I normally compose my posts offline in a text editor, formatting them with HTML. This ensures that they turn out exactly (well, within the clunky limits of HTML, that is) as I want them. I like adding pictures to my posts (you noticed, huh?) so the formatting of images is important to me. This requires a fair amount of HTML, although I can set up templates with the expressions I use most often. Even so, it takes a lot of work and is error prone.
It has often occurred to me that a blog editor might help. Firstly (I thought), it would avoid the HTML editing and the need to keep checking the result in a browser. Secondly, it would be quicker, more like writing to your bank manager using a word processor.
What one thinks doesn’t necessarily reflect the real world.
MS LiveWriter doesn’t install on our system. We’re missing some essential files or service packs. You know, the usual MS crap.
Google Documents? Clunky, primitive, under-specified and generally not a lot of use, especially as a blog editor.
Next up, Blog Desk. There’s a documented problem with Blogdesk. When I tried to install it, it kept demanding that I install Word 2007. I slapped it a few times and it eventually seemed to install. Whenever I tried to run it, however, it had a tantrum and demanded Word 2007 and when denied, went off in a sulk. I emailed the author but didn’t get much help, just a referral to the program’s forum where this problem is deliberated upon.
So on to Zoundry Raven. This program feels flaky to me. A couple of odd things happened for no apparent reason and took me a lot of effort and patience to sort out. I can only think there are still bugs to be shaken out. It has some nice features but isn’t quite ready in my view.
Now Qumana. That is what I am using to write this post. It has a lot of rough edges. I am not going to detail them because I am running out of patience with bog editors. Has it got any good points? I am trying to find them.
So what about my essential requirements, formatting and image insertion? Both Z and Q leave much to be desired.
When I compose a post I set the page width to that of the blog so I can see how the post will appear. I think this is essential because I often move things around to achieve the best effect. The editors in Z and Q have no page-width setting. This is a common fault in all rich text so called WYSIWYG editors, of course. But how can they be "WYSIWYG" if you can’t see what you are going to get? The only way around this lack is to resize the editor window but then you have to work out exactly what size it needs to be. Why can’t they simply put in a page-width setting?
Now for images. Z has the nice feature that when you insert an image, it will make a thumbnail of it and insert this as a link to the original, presumably larger, image. This is the civilized way to do it but there is still a problem with this that I will come to.
Q doesn’t bother with this. It inserts the image, lets you resize it and that’s that: you just get it thumbnail size. I have no idea what size the image is on the blog server. In both programs, there are settings for the border around the picture. Z’s work nicely while Q’s don’t seem to have any effect. For one thing, you can’t colour them in Q.
Lastly, captions. I like to be able to put captions under my pictures. I can do this in any one of several ways in HTML. Can I do it in a blog editor? Nope. At least, I haven’t found a way to do it. It seems quite impossible in Q, though I haven’t tried messing with the HTML. But, then, what is the point of getting a dog and barking yourself? If I have to mess with the HTML then I might as well write the whole thing in HTML in my text editor.
I did try modifying the HTML in Z but with only limited success. Add too many expressions and it just goes haywire, displaying them as text. I tried to get it to put captions under my images, tried very hard indeed. I did succeed but not convincingly. The result was ugly so I abandoned the idea.
Now for the problem with images. I usually upload two versions of each image, a small one for the thumbnail and a large one for you to see when you click on it. Why not just upload one (big) image and display it squidged down small in the post? Because, firstly, squidged thumbnails don’t look good: your image editor makes a far better job of resizing them than the browser does. Secondly, because even though they look small, squidged thumbnails are still big images and therefore take as long to load as big images do, and when you have a lot of pictures in your post this means it takes an awful long time to load. Having separate thumbnails speeds up the loading and is, in my view, an essential courtesy to your readers.
My conclusions are therefore that if your blogging needs are simple – for example, you post mainly text and aren’t too bothered about the exact formatting of images – then you may well find a blog editor to suit you. But if you are a demanding person like me, then you are going to feel limited, not liberated, and it would probably be better to give up the idea and go back to your text editor. That’s what I am going to do.
Now let’s try uploading this post. I just hope it doesn’t screw up my blog.
