While I can appreciate the desire for most of these things, I don’t think the Rich Text Editor is intended to necessarily be that full-featured, i.e. what is possible in HTML is not necessarily intended to be possible through the editor.
What is preserved in copy/paste should in my view be the same as what is possible through the editor, although arguably being able to copy/paste additional formatting from a dedicated HTML editor is a workaround for those who really need it. But not one I’m particularly in favor of.
Anyway, I don’t mean to be discouraging, but I think it’s worth considering what specifically is the “bug” (or “feature request”) here, and whether it aligns with the intent of the Fibery Rich Text feature.
I do understand that; it’s just Markdown. My concern is that without a certain minimum of functionality that the rank and file have come to expect from collaborative text editing tools, they will reject Fibery as an acceptable replacement for Google Docs (or whatever they’re used to).
Some of my not-very-technically-savvy users are going to shake their heads incredulously at “missing standard formatting capabilities” like underline and foreground color – just because they are used to them, and they see no reason to “go backward” by switching to a tool that does not support such “basic” features that they have come to value and expect.
For FIbery to be a viable product for me (and I know my position is not unique), I need to be able to convince an entire team of such people that migrating from Google Docs & Sheets to Fibery will be a step forward, including for simple needs like authoring Meeting Notes and webpage content documents.
These folks will not understand the more abstract benefits of such a migration, and they will be convinced (or not) largely by Fibery’s perceived usability and utility. For them, pedestrian features like underlining will augment their perception of Fibery’s utility and maturity – and its absence will have the opposite effect.
And honestly I don’t think that we users should be expected to give up industry-standard rich text formatting capabilities, just because an esoteric committee of PhD’s has decided that underlining is more decorative than semantic, or too easily confused with hyperlinks, or some such bull💩.
Underlining support is already there in the editor – just missing a toolbar button and shortcut. Ditto for strikethrough. Just because you never use it doesn’t mean millions of others don’t find it super-useful, and they will resent its removal from the repertoire of tools available for their self expression. Clearly I do, right?
Well, there are a number of things you’re addressing here. First of all I do miss some of the formatting options you’re describing. Second, I completely understand the pain and challenges of trying to convince “regular users/people” to move to Fibery, despite certain limitations, missing features from existing solutions, etc. I was in direct IT support roles for some 15 years and had to work through a lot of “But my old program used to do X!” type of stuff…
But I am also uncertain if Fibery is being aimed to be or “should” be a full replacement for GDocs. Personally I’d love if it could be, but at the same time there are things Fibery really is unique at doing which should really be higher priority, don’t you think? I really question whether things like text alignment belong here, for example. I’ll try to elaborate.
For me things like underlines, strikethrough, etc. are ways of making and communicating meaning in text. Centering is, almost entirely, not. The same is mostly true of free reign with font choice or size. There is certainly some room for entirely aesthetic capabilities, but for me the focus of Fibery’s documents should be:
Documentation and communication of information
Collaboratively creating “meaning” and insight from that information via
a. Formatting that shows emphasis or otherwise communicates meaning, intent, etc.
b. Linking, quoting, etc.
Sharing the resulting information and insights via export, or directly online in “dynamic” ways (i.e. it updates when you change the doc), or at most in basic printable documents
These all connect very clearly to the primary value of Fibery as I see it. Google Docs can be used for most of this too (with some limitations and clunkiness) and much more besides. But where I see Fibery and GDocs diverging is in the creation of formatted docs intended for situations where any kind of aesthetics are a factor, especially for print. This, to me, is where you start to see things like text alignment, font choice, etc. become more desirable, if not necessary. And I don’t see as much value for Fibery in trying to replicate that.
My goal and desire would be to see Fibery replace GDocs for let’s say 75% of situations in common use. And I think with just a few more things (like underline and horizontal rule), it could! That along with the forthcoming “block-based” editor (unclear how this will change things) are probably enough, in my view.
A line clearly needs to be drawn somewhere on functionality in the editor. You have your idea of what a “reasonable” place to draw that line would be, I have mine, and no doubt many others do too. None are necessarily more “correct” than others. But I do think it’s very important to consider the real goals and practicality of implementation for “replacing Google Docs”. Fibery can never provide all utility of all apps it replaces, so it needs to be determined what is “enough” functionality to convince “enough” people. Not an easy problem to solve.
In the end I guess I’m partly saying that if you’re trying to convince a group of people to use Fibery partly on the basis of “it will replace GDocs!”, maybe that’s not the right situation to use Fibery in? Or maybe it can replace several things, but not (entirely) GDocs for that group?
To be clear I am definitely not advocating for strict adherence to Markdown, and Fibery already goes well beyond that spec in several areas (highlights being a notable example).