Both WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) and Markdown editors play a crucial role in creating and maintaining developer documentation. They help writers format content quickly, either through intuitive typing commands in Markdown or visual formatting in WYSIWYG editing. Because of the popularity of both tools, the WYSIWYG-Markdown debate began: which is better for documentation?
Teams often struggle to answer this because they could overlook how these tools affect consistency and collaboration. WYSIWYG tools preview the final output as users edit, while Markdown relies on plain text and intuitive typing. This difference could create workflow mismatches when technical and non-technical documenters edit the same content.
The choice of editor can affect how smoothly teams work together. For instance, developers may prefer Git-friendly plain text, while QA teams need clear, structured test steps. Similarly, product and support staff benefit from readable, visually formatted content.
If an editor is too rigid or limited, some team members might struggle to express information in their ideal way. Thus, it is vital to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of both WYSIWYG and Markdown editors.
This article compares both approaches in detail. You’ll also learn how you can implement a WYSIWYG-Markdown editor inside a developer docs workflow.
Key Takeaways
Editor choice shapes writing speed and clarity across all roles involved in documentation.
WYSIWYG tools help visual contributors but might seem like overkill for simpler workflows.
Markdown speeds up technical collaboration and automation but introduces a learning curve.
Complex content may require WYSIWYG features, while technical notes benefit from Markdown.
Many teams succeed with hybrid setups that store Markdown but allow visual editing when needed.
Important Things to Know before Exploring the WYSIWYG-Markdown Debate
Before choosing a side, teams need to understand what each editing method offers. This is because this decision ultimately affects the future of your developer docs. For instance, version control, automation, long-term maintainability, and how different roles contribute to the docs all benefit from choosing correctly.
What Is WYSIWYG Editing?
A WYSIWYG editor lets end users create and format web content visually. This means that users can click buttons for links, headings, and more, and the editor generates the underlying HTML automatically. As a result, users can see how their final output will look as they’re creating it.
This approach helps speed up content editing in the sense that writers don’t have to memorize formatting rules (HTML, Markdown). Thus, by making contributors focus more on content than syntax, this significantly shortens training time and helps reduce mistakes.
Furthermore, WYSIWYG editors often come with plenty of other features. These may include image uploads and handling, code view, real-time collaboration, and sometimes, even Markdown itself.
However, WYSIWYG editors also have limitations. These typically include a heavier bundle as well as too many features, especially if without plugins or a modular architecture.
Across the web, organizations rely on WYSIWYG editors for internal wikis, user guides, extensive documentation pages, and other content-heavy apps. Many CMS (content management system) platforms also include these editors, since designers and product teams tend to rely on visual layouts.
Note: WYSIWYG editors tend to differ from each other. These differences may span performance, bundle size, robustness (in terms of features), and framework compatibility, among others.
What Is Markdown?
Markdown is a lightweight markup language that uses plain text with simple symbols to structure content. If you’ve used popular platforms like Discord, Slack, and GitHub, you’ve most likely used Markdown. For example, hash symbols create headings, while wrapping a word in a pair of single asterisks denotes bold font.
Developers tend to prefer Markdown because it gives them speed and control. With it, they can format content quickly without lifting their hands from the keyboard. Markdown also integrates well with Git version control because it produces predictable output, making tracking changes and reverting mistakes easy.
Markdown excels at structure and consistency, but it does have its drawbacks as well. For instance, complex layouts and formatting may require extra tools that Markdown can’t handle on its own. It also demands some knowledge of syntax, which may slow down less technical contributors.
Across organizations, Markdown works with many static site generators like Next.js MDX, Hugo, and Jekyll. These tools convert Markdown into fully rendered documentation sites. This gives developers control over automation, CI/CD pipelines, and integration with larger development workflows.
Tip: Markdown works best when teams agree on a style guide and enforce it with linters (style, consistency, and syntax checkers) to maintain consistent output.
Evaluating WYSIWYG and Markdown Editors for Developer Docs
The WYSIWYG-Markdown editor choice goes beyond the question of formatting preference. The choice determines how teams collaborate, how they store documentation, and how they scale their workflows over time.
Developer Workflow Support
Markdown supports developer workflows because it fits naturally into Git repositories. With it, developers can review documentation using the same tools they use for code reviews. Clean diffs (differences between files, commits, or branches) also highlight changes clearly. making it easier to discuss edits or catch inaccuracies.
On the other hand, WYSIWYG editors help teams that mix technical and non-technical roles by providing visual formatting tools and previews. Modern ones can handle code blocks with syntax highlighting, automatic correction, and even AI-assisted editing. This can significantly help developers, since they often can’t afford to write extensive or descriptive documentation.
However, WYSIWYG editors must generate clean HTML so the Git diffs stay manageable. If the output changes unpredictably, reviews become harder.
Editorial policies also influence this choice. Markdown supports strict style guides because syntax rules enforce consistent structure. WYSIWYG editors suit teams that prefer flexible and visually guided writing.
Both WYSIWYG and Markdown editors are viable options to make developer documentation better. Of course, Markdown appears to be the quicker and simpler option. However, a WYSIWYG editor that produces clean HTML and has robust modern features turns into an equally solid choice.
Content Complexity
WYSIWYG HTML editors work well for most types of documents. For example, tutorials with screenshots often require spacing adjustments, captions, or visual grouping, along with image and video management. Some professional or educational documentation platforms even require content safety checking, which the best WYSIWYG editors provide.
Moreover, WYSIWYG editors let writers adjust the layout quickly. User-facing documentation benefits from precise styling because readers rely on visuals to follow steps. Additionally, help articles also gain clarity from visual cues like callouts or highlighted sections.
Grammar, syntax, and spelling checking is also another excellent WYSIWYG editor feature for developer docs. This allows contributors to detect and immediately correct any issues in both human language and code.
Meanwhile, Markdown works for simpler content and formatting. If your users or organization needs documentation that can handle code blocks, basic text formatting, and links, then Markdown offers a quick solution. It also gives release notes and changelogs the predictable formatting they need for quick content scanning.
If your docs contain user-facing or complex (mixed media, localization, scripts and codes, etc.) content, WYSIWYG is the better option.
Performance, Portability, and Environment Support
Markdown is lightweight and portable. It opens instantly and works in many environments, including text editors, operating systems, and browsers, with predictable behavior. Offline editing requires no dependencies, making it ideal for flexible, cross-platform workflows.
WYSIWYG editors typically rely on system libraries or browser APIs. Modern browser-based editors are portable and cross-compatible across operating systems and browsers. Desktop editors may require installation or updates, however.
For WYSIWYG editors, performance and portability depend on the specific implementation and which editor you use. Thankfully, many modern WYSIWYG editors are bridging these gaps, offering offline editing, cross-platform support, and integration with version control. The best WYSIWYG HTML editors also come with small bundle sizes despite having many features.
So, when it comes to performance and support, there doesn’t seem to be a clear winner between Markdown and modern WYSIWYG editors. It is clear, however, that desktop-based WYSIWYG editors often come with more compatibility issues or complications. Still, note that none of these are bad, and all are viable depending on your use case.
Should You Choose WYSIWYG, Markdown, or Both?
As stated just one sentence ago, both WYSIWYG and Markdown editors work. And when implemented correctly, these work really well. Then again, before you get there, you’d have to make your choice:
Choose Mostly WYSIWYG if…
Your team values fast onboarding and visual editing.
You have contributors who prefer visual formatting instead of typing syntax (although some WYSIWYG editors support code and even Markdown).
Your content requires rich formatting, branding, or full-blown, thoroughly designed visual layouts that benefit from real-time previews.
Your team consists of product specialists, support staff, and mixed-skill documentation groups.
Choose Mostly Markdown if…
Your documentation follows a docs-as-code workflow.
Your files live in Git repositories that developers maintain.
You rely on automation tools like link checkers, linters, or CI pipelines.
You have little to no need for visually heavy or complex documentation.
The Hybrid WYSIWYG-Markdown Approach
Notice how the above subheadings say “Mostly” instead of just “Markdown” or “WYSIWYG? ”Chances are, you might end up making the most of both to really improve your documentation workflow. Thankfully, some WYSIWYG HTML editors also support Markdown editing, leading to a “hybrid” approach.
In a hybrid workflow, the WYSIWYG editor acts as the primary interface for visual editing. This lets mixed-skill documenters design content, adjust layouts, embed media, and write documentation. When technical contributors prefer Markdown, the same editor switches to a Markdown mode, allowing them to write in plain text .
Through a Markdown-capable WYSIWYG editor, a documentation platform can convert visual edits into Markdown-compatible structures whenever possible. It can also store any additional embedded content (images or video files) separately in a repository or content storage. This helps preserve the benefits of WYSIWYG editing while giving developers the clean Markdown, Git-ready workflow they often rely on.
This approach makes documentation more flexible for organizations and teams. Both technical and non-technical contributors enjoy an intuitive editing experience without compromising consistency or maintainability.
That said, it’s probably wise to start with one or the other before fully adopting a hybrid approach. The good thing about WYSIWYG editors, though, is that they offer both types of editing right away. This way, it’s easier to switch between or combine different document editing workflows.
