[libreoffice-design] Default Templates
I hate Times New Roman (or pretty much any other serif font) as the default font. I would mind it less if it were easy to change the style in the default template easily but it's generally an unintuitive task, even when reading the sparse documentation. The Organise Templates dialogue is a mysterious concoction of esoteric and seeming irrelevant cul de sacs. Before all the HCI grads and typographers out there shout that serif fonts are more readable, a) I disagree for on-screen reading and generally find sans serif easier on my eye in printed form unless the font size is small b) I don't believe there is a definitive choice between the two and c) even if I agreed, it should be much easier for a user to select to change attributes of the default template. and (tongue in cheek) z) Times New Roman seems like a lazy choice based on what Microsoft Office does in the US. I propose that we change the default text style in the default template to a clear sans-serif choice and while there, set the paragraph spacing to 0.5em, before and after, so that users aren't encouraged to separate paragraphs with double CRLF. As you'll see from the proportional unit I've suggested, we'll need em units in the product (the width of a letter m in the chosen font - those of you familiar with CSS will know this one). I also propose that we sort out the horrible mess that is the Organise Templates dialogue. Just to get started here's a straw man for a user story (Agile): As a user of LibreOffice, who has just downloaded and installed the product, I wish to ensure every document I create from here on is styled the way I prefer, so that I don't have to manually adjust the styles each time. This is covered by the default template, except where a user doesn't like some aspect of the template, because updating it is a pain in the neck. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[libreoffice-design] Different design disciplines
A question: Is this forum the right place for product architecture? I thought that's what I was getting involved in but it seems focused a great deal more on graphic design. I'm not complaining, it's just that I know there are many design disciplines and I had the former in mind, rather than the latter. Maybe it's just a point in time trend? Regards, Greg -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-design] Breaking out of the box (applications versus objects)
On Saturday 29 Jan 2011 10:15:13 Christoph Noack wrote: Hi Greg, although some others already replied, I'd like to start with a fresh reply :-) Am Freitag, den 28.01.2011, 00:44 + schrieb noh.way.jose: I'm new to this community, so please forgive me if the topic I'd like to discuss has already been aired. So, a warm welcome to this community! Thanks, Christoph and all who have taken the time to reply. It's great to see such a vibrant community. Reminds me of the Open Mapping community :o) [...] Instead of applications, let's have a document, a variety of choices of rendering the document (print, screen, presentation, web, edit, collaborative edit, c.) and tools. The tools can still be categorised, but not as they are in applications, where the application is a hard boundary. The tools here could all be used, irrespective of the presentation mechanism. Categorisation of the tools need only be done as a means to support user tasks, perhaps along multiple dimensions, using tags. This proposal means only having to develop a tool once and allowing the concurrent availability of tools that the artificial applications boundaries would normally exclude. For example, DTP tools, such as layout grids and text flow, which could be used alongside more traditional word processing tools in documents, presentations and other formats. Where to start? I read some deeper thoughts within your mails, but at the end the question is, who benefits in what way? Some thoughts: * Marketing: StarOffice / OpenOffice.org has been made more single application like, since people demanded to have single applications like Word, Excel, ... you still see many problems where it is unclear whether we talk about LibreOffic, or e.g. Writer. (By the way, something we have to decide on later). In the past, there was just StarOffice and different document types. I guess you could consider my proposition as an extrapolation of one or both of: - OLE/COM/DCOM in an application environment, where I always felt something approximating my proposition was the goal but the implementation was clunky and artificial. - A paper document, where I am largely unrestricted by the tools. I can use a pencil, pen, paint, fuzzy felt, typewriter, crayons, c. On the whole, one tool doesn't preclude the use of others. No one says, this paper can only be used for drafting, so you can only use these special pens that only draw lines and arcs - no crayons or freehand curves allowed! * Technology / Implementation: Having a common base for handling documents helps to save effort - LibO is already quite good when it comes to re-using components. Funnily, this had been a matter of limiting effort for the few guys working for StarDivision a few years ago. The downside: less specialized handling for the user's tasks ... which makes things less efficient. One of the things that might need improvement are for example sharing some spreadsheet/table code between Writer/Calc/Impress. I have to make the code reuse versus specialisation call several time a week as a usability consultant working on improving the usability of enterprise software products (no names). It's a valid concern but I'd say that generally interaction consistency, reduction of potential points of divergence of behaviour and implementation efficiency are compelling reasons to take this approach. Concerns about specialisation can be handled by extending the base tool classes to introduce any required contextual subtleties. Still one tool but added capability for more nuanced application, according to context. * Environment: The industry relies on certain decisions made in the past. So changes in how documents are presented / handled will also have impact on the document format ... this is (we know that from political stuff) quite hard to handle :-) I agree * Usability: People still stick to what they learn when they are small ... these real physical objects and their behavior are the basis for (later) exploring computers and their enhanced capabilities. And, although the ability of computers gained a lot during the past years, the people still do have the same mental capabilities (physiological stuff) - any change has to consider that (will it be focusing on the tool, or the work). As you might guess, I'd claim that having a richer palette of tools and capability without hard artificial boundaries improves ease of use, providing the tools address genuine use cases accurately and are well designed to fulfil those use cases. Clearly there are affinities of tool sets to specific user tasks, which roughly map to the traditional office product split but this categorisation is a generic oversimplification
[libreoffice-design] Breaking out of the box (applications versus objects)
I'm new to this community, so please forgive me if the topic I'd like to discuss has already been aired. To set the scene, first a bit of summarised, probably partisan and probably only partially accurate context. I point this out because I wouldn't want the thread to spin off into pedantic historic details and corrections. Having been around the computer industry for many years now, I have kept abreast of computing advancements by reading the industry news, developing products and using them. A pattern of acquisitions, mergers,aggregations, best practice, standards and plain copying has been going on so relentlessly that I believe that the fruits of these enterprises no longer adequately meet users needs as well as can be. The original modern interface (Xerox Star) didn't differentiate by application but by objects familiar to users. The application rot started with the commercial versions of this approach but really got application centric with Windows '95. My rough recollection is that MS Office started as a bunch of acquisitions that map pretty much to the applications we see now, whether MS, OOO or LO. That is; a word processor, a presentation manager, a spreadsheet and a database. Leaving the DB out of the argument for the moment, as a non presentation centric technology, I'd like to propose Libre Office consider a mid to long term strategy to ditch the artificial boundaries between applications. Let us return to the idea of supporting users' needs without filtering them through artificial application capabilities! Instead of applications, let's have a document, a variety of choices of rendering the document (print, screen, presentation, web, edit, collaborative edit, c.) and tools. The tools can still be categorised, but not as they are in applications, where the application is a hard boundary. The tools here could all be used, irrespective of the presentation mechanism. Categorisation of the tools need only be done as a means to support user tasks, perhaps along multiple dimensions, using tags. This proposal means only having to develop a tool once and allowing the concurrent availability of tools that the artificial applications boundaries would normally exclude. For example, DTP tools, such as layout grids and text flow, which could be used alongside more traditional word processing tools in documents, presentations and other formats. Of course, the toolset and the rendering mechanisms could be extended in a modular way, making the development time-line much more appropriate to an open source community, with competition for tool developers to build a better tool. If the core design team act in an editorial and standards capacity, then the result can hang together seamlessly. (Apple seems to have cracked this a bit ;o) Enough rambling from me. I'd be really interested to see if there's anyone else who gets what I'm on about and whether there's enough interest to start investigating in more detail. If on the other hand you think I've got it all wrong, I'm happy to defend my views or admit defeat, depending on the feedback. If you read this far, well done :o) Cheers, Greg -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
