Has potential, but there is still a long way to go…

@arachnoidea thanks for taking time to test the new experience. I would love to read your article, could you perhaps provide a link?

Hi @karmatosed,

Yes, the link was here, but it was removed by the moderators.

Adding back again, hopefully the next mod will read your post and won’t ban me from here for adding my link again…

Here you go:
(Link removed again. Stop.)

(alternatively, I can send the link to your email or Twitter if the link can’t stay here)

• This reply was modified 6 years, 3 months ago by Samuel Wood (Otto). Reason: Don't post links, post full reviews

Thanks @arachnoidea, apologies there I totally forgot links are removed. I’ll save that and take a look in a little bit. It’s really appreciated you took time to write up your thoughts.

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

I really appreciate it.

Do not post a link to your own site in a review again. Reviews should be complete and fully in the review. Linking back to your own site is a spammy way to drive traffic to your own site, and it will eventually cause you to be banned from these forums. Regardless of your intentions.

This is not specific to this plugin. Reviews should be useful in and of themselves, not mere links to off-site content. Reviews show up here, and on plugin views for others to see on their own site. This is a heavy SEO place, basically. So yes, it is policed. Don’t do that.

If you have words to say, say them here. Directly.

Sorry.

OK, here is an excerpt of my longer review:

Positive side:
– Look and feel of the new editor
– Page building tools (like columns, cover images)
– Clean markup

Negative side:
– Lack of the ability to add ID attribute to most of the blocks
– No 1-column version of the columns element and last column is deleted when switching to a lower number of cols
– Sometimes it’s hard to position the mouse in a way to make some items active in the editor
– Switching back between HTML and Visual editing doesn’t work if I make some small changes to the HTML markup of a block.

I agree with the columns issue. In a larger sense, I agree with the block nesting issue. That’s a problem that needs to be solved before 5.0.

The switching back and forth, for the most part, does work okay, but ultimately it is the same Visual/Code issue that has always existed. In that sense, it’s nothing new. But at the same time, the “Custom HTML” block seems to be immune to this for the most part, so I consider the new editor to be an improvement there. If you need custom code, there’s a block just for that now.

Not too upset by the lack of IDs, but I can understand the reasoning there.

Thanks for your answer, @otto42.

Well, switching back and forth between block visual/HTML mode wasn’t the best experience for me.

I just wanted to add an ID attribute to a Cover Image element (as it can be used as a separator and I wanted to add some in-page navigation based on IDs), but after doing it in HTML mode I wasn’t able to switch back to the visual mode.

Using simply the HTML block is not an option, as my client – who doesn’t know HTML – will want to modify the background element and the text on the cover image occasionally.

And there was another thing with the cover image element: that despite it’s visually big, it uses P element for the text. For the sake of SEO it would be much better if we could choose H1..H6 headings here.