I think the author misses the actual reason WYSIWYG gets ignored: outside of a very few domains, what you see is invariably not what you get. HTML, in particular, is extremely resistant to reasonably WYSIWYG interfaces (remember Frontpage?), at least in part because “WYG” isn’t consistent across browsers or devices. Within the domains where WYSIWYG is workable (graphics, for instance, or 3D modeling as the author mentions) it’s actually very popular.
I recall an early version of Frontpage would simply take all my pretty WYS designs, flatten it down into a jpeg, and apply an image map over it.
Can’t fault it for not being WYSIWYG, but I sure could fault it for so much else.
[Comment removed by author]
This is an interesting discussion.
I began using computers at about the time of the advent of windows and I did DTP as a hobby at the same time I programmed. Then, I didn’t see why programmers resisted WYSIWYG.
Fast forwarding to now, it occurs to me that WYSIWYG is a particular sort of interface for a particular situation. WYSIWYG marries text-information with the presentation of that text information. When you are simultaneously specifying both of these things and when you have a good reason to simultaneously specify these, it’s great. Otherwise, all that formatting is not so great.
Please don’t make your headline - the biggest piece of text when I first load - suddenly start changing. I had no idea what was going on until I confirmed that it was just a gif.
There are some advantages to non-WYSIWIG systems, here I’m thinking specifically of LaTeX: