Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Jay Philips]

On 06/04/2015 05:22 PM, Sophie wrote:

Hi all,


Hi Sophi, just saw this message now. :D


Some comments on the details provided on the issue, don't take them as
criticism but as a long time trainer, here is my feedback with my user
experience on background.


Your feedback is always valued. :D


Also, please before making changes to a functionality make sure that you
have the whole knowledge of what it does. I don't want to put all the
comments I have on the issue, so on this special one, Jay a menu entry
is not like a tool bar that you just remove.


Yes i'm aware of the menu entries are different than toolbar buttons, 
which is why i limited my removal of entries to the Edit menu.



Also when you train people on software, the first thing you tell them is
to be curious and to visit the menus if they search for something.


Yes we do want more experienced users to visit the menus, which is why 
in the HIG we have stated that the menu bar should contain all commands.


> I'm
> not sure why LibreOffice should be different from others here and make
> the learning curve of the functionalities more difficult.

I didnt quite follow this.


As to rely on OOo stats that were made years ago, I'm not sure it's a
good incent, the software and habits have change a lot since.


The software hasnt changed that dramatically since the OOo stats were 
collected and user behaviour doesnt change that much over time as well. 
I dont exclusively rely on the stats, as i do compare LO with its 
various competitors (MSO, iWork, WPS, WordPerfect, Calligra, 
Abiword/Gnumeric).



* 'Exchange database' doesn't it belongs to bibliography?
--> no please, do not hide this function that is used a lot doing mail merge


Would 'Exchange Database' be more suitable in the Tools menu next to 
'Bibliography Database'?



* (Insert) Hyperlink and Edit > Link use the same dialog – we could also
remove it here
--> the Edit > link dialog doesn't use the same dialog as Insert, it
allow you to remove links or update them manually, automatically for
several different objects.


I'm assuming he meant Insert > Hyperlink and Edit > Hyperlink, which do 
use the same dialog. :D



Insert (Writer)

* Section… - never heard about ;-) - and the envelope are something like
a textbox
--> this one is very common on text formatting, should be at the top


Not very commonly used according to the stats, which likely means its 
commonly used only by experienced/advanced users (aka Eve). The stats 
have Insert > Image > From File as the highest used entry in the menu 
and its submenus and Insert > Section as one of the lowest in the first 
level. Even behind Insert > Envelope and Insert > File. (the namings 
given here are according to LO 4.3)



* All together I'm a little bit lost here since naming/classification
the sections is not easy; this menu is too large
Insert (Calc)
--> several are too long, need to scroll to display all the items


As HIG says we have to have all of them in the menu, we can only do so 
much. As you said you had to scroll to display them, i checked my laptop 
which is 1280x768 and the insert menu was the longest, but i didnt need 
to scroll according to today's master. It can be reduce by 1 if i move 
Insert > Chart back into Insert > Object.



Format
* Looks like a heavy multipurpose menu (I'm looking onto the screenshots
only) – no idea what's below Text - but is there a difference between
Number Format and Lists?

--> there is absolutely no need of them in the menu, plus we don't want
users to use direct formatting but rely on styles instead


There is an absolutely good reason for them. Firstly its defined in the 
HIG that all commands be available in the menus, but secondly you 
previously stated "when you train people on software, the first thing 
you tell them is to be curious and to visit the menus if they search for 
something" and if these items are not available in the menu, how would a 
user discover useful shortcuts like Ctrl+] for Increase Font Size. The 
menu also has commands that weren't previously easily accessible until i 
added them to the toolbar (e.g. superscript, subscript, line spacing, 
increase/decrease paragraph spacing, etc).


We can want users to not use direct formatting, though we present them 
with direct formatting in the toolbar and also in the context menu until 
recently, but it will always be used until styles are presented to users 
in such an easy manner that even a beginner would understand and be 
convinced that it is the only way. We dont even provide an easy means 
for users to select character styles, so if a user wants to make some 
text bold, he will click the bold button in the toolbar over opening the 
styles and formatting dialog, switch to character styles and select 
strong emphasis.



Will try to find the time to go through more of them.


Look forward to your next round of suggestions, though i had already 
gone through all of Heiko's suggestions with him last wednesday after 
th

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Italo Vignoli]

On 07/06/15 19:07, Jay Philips wrote:

> The software hasnt changed that dramatically since the OOo stats were
> collected and user behaviour doesnt change that much over time as well.
> I dont exclusively rely on the stats, as i do compare LO with its
> various competitors (MSO, iWork, WPS, WordPerfect, Calligra,
> Abiword/Gnumeric).

Hi Jay, I suppose you are not aware of the internal discussions based on
those statistics, which were rejected by a large percentage of the
community, to the point that there was a petition to stop the "so
called" Renaissance Project.

https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21819

https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21338

In Orvieto, at the OOo Conference, there was an rather heated session
about the statistics, and the entire Renaissance Project, and at the end
the project was stopped because it was rather clear that the approach -
top down - was not liked by the community.

The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the community.

Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
the community.

Best, Italo

-- 
Italo Vignoli - Marketing & PR
mobile +39.348.5653829 - email / jabber it...@libreoffice.org
hangout / jabber italo.vign...@gmail.com - skype italovignoli
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Sophie]

Hi all,
Le 07/06/2015 20:06, Italo Vignoli a écrit :
> On 07/06/15 19:07, Jay Philips wrote:
> 
>> The software hasnt changed that dramatically since the OOo stats were
>> collected and user behaviour doesnt change that much over time as well.
>> I dont exclusively rely on the stats, as i do compare LO with its
>> various competitors (MSO, iWork, WPS, WordPerfect, Calligra,
>> Abiword/Gnumeric).
> 
> Hi Jay, I suppose you are not aware of the internal discussions based on
> those statistics, which were rejected by a large percentage of the
> community, to the point that there was a petition to stop the "so
> called" Renaissance Project.
> 
> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21819
> 
> https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=21338
> 
> In Orvieto, at the OOo Conference, there was an rather heated session
> about the statistics, and the entire Renaissance Project, and at the end
> the project was stopped because it was rather clear that the approach -
> top down - was not liked by the community.

Thanks a lot for pointing to this Italo, I've searched the links also
during the week end :). Also some feedback I get from recent inquiries,
but unfortunately was only in French.
> 
> The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
> accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
> too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
> objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the community.

Yes, I'm on my way to ask the FR community to react on that, mostly
those in real contact with users, doing migrations and training. Not
because we want to rely only on users feedback but also on the
robustness of our document roundtrip and exchanges, and for that, we
know that styles are the common sense to treat them.
> 
> Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
> acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
> the community.

That would be a great thing to do a survey now that people are more
aware of the necessity to communicate in different environments.

Jay, I'll answer your details tomorrow, but about direct formatting,
that was one of the most controversial thing to add it to the sidebar so
prominently. Most of the training material available remove the
formating toolbar to make people aware of styles...
Kind regards
Sophie

-- 
Sophie Gautier sophie.gaut...@documentfoundation.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Jay Philips]

On 06/07/2015 10:06 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:

Hi Jay, I suppose you are not aware of the internal discussions based on
those statistics, which were rejected by a large percentage of the
community, to the point that there was a petition to stop the "so
called" Renaissance Project.


Hi Italo,

Yes I have read articles on the backlash from the community about the 
various design concepts that the Renaissance Project was pursuing, but 
didnt read anything regarding a dispute of the user tracking statistics.



In Orvieto, at the OOo Conference, there was an rather heated session
about the statistics, and the entire Renaissance Project, and at the end
the project was stopped because it was rather clear that the approach -
top down - was not liked by the community.

The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the community.


As I've been going through the statistics for a year now to improve the 
toolbars and context menus, I'm sure that the stats are quite accurate. 
Many of the toolbar changes that I've recently made, I had plans to make 
them before seeing the OOo stats and luckily after seeing the stats, it 
just provided clearer evidence that my previous assumptions were 
correct. But as previously stated, I do not solely rely on the OOo 
stats, I use my experience working in MS Word and customizing my toolbar 
there, my experience working with the QA team and viewing user submitted 
documents, feedback from QA members on how they customize their toolbars 
and which features they regularly use, as well as glimpses of the user 
stats that microsoft used when they created the ribbon UI.



Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
the community.


I look forward to the day when the TDF tender for usability metrics will 
be done, so we can have updated user stats to further improve 
libreoffice and validate my efforts.


Regards,
Jay

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Sophie]

Hi Jay,
Le 07/06/2015 19:07, Jay Philips a écrit :
[...]

> 
>> * 'Exchange database' doesn't it belongs to bibliography?
>> --> no please, do not hide this function that is used a lot doing mail
>> merge
> 
> Would 'Exchange Database' be more suitable in the Tools menu next to
> 'Bibliography Database'?

Why, you're not working on the database, but editing the link to the
database.
> 
>> * (Insert) Hyperlink and Edit > Link use the same dialog – we could also
>> remove it here
>> --> the Edit > link dialog doesn't use the same dialog as Insert, it
>> allow you to remove links or update them manually, automatically for
>> several different objects.
> 
> I'm assuming he meant Insert > Hyperlink and Edit > Hyperlink, which do
> use the same dialog. :D

So to edit an hyperlink you chose the insert menu?
> 
>> Insert (Writer)
>>
>> * Section… - never heard about ;-) - and the envelope are something like
>> a textbox
>> --> this one is very common on text formatting, should be at the top
> 
> Not very commonly used according to the stats, which likely means its
> commonly used only by experienced/advanced users (aka Eve). The stats
> have Insert > Image > From File as the highest used entry in the menu
> and its submenus and Insert > Section as one of the lowest in the first
> level. Even behind Insert > Envelope and Insert > File. (the namings
> given here are according to LO 4.3)

which is wrong, but no time to discuss that
> 
>> * All together I'm a little bit lost here since naming/classification
>> the sections is not easy; this menu is too large
>> Insert (Calc)
>> --> several are too long, need to scroll to display all the items
> 
> As HIG says we have to have all of them in the menu, we can only do so
> much. As you said you had to scroll to display them, i checked my laptop
> which is 1280x768 and the insert menu was the longest, but i didnt need
> to scroll according to today's master. It can be reduce by 1 if i move
> Insert > Chart back into Insert > Object.

Insert and format are too long for my screen
> 
>> Format
>> * Looks like a heavy multipurpose menu (I'm looking onto the screenshots
>> only) – no idea what's below Text - but is there a difference between
>> Number Format and Lists?
>>
>> --> there is absolutely no need of them in the menu, plus we don't want
>> users to use direct formatting but rely on styles instead
> 
> There is an absolutely good reason for them. Firstly its defined in the
> HIG that all commands be available in the menus, but secondly you
> previously stated "when you train people on software, the first thing
> you tell them is to be curious and to visit the menus if they search for
> something" and if these items are not available in the menu, how would a
> user discover useful shortcuts like Ctrl+] for Increase Font Size. 

Who would encourage users to use this command instead of styles?
The
> menu also has commands that weren't previously easily accessible until i
> added them to the toolbar (e.g. superscript, subscript, line spacing,
> increase/decrease paragraph spacing, etc).

We want the document produced with LibreOffice to be robust with
roundtrip to other format, so please do not encourage users to use
direct formatting, on the contrary we should make them aware of styles
and simplify the process to access them, this is what should be worked
on and where we should put resources and creativity.
> 
> We can want users to not use direct formatting, though we present them
> with direct formatting in the toolbar and also in the context menu until
> recently, but it will always be used until styles are presented to users
> in such an easy manner that even a beginner would understand and be
> convinced that it is the only way. We dont even provide an easy means
> for users to select character styles, so if a user wants to make some
> text bold, he will click the bold button in the toolbar over opening the
> styles and formatting dialog, switch to character styles and select
> strong emphasis.

This is exactly where efforts should be put and not to reproduce the
same old wrong behavior.
> 
>> Will try to find the time to go through more of them.
> 
> Look forward to your next round of suggestions, though i had already
> gone through all of Heiko's suggestions with him last wednesday after
> the design meeting. :D

Not sure what does it mean, I'll just check for feature loss then.

More:
Frame is doubled in the Insert menu
Is inserting index something so little used that it should be down in
the menu too?
Clear Direct Formatting should be at the same place in Writer and Calc,
both at the top.

Did you remove entries in Calc menu?

I've seen 'Rulers' reappeared in the menu in a patch yesterday, this
feature has been removed since several versions now because of
compatibility issues, any reason to add it again?

Cheers
Sophie

-- 
Sophie Gautier sophie.gaut...@documentfoundation.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation

-

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Christoph Noack]

Hi all,

I hope you don't if I also add some thoughts...

Am Montag, den 08.06.2015, 04:38 +0400 schrieb Jay Philips:
> On 06/07/2015 10:06 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> > Hi Jay, I suppose you are not aware of the internal discussions based on
> > those statistics, which were rejected by a large percentage of the
> > community, to the point that there was a petition to stop the "so
> > called" Renaissance Project.
> 
> Hi Italo,
> 
> Yes I have read articles on the backlash from the community about the 
> various design concepts that the Renaissance Project was pursuing, but 
> didnt read anything regarding a dispute of the user tracking statistics.


Especially one of several menu concepts (prototyped using Java and made
available within the community) was highly criticized for being too
similar to "The Ribbon" (Microsoft Fluent UI) in Microsoft Office. At
that time, copying MS Office wasn't even intended by the Sun UX guys.
Unfortunately, the running acquisition made it impossible to discuss
this openly. This apparant "intransparency" caused quite hard feelings.

Other Renaissance concepts have been (maybe still are) quite innovative
- e.g. the Impress slide overview. A prototype that missed the final
implementation due to the required efforts. Other (smaller) improvements
made it into the product ... and are used on a daily basis in LibO :-)

To me, neither Renaissance nor the usage tracking were bad ... but there
were some missed opportunities to make transparent that millions of
(other) users might have different needs. Usage statistics can provide
these insights.

> > In Orvieto, at the OOo Conference, there was an rather heated session
> > about the statistics, and the entire Renaissance Project, and at the end
> > the project was stopped because it was rather clear that the approach -
> > top down - was not liked by the community.
> >
> > The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
> > accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
> > too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
> > objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the community.
> 
> As I've been going through the statistics for a year now to improve the 
> toolbars and context menus, I'm sure that the stats are quite accurate. 
> Many of the toolbar changes that I've recently made, I had plans to make 
> them before seeing the OOo stats and luckily after seeing the stats, it 
> just provided clearer evidence that my previous assumptions were 
> correct. [...]

The data available to us can still be helpful - in certain cases. When
working on print dialog improvements, it helped to uncover that 20% (!)
print dialog calls in Impress were canceled by users. But the data does
neither tell you "why", nor provides it information on the context the
user is in, nor about the given use cases [1]. If different information
(even good assumptions) are combined, balanced decisions are possible
nevertheless [2].

The given case of optimizing the menus is quite difficult within the
given function driven approach ... but that's another story.

> > Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
> > acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
> > the community.
> 
> I look forward to the day when the TDF tender for usability metrics will 
> be done, so we can have updated user stats to further improve 
> libreoffice and validate my efforts.

Looking forward as well ... having better / more detailed data.

Cheers,
Christoph

[1] https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Printerpullpages#Use_Cases

[2]
http://uxopenofficeorg.blogspot.de/2009/06/transparent-decision-making.html


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Jay Philips]

Hi Sophie,

On 06/07/2015 11:22 PM, Sophie wrote:

The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the community.


Yes, I'm on my way to ask the FR community to react on that, mostly
those in real contact with users, doing migrations and training. Not
because we want to rely only on users feedback but also on the
robustness of our document roundtrip and exchanges, and for that, we
know that styles are the common sense to treat them.


Look forward to the feedback.


Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
the community.


That would be a great thing to do a survey now that people are more
aware of the necessity to communicate in different environments.

Jay, I'll answer your details tomorrow, but about direct formatting,
that was one of the most controversial thing to add it to the sidebar so
prominently. Most of the training material available remove the
formating toolbar to make people aware of styles...


Dont see why it would be controversial when all other office suites that 
utilize sidebars (iWork, Calligra) have direct formatting in the 
sidebar. The sad thing is that paragraph and character styles dropdown 
lists arent present in the sidebar's properties tab.


Jay

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Pedro Rosmaninho]

I guess it is controversial because there's a hostility of some LO users to
allow direct formatting of the document instead of resorting to Styles.
Therefore, some people consider that direct formatting should be hidden?

However, many users do prefer to use direct formatting and competing Office
suites provide easy access to direct formatting. I don't know why
developers consider this to be a wrong approach?
Making the access to direct formatting more difficult would just draw
people away from LO to closed source office suites.
And removing direct formatting just to make people more aware of Styles
wow. Is there a more heavy handed top-down approach from developers to
force users to do things as they want to? Christ.

If you want to make Styles more used than redesign the Sidebar for Styles
and Formatting into something more intuitive. The way as it is presented
now is completely unintuitive compared with the Properties tab where you
clearly know what pressing the Bold button will do for example.

If you want users to use Styles then strongly improve the UX of the Sidebar
pane, allow for easy visualization of different styles and easy change of
Style of each component.



On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jay Philips  wrote:

> Hi Sophie,
>
> On 06/07/2015 11:22 PM, Sophie wrote:
>
>> The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
>>> accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
>>> too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
>>> objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the
>>> community.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I'm on my way to ask the FR community to react on that, mostly
>> those in real contact with users, doing migrations and training. Not
>> because we want to rely only on users feedback but also on the
>> robustness of our document roundtrip and exchanges, and for that, we
>> know that styles are the common sense to treat them.
>>
>
> Look forward to the feedback.
>
>  Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
>>> acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
>>> the community.
>>>
>>
>> That would be a great thing to do a survey now that people are more
>> aware of the necessity to communicate in different environments.
>>
>> Jay, I'll answer your details tomorrow, but about direct formatting,
>> that was one of the most controversial thing to add it to the sidebar so
>> prominently. Most of the training material available remove the
>> formating toolbar to make people aware of styles...
>>
>
> Dont see why it would be controversial when all other office suites that
> utilize sidebars (iWork, Calligra) have direct formatting in the sidebar.
> The sad thing is that paragraph and character styles dropdown lists arent
> present in the sidebar's properties tab.
>
> Jay
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Jay Philips]

Hi Sophie,

On 06/08/2015 12:02 PM, Sophie wrote:

Hi Jay,
Le 07/06/2015 19:07, Jay Philips a écrit :
[...]


Would 'Exchange Database' be more suitable in the Tools menu next to
'Bibliography Database'?


Why, you're not working on the database, but editing the link to the
database.


So editing the data in the database makes it suitable for 'Bibliography 
Database' to be under Tools but editing the link to the database 
shouldnt be considered suitable for it to be under Tools. Bibliography 
Database is the tool and all things related to that tool should be under 
Tools, similarly Macros is a tool and running, assigning, editing, etc 
of macros is located under tools. We dont have a Edit > Macros entry.



I'm assuming he meant Insert > Hyperlink and Edit > Hyperlink, which do
use the same dialog. :D


So to edit an hyperlink you chose the insert menu?


To edit a hyperlink, I would use the context menu or click the Hyperlink 
entry in the toolbar, as the Hyperlink dialog box is multi-purpose.


Stats for Edit > Hyperlink (.uno:EditHyperlink) :-
Context Menu : 90%
Menu Bar : 10%
Note: There isnt any means to know how many users clicked the 
'Hyperlink' button (.uno:HyperlinkDialog) to edit a hyperlink.



Not very commonly used according to the stats, which likely means its
commonly used only by experienced/advanced users (aka Eve). The stats
have Insert > Image > From File as the highest used entry in the menu
and its submenus and Insert > Section as one of the lowest in the first
level. Even behind Insert > Envelope and Insert > File. (the namings
given here are according to LO 4.3)


which is wrong, but no time to discuss that


Which part is wrong? That it is one of the least used entries in the 
insert menu, that it is less used that inserting an image, that it isnt 
used by average users.


Section isnt a common feature found in documents, as its not even a 
common feature found in word processors. I would presume that if we 
analysed all the documents on bugzilla, that sections would likely be in 
less that 1% of them. As a simple example, the Writer user guide has 
tables, frames, images, bookmarks, hyperlinks, and indexes, but no sections.



As HIG says we have to have all of them in the menu, we can only do so
much. As you said you had to scroll to display them, i checked my laptop
which is 1280x768 and the insert menu was the longest, but i didnt need
to scroll according to today's master. It can be reduce by 1 if i move
Insert > Chart back into Insert > Object.


Insert and format are too long for my screen


What screen resolution do you have? Both the insert and format menus now 
have 25 entries in it. In 4.3, before the menus began changing, the 
insert menu had 23 entries and the format menu had 21 entries.



There is an absolutely good reason for them. Firstly its defined in the
HIG that all commands be available in the menus, but secondly you
previously stated "when you train people on software, the first thing
you tell them is to be curious and to visit the menus if they search for
something" and if these items are not available in the menu, how would a
user discover useful shortcuts like Ctrl+] for Increase Font Size.


Who would encourage users to use this command instead of styles?


The use of direct formatting is not in competition with styles, as you 
can create a suitable set of direct formatting options and easily 
convert it into a paragraph style, or set a paragraph style and apply 
direct formatting to it, and then update the style based on the 
additional direct formatting.


The command is a feature of libreoffice and is no different that opening 
the font size combobox to increase or decrease the font, so there isnt a 
need to hide it from the menu bar. The menu bar didnt even have style 
shortcut entries in it until i just added them, so how would a user know 
that ctrl+1 is for the Heading 1 style.



The

menu also has commands that weren't previously easily accessible until i
added them to the toolbar (e.g. superscript, subscript, line spacing,
increase/decrease paragraph spacing, etc).


We want the document produced with LibreOffice to be robust with
roundtrip to other format, so please do not encourage users to use
direct formatting, on the contrary we should make them aware of styles
and simplify the process to access them, this is what should be worked
on and where we should put resources and creativity.


As stated above, direct formatting options are not in competition with 
styles as styles are simply a bundled collection of direct formatting 
and not showing direct formatting options because users may not know 
about styles or choose not to use it is not the correct way to go.



We can want users to not use direct formatting, though we present them
with direct formatting in the toolbar and also in the context menu until
recently, but it will always be used until styles are presented to users
in such an easy manner that even a beginner would understand and 

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Cor Nouws]

Hi Pedro,

Pedro Rosmaninho wrote on 10-06-15 13:41:
> I guess it is controversial because there's a hostility of some LO users to
> allow direct formatting of the document instead of resorting to Styles.
> Therefore, some people consider that direct formatting should be hidden?
> 
> However, many users do prefer to use direct formatting and competing Office
> suites provide easy access to direct formatting. I don't know why
> developers consider this to be a wrong approach?

From a trainer and migration consultant perspective, I see the mess and
grief and productivity loss, along with interoperability issues caused
by direct formatting.

> Making the access to direct formatting more difficult would just draw
> people away from LO to closed source office suites.

So the challenge - where the issues are about - is to make working with
Styles more natural, visible. If that comes with the price of a _little_
worse availability of direct formatting functions, I think that would be
worth it. But maybe that isn't even needed, looking at the great focus
of UX to make the best of LibreOffice.

Regards,
Cor

-- 
Cor Nouws
GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
- vrijwilliger http://nl.libreoffice.org
- volunteer http://www.libreoffice.org
- The Document Foundation Membership Committee Member

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Sophie]

Hi Jay,
Le 10/06/2015 14:20, Jay Philips a écrit :
> Hi Sophie,
> 
> On 06/08/2015 12:02 PM, Sophie wrote:
>> Hi Jay,
>> Le 07/06/2015 19:07, Jay Philips a écrit :
>> [...]
>>
>>> Would 'Exchange Database' be more suitable in the Tools menu next to
>>> 'Bibliography Database'?
>>
>> Why, you're not working on the database, but editing the link to the
>> database.
> 
> So editing the data in the database makes it suitable for 'Bibliography
> Database' to be under Tools but editing the link to the database
> shouldnt be considered suitable for it to be under Tools. Bibliography
> Database is the tool and all things related to that tool should be under
> Tools, similarly Macros is a tool and running, assigning, editing, etc
> of macros is located under tools. We dont have a Edit > Macros entry.

It's not only for Bibliography, but for all the databases registered
under LO. An example, I've one template designed for a mailing for
different sets of clients, those clients are in two different databases
registered under LO. Once my first mailing done on the first database, I
edit the link between the template and the database to chose the second
database under Edit > Exchange database.
There is no actions on the database, the action is between the template
and the database or on the template because it keeps the link to the
database.

> 
>>> I'm assuming he meant Insert > Hyperlink and Edit > Hyperlink, which do
>>> use the same dialog. :D
>>
>> So to edit an hyperlink you chose the insert menu?
> 
> To edit a hyperlink, I would use the context menu or click the Hyperlink
> entry in the toolbar, as the Hyperlink dialog box is multi-purpose.

And if you don't know about context menu (like most of our new users)
and don't use toolbar, will you chose Insert as main menu to edit the
hyperlink?
> 
> Stats for Edit > Hyperlink (.uno:EditHyperlink) :-
> Context Menu : 90%
> Menu Bar : 10%
> Note: There isnt any means to know how many users clicked the
> 'Hyperlink' button (.uno:HyperlinkDialog) to edit a hyperlink.
> 
>>> Not very commonly used according to the stats, which likely means its
>>> commonly used only by experienced/advanced users (aka Eve). The stats
>>> have Insert > Image > From File as the highest used entry in the menu
>>> and its submenus and Insert > Section as one of the lowest in the first
>>> level. Even behind Insert > Envelope and Insert > File. (the namings
>>> given here are according to LO 4.3)
>>
>> which is wrong, but no time to discuss that
> 
> Which part is wrong? That it is one of the least used entries in the
> insert menu, that it is less used that inserting an image, that it isnt
> used by average users.
> 
> Section isnt a common feature found in documents, as its not even a
> common feature found in word processors. I would presume that if we
> analysed all the documents on bugzilla, that sections would likely be in
> less that 1% of them. As a simple example, the Writer user guide has
> tables, frames, images, bookmarks, hyperlinks, and indexes, but no
> sections.

So the migrations I've made may have been with wrong users as they rely
on sections first to insert a page (Word usage) but when made aware of
it used them a lot ;)
In general, I find sad to hide things on user's preferences when they
improve the layout and the robustness of the document, same reasoning as
styles vs direct formating.
> 
>>> As HIG says we have to have all of them in the menu, we can only do so
>>> much. As you said you had to scroll to display them, i checked my laptop
>>> which is 1280x768 and the insert menu was the longest, but i didnt need
>>> to scroll according to today's master. It can be reduce by 1 if i move
>>> Insert > Chart back into Insert > Object.
>>
>> Insert and format are too long for my screen
> 
> What screen resolution do you have? Both the insert and format menus now
> have 25 entries in it. In 4.3, before the menus began changing, the
> insert menu had 23 entries and the format menu had 21 entries.

1366x768 and both are ok in 4.4
> 
>>> There is an absolutely good reason for them. Firstly its defined in the
>>> HIG that all commands be available in the menus, but secondly you
>>> previously stated "when you train people on software, the first thing
>>> you tell them is to be curious and to visit the menus if they search for
>>> something" and if these items are not available in the menu, how would a
>>> user discover useful shortcuts like Ctrl+] for Increase Font Size.
>>
>> Who would encourage users to use this command instead of styles?
> 
> The use of direct formatting is not in competition with styles, as you
> can create a suitable set of direct formatting options and easily
> convert it into a paragraph style, or set a paragraph style and apply
> direct formatting to it, and then update the style based on the
> additional direct formatting.
> 
> The command is a feature of libreoffice and is no different that opening
> the font size combobox to increase or decrease the font,

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Pedro Rosmaninho]

>
>
> From a trainer and migration consultant perspective, I see the mess and
> grief and productivity loss, along with interoperability issues caused
> by direct formatting.


​I see your point, but there are other types of users for LO. And
sabotaging their way of working in benefit of others isn't the best way to
accomplish it.

>
> > Making the access to direct formatting more difficult would just draw
> > people away from LO to closed source office suites.
>
> So the challenge - where the issues are about - is to make working with
> Styles more natural, visible. If that comes with the price of a _little_
> worse availability of direct formatting functions, I think that would be
> worth it. But maybe that isn't even needed, looking at the great focus
> of UX to make the best of LibreOffice
> ​.
>

​Well, I think that making working with Styles more natural and visible
isn't mutually exclusive with having great availability of direct
formatting options.
The Sidebar offers great potential to make working with Styles a lot more
intuitive than what it is now in its own section separated from direct
formatting. But I think that the Styles Sidebar pane needs serious rework
as most of the UI needed. ​
​The work done in 4.3 and 4.4 and in the future in 5.0 was enormous and of
great quality but if someone wants to make the use of Styles simpler then
it would be better to focus on making it better. That depends on the
contributors and there's still plenty of work to be done in so many areas.​



> ​
>
> Regards,
> Cor
>
> --
> Cor Nouws
> GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
> - vrijwilliger http://nl.libreoffice.org
> - volunteer http://www.libreoffice.org
> - The Document Foundation Membership Committee Member
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Cor Nouws]

Pedro Rosmaninho wrote on 10-06-15 15:35:

> ​I see your point, but there are other types of users for LO. And
> sabotaging their way of working in benefit of others isn't the best way to
> accomplish it.

Of course. That is not the goal. Sorry if that was not clear from my
writing.

Ciao,
Cor

-- 
Cor Nouws
GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
- vrijwilliger http://nl.libreoffice.org
- volunteer http://www.libreoffice.org
- The Document Foundation Membership Committee Member

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[K-J LibreOffice]

Hi Christoph,
Am 08.06.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Christoph Noack:

Hi all,


Nice to see you're back.


I hope you don't if I also add some thoughts...


Your thoughts are worth enough to listen to.
Maybe you should tell the new guys who you are.


--
Grüße
k-j

Member of TheDocumentFoundation
http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/members/
http://de.libreoffice.org
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Christophe Strobbe]

Hi,

On 10/06/2015 13:41, Pedro Rosmaninho wrote:
> I guess it is controversial because there's a hostility of some LO users to
> allow direct formatting of the document instead of resorting to Styles.
> Therefore, some people consider that direct formatting should be hidden?

It is also an accessibility issue. If you make text bold and big instead
of using a proper heading style, it is much harder for software (e.g.
assistive technologies such as screenreaders, but also software that
converts word processing files to DAISY books) to figure out that
something is a heading. In fact, this category of software relies on
correct styles to figure out what kind of structure is being used.

This is why people have created accessible authoring guidelines such as
these  (I contributed to these
guidelines) and an accessibility checker such as AccessODF
 (sadly no longer compatible since
the introduction of the sidepanel from Lotus Symphony).
Similar issues exist in web content, which is why we have guidelines
such as WCAG  (also an ISO standard) and
WAI-ARIA .

> However, many users do prefer to use direct formatting and competing Office
> suites provide easy access to direct formatting. I don't know why
> developers consider this to be a wrong approach?
> Making the access to direct formatting more difficult would just draw
> people away from LO to closed source office suites.
> And removing direct formatting just to make people more aware of Styles

Most people don't know what direct formatting (as opposed to the use of
proper styles) is, so the preferred approach should be to make the use
of proper styles as easy and intuitive as possible.