How to Create a Simple Developer Docs Tool Using a WYSIWYG-Markdown Editor
Now, it’s time to try building a simple documentation platform using a Markdown-capable WYSIWYG HTML editor. The image below shows how it should look.
The image shows the WYSIWYG editor in Markdown mode. Notice that through such an editor, users can instantly view how the Markdown will look as they type.
Note: To keep this guide simple and concise, it will show only the logic of the project and not the full code. To view the full code and start implementing this project yourself, visit this GitHub repository.
Project Requirements
Here are some of our goals in this quick project:
Add pages by clicking the “Add Page” button, entering a page title, adding some web content, and clicking the “Save” button.
Display each created page in the sidebar. When a user clicks each sidebar element, they should see the page contents.
Allow users to update each page by clicking an “Edit” button below the page title.
Furthermore, here’s what we’ll need:
A database table called “docPage”
A simple HTML file (CSS and style framework optional) that calls the WYSIWYG editor’s CSS and JS files
JavaScript (or your preferred framework)
PHP scripts (or your backend language of choice) that handle the loading and saving of pages
Setting up the Database Table
In your SQL client of choice (in this case, SQL Server/SSMS), create the table using the following script:
CREATE TABLE docPage (
pageID INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY,
pageTitle NVARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
content NVARCHAR(MAX) NOT NULL,
createdAt DATETIME2 DEFAULT GETDATE(),
updatedAt DATETIME2 DEFAULT GETDATE()
);
In the table, the pageID column serves as an auto-increment ID that starts from 1. The pageTitle column stores the title of the page (unsurprisingly), while the content field gets the editor’s HTML content. Lastly, there are also two date-time fields just for tracking.
In a real-world docs platform, you’ll want to have more columns than this (e.g., createdBy, lastUpdatedBy, pageSortOrder, etc.). For simplicity, we’ll stick with this.
Building the Application
Start off by creating an index.html file, a styles.css stylesheet, and an app.js script. Make sure to handle the following in your HTML:
Load Bootstrap, Froala Editor CSS, and the custom stylesheet
Load the necessary scripts, including Bootstrap’s, Froala’s, and the app.js file
Divide a container into two areas: the left side for the sidebar and the right for the content and editing space
Create the platform title, page list container, and the “Add Page” button in the sidebar
Create an “empty state” display for when the user has no pages yet
Build two initially hidden modes: a display mode for viewing (with an edit button) and an editing mode for adding or updating a page (with save and cancel buttons)
Declare the element in which the WYSIWYG editor will initialize (in this case, the “editor” div)
A sample of how the “Edit Page” feature works
Afterwards, in your app.js, do the following:
On DOM content loaded, load the sidebar elements (if any) and bind the button functions to the buttons.
Create a “startNewPage” function (bound to the “Add Page” sidebar button) that enables the editing space and initializes Froala Editor.
Make a “resetEditor” function (bound to the “Cancel” button in the editing area). If the user triggers the cancel while creating a page, clear the input field and the editor’s contents. If the user triggers it while updating a page, return the user to the display view.
Make a “savePage” function (bound to the “Save” button in the editing area). This will gather the inputs and send them to the back end for storing. On success, add the page title to the sidebar and show the newly created page contents.
Create a “startEditMode” function (bound to “Edit” while in page view mode). This handles toggling the display between editing and viewing modes.
After this, you should see something similar to the image from earlier.
In terms of saving to and loading from the database, here’s what you’ll need:
A script for loading all pages (and displaying their titles on the sidebar)
A script for loading a specific page
And another one for saving the contents of a page
Running the WYSIWYG-Markdown Application
Once you’ve set everything up, run the application on your browser. Start off by creating a new page:
Creating a new page by interacting with the editor and clicking “Save”
After creating a page, you should be able to see the contents in your database table:
In the table, you’ll notice how the “content” field stores the editor elements as HTML. In more complex setups, you’ll probably want to separate the HTML content from media files and Markdown.
Lastly, test out the navigation feature and watch the contents change by clicking on the page titles at the sidebar.
Conclusion
After all this, it seems that the WYSIWYG-Markdown debate remains inconclusive. Teams should test both workflows before choosing a long-term solution. In the end, it’s not a competition about which tool is better.
The best option supports the people who write the content, the processes they follow, and the future maintenance strategy of the documentation. So, take your time in testing out and evaluating each approach. Or, if you want flexibility, you can even choose an editor that can handle both WYSIWYG and Markdown editing.
This article was originally published on the Froala blog.
Top comments (0)