2 thoughts on “Gutenberg Reactions: Mixed Feedback? Leave a comment

  1. Same here. I have engaged with feedback on Gutenberg. I have touched on the pain points, made suggestions on what would add value to the editor and pointed out where it lack functionality that is present in the current editor, functionality and features needed for certain use case and workflows.

    While I have gone in to depth there is often a sense with some of the team that it is going in one ear and out the other. I do agree with you there are a number of volunteers who are carrying the torch for Gutenberg and they do make a good effort to engage and it has been a pleasure to communicate with them.

    Agree, the dev team do need to do triage on much of the comments in reviews. It’s a bit of an insult to contributors who have gone to the trouble to participate there. Granted some of the commentary is terse and of little use. But, I have noticed that if you respond to these to gently persuade those to elaborate, I have had my contributions, like other’s removed by the Brute Force Moderator. Also it is evident that some of the commentary is made by users who haven’t used WordPress to any involved degree or for any of the more complex CMS use cases. In other words they don’t see the pain points that developers are experiencing where Gutenberg can’t handle a more challenging use case or disrupt the workflow. So yes engaging in all this is hard work, developing your arguments to get your points across.

    I see some merit in the Gutenberg. I see potential in it to handle the structure of page layout in a much more sophisticated manner. The team behind it are adamant that it is a page builder, but I think the editor would be better served if it actually got of the fence and went down that route, do it full blown as a front end editor. Even if it was fairly basic it would act as a foundation for users new to the concept of page building. It could also be a common foundation that any of the more sophisticated builders could sit on with an API that allows them to add their own bells and whistles and interfaces.

    Thing is, I don’t get a sense that Gutenberg is going anywhere in this direction. People forget that UX in the broad sense covers everything from the UI to the customer experience and Gutenberg fails a lot in the latter, amplified by the notion that it is a good idea to make it the de-facto default editor at this early stage. Hence the reason me rating of it will remain 1 star for the foreseeable future.

  2. It’s been over a year, the Gutenberg editor comes installed by default and there are still huge UX and usability issues compared to the classical editor. The developers seem to be taking the Ubuntu Unity approach where they are ramming it down the throats of their users and saying get over it.

    I don’t think a proper analytical decision was made to look at what popular features were being used with the classic editor and how they could have a hybrid design.

    It still sucks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *