To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=30853
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 12 22:06:06 -0800 2005 ------- > Many people seem to be confused about the behaviour of the new QS. Incorrect. No-one is *confused* about the behaviour. People are confused about why we should remove a perfectly well accepted and useful feature. > Having read the MSDN-library entry about status notification (link as in the > 4th comment from the top), I think, MS wants to avoid entries in the status > area without global influence or the need to handle while working with other > applications. The aim is to reduce the *number* of entries. And here is another confusing thing: why do we care what MS want us to do? If MS want to avoid having an icon doing useful stuff, then they don't have to. The plain and simple facts are: 1. The functionality saves time. 2. The functionality is above that offered by MS Office. 3. People know what the qs does and that it offers something better. 4. Massive numbers of people (relatively) have said "we want the functionality of the qs back. Isn't this enough? Are we designing an MS Office clone, or are we designing an office package that offers people freedom and functionality beyond that of MS? Incidentally, have a look at the MS Messenger icon. It offers users *plenty* of options, including checking your email, signing in, send instant message. This is an *MS product* which offers the functionality being removed on their say-so. Therefore, either your interpretation of it is wrong, or it's OK for them to do it, but they don't want anyone else to. Without innovation, we become MS. The mission statement says "To create, as a community, the leading international office suite that will run on all major platforms and provide access to all functionality and data through open-component based APIs and an XML-based file format.". How do we become the leader by simply imitating what MS does? > As mentioned by peschtra (Mar 10), the icon should be there, so we are not > installing "an icon *just* to provide convenient access to" OOo. Why not? It's what I want as a typical user, and like all other users I don't give a damn if the OS maker doesn't want it to. Who can tell me that MS have great, original ideas on design of anything? Let me tell you that they wouldn't have any problem about sticking a shortcut somewhere on the screen for their Office suite (anyone remember Office 97?). > If anyone prefers a window to the direct shortcuts in the popup menu, it > should > be possible to include new icons in the "open document"-window (for direct > access to *new* WRITER/CALC/DRAW/IMPRESS/BASE/MATH-documents) and start this > window from the QS. But in my opinion there is not reason not to revert to > the 1.1.x-QS. In my opinion there is, and so far 96 other beta testers are with me. In my experience, > 50% of OOo 1.1.x users use the qs shortcuts, and around 100% of these will be unhappy about this change. First rule of marketing is to 'give the people what they want', not 'give in to convicted monopolist'. The functionality of the qs icon must return as soon as possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
