On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:53 PM, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the note, however knowing IBM I had hoped that one of the > official goals was to help the development part of the community to get > stabilized. > This is what their costumers asked for, not IBM itself. Costumers dont care about development, most of the time. They think everyting is created with Pixeldust. > > I acknowledge that it is important for IBM to get an output of invested > energy/time/money, but I think IBM would benefit not only from features but > also from the soft points of helping the community. > I was a bit disapointed they didnt asked for some more 'enterprise-ready' features like integration with ERP systems, tivoli, and credential management of profiles, improve Base and add bridge to DB2 or something in those veins. > > that being said in response to your IBM HAT, but I do feel that you and > other IBM Fellows still do a great job in getting the community to > prosper. > > Jan. > > On 1 November 2012 17:45, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > A quick note, wearing my "IBM hat". > > > > We (IBM) have consulted with customers, internal users, other IBM product > > teams, on what our (IBM's) development priorities should be for the next > > AOO release. Obviously, we're not the only ones with priorities or > > interests or opinions. We don't make AOO decisions by ourselves. But we > > want to be transparent about what our own priorities are, for our > > employees participating in the AOO community, and what they will be > > focusing on. As we did with AOO 3.4.0 and 3.4.1, we'll be putting the > > details onto the wiki over the next couple of weeks. You'll hear more at > > ApacheCon, but I wanted you to hear it hear first. > > > > Our top priorities: > > > > -- Improve the install and deployment experience, especially by > supporting > > digital signatures on installs, and introducing a new incremental update > > feature, so users are not required to download and install a full image > > for just a minor update. > > > > -- A major UI enhancement, a sidebar framework for the editors, ported > > over from Symphony, and including an API. If you recall, Symphony won > > quite a lot of praise for its UI, and much of this was due to the sidebar > > panel. I think we can make a good argument that this approach, say > > compared to the MS Office "ribbon" is a better use of screen real-estate, > > especially as we see more frequent use of wide screen displays. > I like what KOffice did with the management of tiles and panes, and I think is a great UI study case. There were some of these ideas embedded in the UX project. Personally I used to admire the UI from Macromedia projects which had a nice use of toolbars, floating panes, and could add a series of options in a clean icon-based intereface. > > > > -- Improved Table of Contents in Writer > > > > -- Improved system integration on Windows and MacOS, including possible > > adoption of "gestures". > Is this like for tablets? Not sure what gestures means, Opear has some gestures which are mouse keys combinations. > > > > -- IAccessible2 bridge, ported over from Symphony, to improve > > accessibility. This is a major effort, but very important. > > > > -- Closer integration of clipart and template libraries with user > > experience. > I think there was always objections to bloat the office suite with too much graphic intensive templates. Not sure if that opposition will be gone now. Impress does need a major facelift with animations and transitions. GSOC had integration bridge to OpenClipArt to import the clipart from the website, this functionality is also present on Inkscape. > > > > -- Update branding and visual styling, contemporary and compelling, fresh > > and relevant. > Funny enough, stale is the new fresh, taken from logos of Chrome and Windows, is more an art-deco style. > > > > -- Social integration, allow our users to quickly and easily share their > > thoughts in a way that compliment their commercial social behavior. > > Explore the integration of consumer service-specific capabilities as well > > as generic Share... actions. > eww I hate this and dont really understand why companies want to "share" a document. > > > > -- And many other smaller items > > > > Obviously the release date for this cannot be pinned down so early, and > > releasing is PMC decision, not an IBM one. But we think that this work > > could be completed and tested for a release in the March/April 2013 > > time-frame. And the scope of the release might be significant enough to > > warrant a "4.0" designation. > > > > In any case, we'll soon set up a page on the wiki to collect these items. > > As always, I invite you to add your own priorities to the wiki, things > > that you would like to work on. This could be a new feature. Or, if one > > of the above items sound interesting to you, we always welcome help > > designing and implementing these features. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Rob > > > > > > > > > -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
