Hi, thanks for getting that search option into the discussion.
However, we should be aware of what we are talking about. Your proposal of integrated syncing with google docs sounds far more reasonable to me than a bundled toolbar download. And also the builtin search option is a completely different thing. A bundled toolbar is an independent piece of software, that has nothing to do with us. It wasn't coded by us, we have no clue about what it does or not. It doesn't extend OOo, it rather extends your browser, namely Internet Explorer, if you use that, anyways. You'd download and install it with OOo, but in the process of using OOo you have nothing at all to do with it. And this is exactly what is so wrong about it. > Your reasons seems valid and I agree with them, however alreadin having > this on OOo and not triying to do something withit is even dummer. So it isn't something we already have. What we have is a search function within a hyperlink bar which the only reasoning i can make of is that it enables you to initiate a web search from within OOo when you want to work with hyperlinks in your documents. This is somewhat reasonable, but more importantly, it is technically as well as "philosophically" a totally different thing than a Yahoo/Google toolbar that is potentially bundled in the OOo download. > Was it bad because it was handled wrong? I think Free software need to > excel on services from third parties. Not compromising the suite but > making value added decisions. Right. Very much so, indeed. Only a Yahoo toolbar doesn't add any value to the suite. It rather lowers it's value. The decission would be driven by the hope that the involved money and promotional services would make up for that and even more, give potential for added value. It even might, but i still think it's the wrong approach. Don't really like referring to Firefox and avoided it so far, but did they do anything the like as is proposed? Or didn't Firefox rather become popular because it became everybodies darling? Because it was technically advanced, cute and had an enthusiastic community? I might be living in dreamland, but that is the notion i got while watching it grow. OOo is lacking in all three of these points. We defensively claim to be technologically advanced, but we are caught half way in between what inventive we have to offer and copying MS Office. And it's the user experience and our marketing that suffer from that. Mozilla never tried to copy Internet Explorer. They offered a different product that hopefully turned out better because it was different. In contrast, what our marketing is trying to do is to say: "We are better: because we are the same." And how much development effort is wasted in that twisted approach of trying to be the better MS Office? So do we need more money? Or do we need a more brave approach to our product? And are we cute? Far away from it. The user interface of OOo is boring and a nightmare. Don't get me wrong. I'm very aware that OOo is technologically great and does a lot of things better than MS Office in detail. But can the user discover that? Can he _feel_ it? Nope. And no - i'm not saying, it is a nightmare in comparison to MS Office (2003). I'd say the same about MS Office, only that it looks significantly more sexy than OOo. I'm also pretty much aware of the efforts of the art project and the new blow of fresh winds in the matters of user experience. So I'm hoping this point will change. So do we need more UI development resources or is it enough to redirect the resources we have to a more focused approach that doesn't equate ease of use with copying the market leader? And thirdly, the enthusiastic community. Well, here we are. Are we enthusiastic? Are we convinced? Why are we so defensive in our replies to complains at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do i get the feeling that everybody at art@marketing.openoffice.org is somewhat lost and stuck with their willingness to do stuff? Yes, we are somewhat enthusiastic, but there is something very very very clumsy about how this whole community works that is very much different from other open source projects. And it's that difference that is our misfortune. And yes, I'm one of those that isn't convinced that that is unrelated to our bonds to Sun. So, sorry for this little rave, back to topic...what i wanted to get at: i doubt we need more money. I doubt we need to put our name out there more. What we need to attract users is to get more attractive. And what we need to improve development is to get more spirit. If we want to make value added decisions, then let's try to add value. Get a toolbar bundled that just takes away attractiveness? Where's the value in that? As said, though...your suggestion of using the already existing internet technology in OOo to broaden the range of its application is surely a good thing. > > Yes, you could use money for promotion, but it's money that you get in > > the first place, not publicity. > > We all agree that development cost money or time, if we have money we > could speed more development. I agree thta google is not the only > solution, but is there a way to compromise our lesser known tools it will > give them advantage of being more used (talking about web search). Yepp. As said, I'm all for putting that bultin web stack to use by integrating with document related web services. > > In fact, bundling some crap you don't want is pretty bad for your image > > and every company doing it got marked with the "dodgy" stamp right away. > > I agree except is already built in. And again, nope it isn't. What's builtin is a totally different thing. Ahh and just to prevent misunderstandings: - I think OOo is great. I just think the user interface sucks. - I know there are a lot of people out there doing a lot of hard work on it and i totally appreciate and respect that. - I do think that getting to work with major 3rd party players is a good thing. - I see quite a bit of good reasoning in the proposed idea of adding a toolbar. I just don't think it's the right thing. (To illustrate that again: I can also see a lot of good reasoning in the notion that producing cheaper laptops from cheaper components is much more beneficial for the vendor. But i still love my comparatively ridiculously expensive ThinkPad. And if i'd ever be involved in producing laptops, i'd had hoped it would be IBM. Just the same way, if i'm involved in creating software, i'd hope it's quality software. If I'm involved in marketing that software, i'd hope it's quality marketing.) André.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
