![]() I think there's some market, especially for prototyping, one-off marketing pages, and people who don't already have a preferred design workflow, but I don't think WYSIWYG will return in a large way until these editors begin doing "real" front-end lifting - i.e., "drag and drop this react/vue/whatever component within a grid, without having to know what react/vue/whatever is." the appeal of dreamweaver, frontpage, and all of those editors in the 90s was that not everyone and their mother was a coder, but everyone and their mother did want to be on the internet, and there were none of the aforementioned saas or framework solutions to rely on. one reason we don't see greater adoption is that WYSIWYG editors for the web occupy a sort of middle ground between template-based hosts like squarespace, weebly, etc, and opinionated low-barrier-to-entry frameworks like bootstrap. there's an OSS clone called grapejs, but it's still very alpha. > Could any expert shed any information on why we lack a professional front-end WYSIWYG kind of editor for the web ? It sounds like your answer is yes, that's correct - I'd just like to get a confirmation. So is "creative" also something that you would use to be careful to distinguish the "creative element on its own" as opposed to the mechanism? I'll give you an example - programmers are careful to say "binary" or "executable" if they want to talk about the program as compiled as opposed to as written (source code). But what I was trying to get at, is to make sure you guys aren't confusing each other, are you careful to use 'creative' instead of 'ad' (since the latter can include the mechanism)? Or is this not a distinction you're careful about? > the "ad" is in reference to both the creative element on its own and the mechanism that puts it there. I didn't realize it would also be used for other things. >I work in marketing, "creative" is used for pretty much any kind of ad/marketing product while in the production process. And yeah, my industry can lay it on thick sometimes, but this is about as poor an example of that as it gets. Look, we get it, you don't like marketing. ![]() ![]() Here's some further reading on the technical challenges from a company that handles inventory where these metrics are a factor. At a quick glance of your quote, this references improving the way a pages viewability of ads is measured on mobile by removing the need for Flash for sites to signal "hey, this ad impression is viewable (and thus more valuable)!" Flash bad, this good. ĭetermining whether an ad has been in view has some technical challenges which you might be familiar with if you know much about front-end stuff. Here's a good starting point from the IAB for how they classify it. As advertisers increasingly demand more transparency around ad inventory quality from publishers, viewability is a newer metric that the industry looks at. "Viewability" is a technical term referencing whether an impression is viewed by a user. I'm not sure which specific page you are referencing, but this is all technical advertising jargon that means very specific things. Yes it is "marketing to marketers" (not sure about the lesser remark), but that doesn't make it any less specific. So they are using industry jargon that people in the space (like myself) will be familiar with. This stuff is all geared at advertisers who want better tools for designing ads and landing pages, and publishers who want to create ad supported sites more easily. You could simply say "I don't understand, and haven't bothered to Google for 5 seconds what some of these confusing terms mean-can someone please clarify?"
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |