https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170488
--- Comment #21 from ady <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #20) > (In reply to ady from comment #19) > > The most common action is to add a border set, not to replace... > Why do you think so? Don't we provide a sufficient set of configurations so > addition is not needed at all. I'll give some generic examples (and, the border sets are fine with me). The typical action when applying borders is to use one of the classic sets (those that are already shown on the borders icon already). When the user wants something slightly different than the typical ones, then the user would "add" two or more of those classic sets, in order to obtain the desired effect. Keep in mind that the selected area could be either one cell or a range. The desired effect is sometimes based on objective goals (e.g. bringing attention to some result among a whole range of data nearby it), whereas sometimes it is a matter of subjective liking things in a certain way. The action that is less frequent (than "adding" sets of classic borders in order to obtain some combination of them) is to "replace" the cell/range border with a completely new set. This could happen, for instance, when the user modifies a spreadsheet that was already built in a certain way and now several changes are needed to the whole structure of the spreadsheet. The other typical case is that some combination of borders was applied, but the result was not what the user really wants or is not (subjectively) satisfied with the result. I would say that just [CTRL]+[Z] (undo) a recently-applied border would be more frequent than completely replacing a border that was already set in some more-distant past action. If more customization is needed, then the user would go to the cell format > borders tab (thickness, color, line style...). Spreadsheet tools are most frequently used on patterns (of data) or to obtain patterns (e.g. applying similar formulas, obtaining graphs...). Copy&paste, fill series and alike are all "repeating" actions (again, patterns). If a user applies borders early-on when building a spreadsheet, it makes it more difficult to modify the spreadsheet "by patterns" latter-on, because borders are copied too (and it is common to use borders on "special" areas, such as results, which should look different than the rest of the data). This is why experienced users apply borders (and other formats that "mark" special areas) only after the structure of the spreadsheet is clear and functioning as expected. If you apply those formats early-on, you will probably find yourself having to correct them later. The real request in this ticket is clear: repeat the UX method already used on other icons (Background Color, Font Color, Format as Currency) on the Borders icon. The [SHIFT] key has nothing to do with the request. The relatively-more frequent action does not require pressing shift. You press shift in order to obtain a different (relatively less frequent) action than the regular one. As for inverting the usage of the shift key... There is no reason to impose on users the use of the shift key when no key is needed. Let's say you have a command line (e.g. grep, sed, make...) with very well-known command line options, and you are used to use them (i.e. muscle memory) or you use them in some kind of batch/script. As a user, what would happen if suddenly a new version of such command would invert the result/effect of an option that you have been using for years? Inverting the effect of an action (especially in software that is used in order to organize data into _patterns_) has to have a very logical fundamental objective reason, and it has to outweigh the negative effects. The case of changing how we (users) already use the shift key on the Borders icon does not match such basic reasoning. What is done in other kinds of software might sometimes be a source of inspiration for new behavior/effects, but it is not a reason to invert the current effect of the shift key in Calc. Could we please focus on the real goal of the OP (instead of focusing on whichever misinterpretations of unrelated procedures were made before)? BTW, a similar request (to split the icon) can be potentially asked about other icons. The negative consideration about such split is that the area on which the user has to pinpoint the mouse gets (much) smaller, so not necessarily every icon that could be split, should. In some cases, the full "open a palette-like" icon should be kept (instead of splitting it) while adding a new mixed/split alternative icon for allowing two actions, with the split down-arrow "open the palette-like" action and the main "repeat the last-used (format)" (in this case, "repeat the last-used border") action. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
