If I see a gap between two lines of text, and that gap vanishes when I commit the document to the web or save it to a file, then it’s not ‘WYSIWYG’. But this has been my experience with 100% of such editors.
I propose a new acronym to replace ‘wizzy-wig’:
WYSMBWYGIYLBIACWBFRTWNBMCTYSSIYUC
What You See Might Be What You Get if You’re Lucky but it Almost Certainly Won’t Be For Reasons That Will Never Be Made Clear to You So Suck it Ya Ugly Cunt
Not as pithy, but at least it’s accurate.
Personally I feel like they’re generally pretty good at WYSIWYG. What they’re bad at is WYSIWYW (What You See Is What You Want).
After I do a bunch of work in Word and I have a bunch of garbage, when I load that file back I still have the same garbage. If I print it, I get the same garbage. So yeah, I get what I see.
Is that what I want? No, I want not-garbage.
Anyone remember WordPerfect coming out with “reveal codes” and allowing you to basically edit the markup and fix the issues?
I don’t believe Word ever claimed to be WYSIWYG.
It certainly has been marketed as one, but regardless, it is one. The commenter you’ve replied to isn’t saying otherwise, they’re saying it’s difficult to achieve the desired outcome.
Wow congratulations for dusting off the 36 year old marketing material! I’m not sure features in software respect 36 year statutes of limitation though. I suspect it no longer lives up to this claim. At least in my experience it doesn’t, unless you count only in print preview but not in actual editing.
Lol the double-down is always funny.
Everyone else here is getting the same page layout from Word in print that they see on the screen!?! Honestly more surprised than anything. I don’t remember it ever happening.
Who said anything like that?
But also yes. If you’re viewing a Word doc in page view, it’s going to look the same when you print it.
That’s true for when you use it as well. Apparently your memory is terrible.
I must never use page view then
