89Views23Replies

Author Options:

New comment editor -- nice, but badly slow to load Answered

So I like the new comment editor that's been deployed.  It looks just like the "standard" edit boxes with formatting icons across the top (including the silly pseudo-Micros**t tab edges that don't do anything).

However, it is really slow to load.  I timed it a over fifteen seconds just now.  I was able to type in the whole title and keywords for this posting before the edit box was ready to be used.  Caching the icons doesn't seem to be the issue, as this is the third edit box I've opened this morning.  Unless that speed can be improved, this may create more irritation and complaints than it's worth.

(Minor update, looks like Eric's announcement that re-editing wouldn't work has been fixed.)

Comments

The forums are retiring in 2021 and are now closed for new topics and comments.
0
CameronSS
CameronSS

11 years ago

Hmmm...it only takes two or three seconds for me (FF3.5.6, WinXP SP3). That's not long enough to be a major problem, but still two seconds longer than I would like.

0
CameronSS
CameronSS

Reply 11 years ago

Ugh, I typed that <em>before</em> I tried to add a link. I don't like it. If I want to just type in a link to Google, like I usually do, it shows up like that. And like lemonie said...what's with this silly pop-up to paste things?<br />

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

Right.  Hijacking paste is one of the specific bad features I called out in my most recent comment to Eric.  Hjacking spell-check is the other.  Not being able to type in URLs is a third.

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

Interesting.  I just timed this, from clicking on REPLY to being able to type.  13 seconds.  FF 3.0.4, MacOS 10.5.8).  Do you see lags when pulling up the "flag" menus?

0
CameronSS
CameronSS

Reply 11 years ago

"Flag" also takes about two to three seconds. Also interesting to note: your comment shows up in the email with all the HTML tags included.

Oh, and this is the second time I've typed this, the last one apparently didn't go through.

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

I expected that.  The new software (of which the editor is just a small piece) supports regular HTML.  A side benefit of this is that if your e-mail agent is HTML-aware, then you should see the comments presented in a nicely formatted way (with active links and everything).

With the old format, we saw the Wiki-characters as literals (strings of apostrophes, commas, and carets) rather than your e-mail agent formatting them the way I'bles did.

0
gmjhowe
gmjhowe

11 years ago

Agreed, It takes about 5-10 seconds on my Macs.And, firefox IE users will be struggling more, as I know that Safari and Chrome run Javascript alot faster. correct me if I am wrong.Also, I have only been able to post comments, if I click the 'source' button, and type it in.Otherwise it throws up invalid formatting.

0
lebowski
lebowski

Reply 11 years ago

What are you putting in the source that is giving an invalid formatting error? FYI, the old wiki formatting won't work any more.

0
gmjhowe
gmjhowe

Reply 11 years ago

 I think its ok, that was on my laptop, which is running a slightly older version of safari, seems ok on my desktop.

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

Lithium Rain mentioned the same problem in a comment under Eric's thread. I haven't seen the same thing myself. <br /><br />Hmmm...what if I try using the old Wiki formating markup? Nope, it doesn't care about that. What about [square brackets]? Nope. Hmmmm....<br />

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

Holy moly!  What did you guys do?  So I threw in some of the apostrophe/comma/caret notation from the old editor.  The preview button showed all those characters literally, which is what I expected.  But posting the comment got them rendered in the old style!

0
lebowski
lebowski

Reply 11 years ago

The older wiki code will get processed for a couple more days, while we convert everything, then it won't work.

So if you enter old wiki code now, when we turn that off, it will come through as plain text.

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

This is going to be fun!  :-)

0
gmjhowe
gmjhowe

Reply 11 years ago

 Actually, Once it has loaded once, it only takes a few seconds to load for me, for any other comments. Yet to try closing browser and opening again.

0
Rock Soldier
Rock Soldier

11 years ago

I got about twenty-two seconds.
I agree, this is annoying. I think there should be an option to use this setting, or the old one.

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

Switching between the two is, for all practical purposes, impossible.  What you type in (the markup) is what gets stored in the database. 

With the old editor, all of those apostrophes, commas, square brackets, etc., got saved with your comment.  They were then converted to HTML for display when other users accessed your I'ble, comment, whatever.

With the new editor, it looks like what you type is saved as HTML directly (more efficient, obviously).  Being able to switch the user interface would essentially require developing code to do two completely different things:

1) take the stuff you type in the old (Wiki) style and convert into HTML before saving to the database;

2) take stuff from the database with the "new" HTML markup, and "undo" it back to the old Wiki style.

The first ought to be easy (just calling an already extant function and capturing the output in a different place).  The second is not possible in principle: since Wiki formatting is a subset of HTML, there is markup which will definitely appear in new comments/text which cannot be translated back into the old system.

More to the point, doing this would involve non-trivial development costs on the part of staff, cost which may not be worth the benefit (in comparison to other work they could be doing instead).

0
Rock Soldier
Rock Soldier

Reply 11 years ago

"With the old editor, all of those apostrophes, commas, square brackets, etc., got saved with your comment. They were then converted to HTML for display when other users accessed your I'ble, comment, whatever.

With the new editor, it looks like what you type is saved as HTML directly (more efficient, obviously). Being able to switch the user interface would essentially require developing code to do two completely different things:"
Well, couldn't they make it possible to switch in between the two, but not use the HTML for both, so that way, if you like the new format, you can use that, and if you like the lag free(or less lag) older format, you can use that?

0
crapflinger
crapflinger

11 years ago

testingthe tests of the testables<br /><br />neat....basically NO formatting for non pro members...so...nothing new for me though the <a href="http://www.google.com">Link </a> process seems a lot cleaner than the old one that may turn out helpful i guess

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

What exactly were you testing?  Bold and italic shuld have worked fine, if you used the graphical interface (either highlight what you want bolded, or click bold, type stuff, then click again). 

It does appear that the way the CKEditor is set up a substantial number of features available with the old system are no longer there for non-PRO.  That, in my opinion, needs to be re-thought.

0
crapflinger
crapflinger

Reply 11 years ago

i actually just wanted to see what the interface looked like and what was available since i hadn't posted anything since the update....not actually test the features (especially since i know what bold and itallics look like)

i'm actually a little sad that pro members have all the extra formatting....means that i've got to strain to read all the malarky kiteman posts in itty bitty font

0
DJ Radio
DJ Radio

11 years ago

I don't like it a lot.  They messed the spacing up and it throws me off.  Plus it doesn't look like instructables.

0
kelseymh
kelseymh

Reply 11 years ago

I agree.

The spacing issues seem (at least to me) an issue with the database-to-regular-HTML pseudorendering being done on the readback.  That ought to be fixed, because real HTML certainly doesn't have the problems I've been seeing the output of the new editor.

The fact that it "doesn't look like I'bles" is less of an issue for me than that it does look like Micros*it.  I'm on a Mac.  I don't want to be using crappy Word stuff.  But what are you going to say?  The Gates of Hell have been opened for years, and there's no turning back...

0
lemonie
lemonie

11 years ago

It annoyed me immediately. I see no reason for the CTRL-V function to pop a separate box - perhaps someone will explain that?

L