to immediately address the two most common feature requests we had received: line breaks and images.

    In short, there are a lot more changes "under the hood" of Editize 2.0 than are immediately apparent. These changes lay the groundwork for much more featureful releases to come.
    Last edited by Kevin Yank; Oct 3, 2002 at 06:56.
    Kevin Yank
    CTO, sitepoint.com
    I wrote: Simply JavaScript | BYO PHP/MySQL | Tech Times | Editize
    Baby’s got back—a hard back, that is: The Ultimate CSS Reference

  5. #5
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Eh, hang on - I don't get it... Can this "image list" be implemented today, or is it for a future version?
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  6. #6
    SitePoint Author Kevin Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Image lists are available in 2.0. Read the fine manual.
    Kevin Yank
    CTO, sitepoint.com
    I wrote: Simply JavaScript | BYO PHP/MySQL | Tech Times | Editize
    Baby’s got back—a hard back, that is: The Ultimate CSS Reference

  7. #7
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by kyank
    Image lists are available in 2.0. Read the fine manual.
    You might want to consider putting the manual online and/or including this feature in you feature list.

    edit - and demonstrate it in the online demo.
    Last edited by M. Johansson; Oct 3, 2002 at 09:27.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  8. #8
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    226
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wayne,

    We don't need the support from ActiveEdit. In fact, my partner has on many occasions been a big part of the dev cycle of that software, so we have no issues that way. If we bought 10 licenses from Editize, it would cost us USD $635.00. ActiveEdit is USD $399.00 and has a few more features, plus I can use it 100 times over. What about when you have 40, 50 or 60 websites with that admin panel? I am sure that Kev and his team would hook us up with some good prices but the entry level price for 10 licenses is still more. That's a fact hard to argue.

    Don't get me wrong. There are some great features in Editize 2.0 not found in some other editors. You have a great product that blows some other CMS's our of the water. I sampled your Mac OS X compatible editor this morning (via the editize.com site) and it looked and worked geeat. The addition of line breaks is good, and I love the XHTML compliant code.

    I am a fan of Editize, but not of the pricing system or the fact I have to use Javascript for my ColdFusion and JSP-driven sites. That sucks. Especially when I see how fast your editor is on an ASP-enabled page.

    Maybe I am being overly cheap :| I know how much good development costs. Editize has fantastic customer support. Thomas is quick to answer and always polite. Kevin is always around to post a knowledgable response. Here's wishing you the best of luck.

    geof

  9. #9
    SitePoint Guru okrogius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    US
    Posts
    622
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by kyank
    We're listening...

    Image upload will definitely be incorporated into a future version of Editize, but for 2.0 we had to make a choice:
    • Let Editize support image uploads but require a particular server-side language and a particular image storage format (e.g. files deposited in a server directory) for it to work
    • Let you implement image uploads however you like in your CMS and let Editize use that image repository by implementing a language-independant method of supplying a list of images to Editize
    You'll find that all of our competitors choose the first option. If you don't happen to use the right server-side language, you can't run the script that accepts image uploads and you're dead in the water. Also, if you're trying to incorporate these products into a CMS where the images are stored in a database, you're also dead in the water.

    Editize's "image list" feature will work with any server-side language (or even just a plain text file!), and it leaves you the freedom to put your images in a database, in a directory, or anywhere else -- as long as they have URLs.

    Our rationale was that any good Web Developer can build a very slick image upload feature into a CMS, and it's not Editize's job to dictate how it should be done.

    That said, there's definitely something to be said for the "Insert Image" dialog having a 'Browse...' button that lets you seamlessly insert images off your hard drive. To support this, a future version of Editize will support a parameter for an image upload script that must provide a certain interface (e.g. accepts an HTTP POST containing an image file and responds with the URL for the image once it's stored on the server).
    Just an interesting idea though. Since you have a List button, perhaps offer an Upload button which will open a new user written page based on a userconfigurable url.

  10. #10
    Ribbit... Eric.Coleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    In your basement
    Posts
    1,268
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Something I would like to see, is when you list images, why not allow you to click an image, and it could show like a image preview, without having to select the image, and hit ok, and then preview?

    Eric
    Eric Coleman
    We're consentratin' on fallin' apart
    We were contenders, now throwin' the fight
    I just wanna believe, I just wanna believe in us

  11. #11
    SitePoint Author Kevin Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Zaire
    Something I would like to see, is when you list images, why not allow you to click an image, and it could show like a image preview, without having to select the image, and hit ok, and then preview?
    This is definitely going to be done.
    Kevin Yank
    CTO, sitepoint.com
    I wrote: Simply JavaScript | BYO PHP/MySQL | Tech Times | Editize
    Baby’s got back—a hard back, that is: The Ultimate CSS Reference

  12. #12
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You'll find that all of our competitors choose the first option. If you don't happen to use the right server-side language, you can't run the script that accepts image uploads and you're dead in the water. Also, if you're trying to incorporate these products into a CMS where the images are stored in a database, you're also dead in the water.
    Who actually gets a hosting without either a server side language, like php or asp???

    Using a java applet is really slow. I also java applets anoying, when you get serveral prompts to authorize the java session and download new files in order to make a application run.

    I find this kinda anoying personally. Im with M. Johansson on this one. I think the benifits of using a server side language for EditWorks or cfdev are benificial to the expansion of apps such as a WYSIWYG editor.

    Also server side has the advantage of being quick and fast to load. I checked out the demo of Editize, and was disapointed by the need to download a 5mb java file. While this doesnt effect me, my clients who are still using 56k and even slower modems, dont have the time to download such a big file, its even worse when there connection drops out, since a 5mb file, would take about an hour via modem.

    Just my 2c

  13. #13
    SitePoint Author Kevin Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Phil,

    I'd like to correct several misconceptions that you seem to have:
    Originally posted by philwong


    Who actually gets a hosting without either a server side language, like php or asp???
    Very few people, I'd say. Editize relies on a server-side language being present to be useful, just like all our competitors. Editize however does not tie you to one PARTICULAR server-side language.
    Using a java applet is really slow.
    Compared to what? And slow in what way? In our testing, Editize runs almost as quickly as a browser/platform-specific, native solution like an ActiveX control. On current systems, the difference is all but imperceptible. The only significant additional overhead of a Java applet in terms of speed is the startup time, which is about 3-4 seconds longer the first time an applet is used in each browser session due to the time it takes for the Java VM to start up. In a content management system for a large site that is used constantly and repeatedly throughout the day, this startup time is insignificant compared to the productivity gain. So by going with a Java applet, you are trading those 3-4 seconds to get a cross-platform/browser solution. If you don't need, say, Mac OS X or Linux support, and you don't mind pinning your users to MSIE, then by all means use any of the free or next-to-free tools that are available!
    I also java applets anoying, when you get serveral prompts to authorize the java session and download new files in order to make a application run.
    There are zero prompts displayed by Editize after the initial setup, assuming "Always Grant" is chosen in the security prompt. ActiveX controls do the same thing.
    I find this kinda anoying personally. Im with M. Johansson on this one. I think the benifits of using a server side language for EditWorks or cfdev are benificial to the expansion of apps such as a WYSIWYG editor.
    Allow me to reiterate: Editize relies heavily on server-side languages in the same way as those products do. It simply doesn't tie you to any particular one.
    Also server side has the advantage of being quick and fast to load.
    You are confusing two different things here. Both of the other products you mention have client-side components that are automatically downloaded and installed by your browser the first time they are run. The fact that they rely on a server-side script to deliver those client-side components is irrelevant, as that is exactly what Editize does as well.
    I checked out the demo of Editize, and was disapointed by the need to download a 5mb java file. While this doesnt effect me, my clients who are still using 56k and even slower modems, dont have the time to download such a big file, its even worse when there connection drops out, since a 5mb file, would take about an hour via modem.
    Again, Editize is intended for use in situations where the editor will be used on a daily basis, and where cross-platform/browser support is an important consideration.

    In such cases, a 5MB download is trivial compared to the productivity delivered by Editize. For example, our editor Georgina had to download the Java VM over a year ago when we first started using early prototypes of Editize in the SitePoint CMS. She has used Editize to keep SitePoint up to date almost every day since, without ever having to install a new Java VM. I'd say she got a lot out of that one 5MB download.

    If you told your clients they could administer their Web site's content with a WYSIWYG editor that provided a familiar, word processor-like interface, and all they had to do was download a 5MB program to do it, I'd be willing to bet they'd have no complaint. Why should they complain, then, if that program just happens to be the Sun Java Plugin?
    Last edited by Kevin Yank; Oct 17, 2002 at 21:19.
    Kevin Yank
    CTO, sitepoint.com
    I wrote: Simply JavaScript | BYO PHP/MySQL | Tech Times | Editize
    Baby’s got back—a hard back, that is: The Ultimate CSS Reference

  14. #14
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Miami Fl
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs down

    I like editize. It is clean and works well. While I'm usually against using JAVA for certain apps; for management and a CMS entry point it works well.

    Reasons why I will -not- be using editize:

    1. Price - $127.00 is excessive. I could deal with $300.00 for a bulk license of lets say, 50 copies. That would be acceptable, but $127.00 for one? I'll stick with the other lesser expensive options.

    2. Markup. I am a markup snob. I loathe difficult to read code, even if it is "dynamically" created. The code created by Editize 2.0 is better than what I first saw, but still quite messy. An example of editize code;

    Code:
    <ol>
    <li>
    Tell the client it can't be done.
    </li>
    <li>
    Introduce them to HTML or XML.
    </li>
    <li>
    Seamlessly integrate Editize into their CMS.
    </li>
    </ol>
    What I would -like- to see;

    Code:
    <ol>
    
     <li>Tell the client it can't be done.</li>
    
     <li>Introduce them to HTML or XML.</li>
    
     <li>Seamlessly integrate Editize into their CMS.</li>
    
    </ol>
    or even something like this;

    Code:
    <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing 
    elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore 
    magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud 
    exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo 
    consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in 
    voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla 
    pariatur.</p>
    
    <p>At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos 
    ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti 
    atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi 
    sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in 
    culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum 
    et dolorum fuga</p>
    Of course, this is just personal preference. I still appreciate a line break between tags, and the tag as part of the content as shown above (tag part of the content, and not on its own individual line)

    An option I would love to see would be the ability to reference custom style sheets; Lets say, I created a specific class for any present legalese on whichever site, I would like be able to perhaps highlight the text, select the "legalese" class and have editize produce something like
    Code:
    <span class="legal">text that was highlighted</span>
    -= Eric

  15. #15
    SitePoint Author Kevin Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The code formatting in Editize 2.0 was chosen to minimize wasted space in a CMS database while maintaining readability through line breaks. Making Editize indent the code it outputs would be a simple matter to implement (the code is actually already there, just switched off). Do you believe this is an important feature in the type of applications where Editize is used?

    As for custom style sheets, they are item #1 on the menu of features for Editize 3.0.
    Last edited by Kevin Yank; Oct 19, 2002 at 20:55.
    Kevin Yank
    CTO, sitepoint.com
    I wrote: Simply JavaScript | BYO PHP/MySQL | Tech Times | Editize
    Baby’s got back—a hard back, that is: The Ultimate CSS Reference

  16. #16
    Ribbit... Eric.Coleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    In your basement
    Posts
    1,268
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by kyank
    The code formatting in Editize 2.0 was chosen to minimize wasted space in a CMS database while maintaining readability through line breaks. Making Editize indent the code it outputs would be a simple matter to implement (the code is actually already there, just switched off). Do you believe this is an important feature in the type of applications where Editize is used?
    Why not make this an option on the developer's end? I can't stand un-indented code, makes me wanna puke, esp. when it's 4am and im tring to get some coding down, and im see'n everything mushed together..

    -Eric

    And as for v3.0, gawd I can't wait!
    Eric Coleman
    We're consentratin' on fallin' apart
    We were contenders, now throwin' the fight
    I just wanna believe, I just wanna believe in us

  17. #17
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Miami Fl
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes. I think a user should have the option of text indenting. Perhaps include an, "html tidy" option as part of editize. I could easily write a PHP routine to generate the code I want before passing it to the database, but I really don't want to go through that just to fix the code your program produces.

    Now I noticed you didn't respond to the pricing issue. That is perhaps the biggest reason why I haven't decided on using editize. The current price point is just way to much. I do believe this product would be better suited to a $50-$65 price point for non commercial usage. I would use it in a flash in its current iteration if it were priced accordingly.
    Last edited by Mathias; Oct 19, 2002 at 21:55.
    -= Eric

  18. #18
    SitePoint Author Kevin Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The issue of Editize's pricing has been mulled over repeatedly here at SitePoint. The fact is, the other cross-platform/browser offerings in Editize's market segment are priced in the neighbourhood of thousands of dollars for unlimited-user licenses. In comparison to those products, Editize is a bargain.

    This has been supported by feedback from many a paying customer so far, who seem to be overjoyed that a cross-platform/browser product of this nature is available at a reasonable price for the Web development professionals and companies that need it.

    I can definitely understand your point of view (and would likely share it, were our positions reversed), but Editize's current pricing model is a business decision that is working well for us so far. Rest assured, however, that we are continually thinking of ways that we could cater to a larger number of users (i.e. at a lower price point) while maintaining the level of profitability we need to justify the continued existence of and support for the product.

    For instance, we already offer a 50% discount for educational institutions and non-profit organizations (interested parties need only contact Editize support or sales@sitepoint.com), which falls along the lines you've recommended above. We also have several other ideas along these lines that we may explore in the near future.
    Last edited by Kevin Yank; Oct 20, 2002 at 03:49.
    Kevin Yank
    CTO, sitepoint.com
    I wrote: Simply JavaScript | BYO PHP/MySQL | Tech Times | Editize
    Baby’s got back—a hard back, that is: The Ultimate CSS Reference


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •