Jared This sounds an awful lot like an idea I had when first creating my mock-up layout (default layout is viewable at http://pledgecomputers.com/LibreOffice/Redesign/Concept.pdf) where the user could move options around to wherever they wanted them (for instance, the top tabs could be moved to the left, right, or bottom and the same would be true of any of the other components - menus, toolbars on the right, etc.). Users could also move or add buttons to groups (and create new ones) to fit their own personal needs.
--Scott On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 15:59, Jared Meidal <jmei...@worldimpact.org> wrote: > Because I like the “big picture” I would like to make some comments to > help me, and perhaps others, formulate the trajectory and philosophy for > the UX future of LibreOffice. Moreover, I value the clarification of > the project and community’s “direction regarding usability” higher than > “a bug fix” to adjust the design at a single point in time. So these > are some of my opinionated thoughts, as well as a suggestion of where > some of it could be practically applied. > > Understandably the toolbar is gaining its critics and self-proposed > redesigners. I agree that this part of LibreOffice’s design is critical > and inevitably it will evolve in future development and versions. I’m > even really excited seeing some of the mock-ups. Currently I’m just > concerned about getting caught up in a shiny object syndrome, rather > than an intentioned philosophy driving the project’s direction. > > As an open source application, The Document Foundation has the great > opportunity before them to show the wise maturity borne in the FLOSS > community of how to present accessibility to the user--customized > control. Regarding the current mock-ups I’ve seen, these designs show a > promising future and a sleek user interface if the developers on The > Document Foundation indeed pay attention and latch on to one of these > ideas. However another possibility would be a downstream submission > which would provide an alternative interface for users of a particular > OS or distribution–I’m thinking of Ubuntu’s Canonical here. > > In my opinion these designs each demonstrate that an eye-pleasing layer > could be placed over the existing suite of applications and offer a user > a sense that they are working in a 21st century program and > aesthetically compare to current commercial/enterprise software a little > more directly. But there is another, more compelling reason for this to > be considered. To offer innovation within the GUI (emphasis on USER) > would be a benefit not simply because everyone else is doing it, but > because it fits exactly in-line with the philosophy of free software, if > done right. > > Commercial software companies spend an enormous amount of money on > interfaces focused on end-user studies, ergonomics, usability and > intuitive design. In fact it would seem sometimes that new versions of > these commercial programs update the graphical design more than the > actual features or capabilities of the software. The Document Foundation > now has a budget which is still a small amount in comparison if it was > all tossed to specialists and third-party advisers in these critical > development areas. We can do better, not simply because we are FLOSS, > but because we have a different understanding of freedom/liberty. > > In each presentation of the best, latest, shiniest software release > there is a subtle, sneaky lock-in, learning curve and dictation from the > supplier delivered by fiat to the user as to “what is the best way to > interact with this program” and what functions will be the best tools to > accomplish what you want to get done. LibreOffice will be successful > not because of innovation (dictation) but because of freedom > (customization) and user-focused design (as a reminder, users are very > diverse). > > My practical suggestion, is to take the best of tabs, ribbons and docks. > Take the finest customization techniques built into LibreOffice and > already available in the FLOSS-sphere and pack them into an upgrade of > this suite that will offer users what they want, what they need, and > what works for them--all at the same time. > > What this would look like is ever-present, full customization of tool > properties: grouping, position, appearance and visibility. My term for > this is “toolgroups.” This reaches beyond the function of static tools > grouped within a ribbon tab. Rather, this is a user-customized group of > tools tagged to appear always, or workspace dependent. The group can be > placed in a sidebar, floating dock or in an inactive tabset (invisible > or simply unusable). We already, seriouthis, in toolbars that are active > based on active content (Writer > tables, etc.). > > I hate to even upload a mock-up of what this would look like. Partly > because I’m not wanting to compete with the great DeviantArt works that > are out there. They are done well and speak for themselves that > creativity and time has been invested in them. I especially do not want > to post something now because a display of my toolgroup arrangement > would be personally descriptive, not imperative. > > There’s my couple of cents, for whatever it is worth, and for whatever > it can further. > > --Jared > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
