by Jim Kinkade

Created on: May 25, 2007

It is time for WYSIWYG to retire. The term WYSIWYG for computer applications has been around long enough; its obscure meaning only overshadows its ubiquity. It stands for "what you see is what you get" and originally related to word processors and how they affect the printed page. WYSIWYG has become the de-facto term for HTML editors that allow writers to edit web pages visually. If I had a dollar for every time somebody asked me what a WYSIWYG is, I wouldn't be writing this declaration, I would be down in the Bahamas relaxing. It is time to retire the term and replace it with something else that is more appealing and self-descriptive.

The technology driving WYSIWYG is actually very venerable and important. It is amazing to consider all the rendering that occurs to ensure that a document typed in Times New Roman, size 12, margins set at 1.5 inches, is printed out correctly on any number of disparate printers. I have nothing but praise for the technology; my gripe is with the obtuse acronym used to describe it. Something more intuitive must be applied.

When creating a document in a word processor, the program using a WYSIWYG interface attempts to make the virtual document on which the writer is composing, as close to the printed version as possible, so that the person editing knows that what he or she is writing is approximated on the printed page. Other similarly silly acronyms abound, like WYSISWIS, (what you see is what I see), WYTYSISWYG (what you think you see is what you get), and WYSYHYG (what you see, you hope you get). The last one is probably a more accurate description of common visual HTML editors.

WYSIWYG was never intended for, nor appropriately used to describe HTML editing. The reader of a web document may never see exactly what the author of that document sees. The font face for example, may not be available on the reader's computer, reverting the code to a default font, which can easily alter the aesthetic value of an email message. If WYSIWYG must stay, we could leave the term to those applications that can actually perform "what you see" operations.

It doesn't really matter what term is adopted in place of the "W" acronym, but it should accurately describe the process so people don't have to run to Wikipedia whenever they see the term. "Exact rendering" might be good for true WYSIWYG operations, like printing a document from a word processor. For the so-called WYSIWYG HTML editors that abound, I propose that we adopt either "visual editor" or "visual HTML editor." This seems to express what this particular type of editor actually does, allows the writer to edit HTML code visually.

Learn more about this author, Jim Kinkade.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.