Best regards,

Christophe

> wow. Is there a more heavy handed top-down approach from developers to
> force users to do things as they want to? Christ.
>
> If you want to make Styles more used than redesign the Sidebar for Styles
> and Formatting into something more intuitive. The way as it is presented
> now is completely unintuitive compared with the Properties tab where you
> clearly know what pressing the Bold button will do for example.
>
> If you want users to use Styles then strongly improve the UX of the Sidebar
> pane, allow for easy visualization of different styles and easy change of
> Style of each component.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jay Philips  wrote:
>
>> Hi Sophie,
>>
>> On 06/07/2015 11:22 PM, Sophie wrote:
>>
>>> The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
 accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
 too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
 objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the
 community.

>>> Yes, I'm on my way to ask the FR community to react on that, mostly
>>> those in real contact with users, doing migrations and training. Not
>>> because we want to rely only on users feedback but also on the
>>> robustness of our document roundtrip and exchanges, and for that, we
>>> know that styles are the common sense to treat them.
>>>
>> Look forward to the feedback.
>>
>>  Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
 acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
 the community.

>>> That would be a great thing to do a survey now that people are more
>>> aware of the necessity to communicate in different environments.
>>>
>>> Jay, I'll answer your details tomorrow, but about direct formatting,
>>> that was one of the most controversial thing to add it to the sidebar so
>>> prominently. Most of the training material available remove the
>>> formating toolbar to make people aware of styles...
>>>
>> Dont see why it would be controversial when all other office suites that
>> utilize sidebars (iWork, Calligra) have direct formatting in the sidebar.
>> The sad thing is that paragraph and character styles dropdown lists arent
>> present in the sidebar's properties tab.
>>
>> Jay
>>


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Responsive Media Experience Research Group (REMEX)
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749

“It is possible to make a living making free software for freedom 
instead of closed-source proprietary malware for cops.” 
Jacob Appelbaum, 




-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Pedro Rosmaninho]

Great reply. Thank you for the elaborate information.


On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Christophe Strobbe <
stro...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 10/06/2015 13:41, Pedro Rosmaninho wrote:
> > I guess it is controversial because there's a hostility of some LO users
> to
> > allow direct formatting of the document instead of resorting to Styles.
> > Therefore, some people consider that direct formatting should be hidden?
>
> It is also an accessibility issue. If you make text bold and big instead
> of using a proper heading style, it is much harder for software (e.g.
> assistive technologies such as screenreaders, but also software that
> converts word processing files to DAISY books) to figure out that
> something is a heading. In fact, this category of software relies on
> correct styles to figure out what kind of structure is being used.
>
> This is why people have created accessible authoring guidelines such as
> these  (I contributed to these
> guidelines) and an accessibility checker such as AccessODF
>  (sadly no longer compatible since
> the introduction of the sidepanel from Lotus Symphony).
> Similar issues exist in web content, which is why we have guidelines
> such as WCAG  (also an ISO standard) and
> WAI-ARIA .
>
> > However, many users do prefer to use direct formatting and competing
> Office
> > suites provide easy access to direct formatting. I don't know why
> > developers consider this to be a wrong approach?
> > Making the access to direct formatting more difficult would just draw
> > people away from LO to closed source office suites.
> > And removing direct formatting just to make people more aware of
> Styles
>
> Most people don't know what direct formatting (as opposed to the use of
> proper styles) is, so the preferred approach should be to make the use
> of proper styles as easy and intuitive as possible.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christophe
>
> > wow. Is there a more heavy handed top-down approach from developers to
> > force users to do things as they want to? Christ.
> >
> > If you want to make Styles more used than redesign the Sidebar for Styles
> > and Formatting into something more intuitive. The way as it is presented
> > now is completely unintuitive compared with the Properties tab where you
> > clearly know what pressing the Bold button will do for example.
> >
> > If you want users to use Styles then strongly improve the UX of the
> Sidebar
> > pane, allow for easy visualization of different styles and easy change of
> > Style of each component.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jay Philips  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Sophie,
> >>
> >> On 06/07/2015 11:22 PM, Sophie wrote:
> >>
> >>> The promise, at the time, was to re-start the survey to obtain more
>  accurate statistics (I cannot remember the discussion word by word as
>  too much time and too many things have gone by). I suppose that some
>  objections coming from Sophie reflect those objections from the
>  community.
> 
> >>> Yes, I'm on my way to ask the FR community to react on that, mostly
> >>> those in real contact with users, doing migrations and training. Not
> >>> because we want to rely only on users feedback but also on the
> >>> robustness of our document roundtrip and exchanges, and for that, we
> >>> know that styles are the common sense to treat them.
> >>>
> >> Look forward to the feedback.
> >>
> >>  Unfortunately, the survey was never re-started because of the Oracle
>  acquisition and the subsequent turmoil inside StarDivision and inside
>  the community.
> 
> >>> That would be a great thing to do a survey now that people are more
> >>> aware of the necessity to communicate in different environments.
> >>>
> >>> Jay, I'll answer your details tomorrow, but about direct formatting,
> >>> that was one of the most controversial thing to add it to the sidebar
> so
> >>> prominently. Most of the training material available remove the
> >>> formating toolbar to make people aware of styles...
> >>>
> >> Dont see why it would be controversial when all other office suites that
> >> utilize sidebars (iWork, Calligra) have direct formatting in the
> sidebar.
> >> The sad thing is that paragraph and character styles dropdown lists
> arent
> >> present in the sidebar's properties tab.
> >>
> >> Jay
> >>
>
>
> --
> Christophe Strobbe
> Akademischer Mitarbeiter
> Responsive Media Experience Research Group (REMEX)
> Hochschule der Medien
> Nobelstraße 10
> 70569 Stuttgart
> Tel. +49 711 8923 2749
>
> “It is possible to make a living making free software for freedom
> instead of closed-source proprietary malware for cops.”
> Jacob Appelbaum,
> <
> http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/12/28/jacob-appelbaum-on-resisting-the-surveillance-state/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Philippe Jung]

Le 10/06/2015 14:40, Cor Nouws a écrit :

> So the challenge - where the issues are about - is to make working with
> Styles more natural, visible. 


Hi all,

[Summary: style should be promoted by better answering user needs
(several -new?- features proposed), not (only) by changing the ui]

Here is a list of things we could add if we want to promote styles.
Explaination of my reasonning after:

- change management / training but probably out of scope. However, this
is the root cause, i think. When you don't say how to use a software to
users, they use it the way they think is good.
- We should make an enhancement in Tools -> Options, it should be
possible to reset the UI configuration of menu/tool/event/Sidebars to
Basic, Normal, Advanced with 3 predefined configuration and ask at first
launch which one to use.
- we should, do all that is possible to promote meaningful styles over
direct formatting. Taking into account this: when the name of the style
is Bold and underline, that is not far from direct formatting style.
Also, in writer, compare Addressee, Footer, Footer Left, Footer Right,
Frame Contents, Header, Header Left, Header Right, and so on. There are
(visually at least) all like Default style. I would do something that
makes these styles different. I believe you have to visually excite your
audience (in a certain limit) if you want to retain their attention. For
exemple, Right formatting could be right formatted, we could use
colours, tooltip on the style to better describe it.
- we should have a tool / wizzard / whatever that helps you detect
direct formatting and replace by existing / new styles. Kind of code
style checking. Or fixing.
- In writer context menus could allow to apply a style to current
selection (text, paragrap, ...)
- I believe that when a direct formatting is applied, a new style name
could be automatically asked
- It should be possible to send documents with locked (read-only) styles
(I gave you a template with these styles, you cannot use other styles,
you have no direct formatting, produce your part of the final document).
Or: if you want a new style, it will be managed as a change request and
document integrator will have two choices: accept it / replace it by an
existing one.


And now the origin of these features for those who still have few minutes:


The software must not be developped for the developpers but for the
target audience in order to answer needs.


So, do we have an idea of the demographic composition of LO users ?



Among users, how many are skilled in computer use and how many are users
that have never been trained to "good practices" ?

The second population will probably express its needs with a very
limited vocabulary. I would say: text, new line (paragraph as advanced
concept), bullets, bold, underline, italic, recover the text that I
forgot to save, print. All other buttons are noise (at least at the very
beginning, the more they learn, the more buttons should be displayed)

If the guy is using LO at work, maybe one day, he will add titles and
later images to the vocabulary.
For this kind of population, I think one unique side panel is enough.
You can present them a style named Bold and they will be happy. Kind of
"basic" mode



Among users, how many use LO for professional work / how many for
private tasks ?

The second population will be using LO to write a letter to an
administration, to make a (one) slide with pictures of the last week-end
activities just to print and paste in child's book. They will probably
fall back in the previous "small-needs" category.

Let's see the need of the first population (pro workers): they will be
using LO for writing user manuals, answering tenders, writing letters to
customers and so on. There is a (visual) quality expected for these
documents especially if they are writen by several people.

Now let's describe all the cases I met in this situation:
- the guy (or the girl) has always used Word before and knows only
direct style buttons (how many times did I see titles writen without
styles, with tabs, spaces, numbers)
- the guys uses Word and uses styles. But as soon as a part of a
paragraph is bold, it's style + direct formatting,
- the guys uses LO for first time, he used Word previously. He does not
understand the (new for him) concept of Paragraph Style, Character
Style, Table Style. He does not understand how to put numbers in front
of titles (Chapter Numbering). Nobody proposed him at first launch to
explain how to migrate ways of working from Word to LO. (kind of
eLearning before / after). So, he uses few styles and lot of additional
direct formatting.
- the LO user. He uses styles and few direct formatting. My case: I tend
to put images in writer, crop them, anchor as char, and apply Center.
- the perfect user. Never met.
- and finally the poor guy is charge of mixing all the contributions in
a single document. He started a clean LO document, 5 styles in use.
After copy / paste of all the contributions,

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Jay Philips]

Hi Sophie,

On 06/10/2015 05:02 PM, Sophie wrote:

Hi Jay,
Le 10/06/2015 14:20, Jay Philips a écrit :

Hi Sophie,

So editing the data in the database makes it suitable for 'Bibliography
Database' to be under Tools but editing the link to the database
shouldnt be considered suitable for it to be under Tools. Bibliography
Database is the tool and all things related to that tool should be under
Tools, similarly Macros is a tool and running, assigning, editing, etc
of macros is located under tools. We dont have a Edit > Macros entry.


It's not only for Bibliography, but for all the databases registered
under LO. An example, I've one template designed for a mailing for
different sets of clients, those clients are in two different databases
registered under LO. Once my first mailing done on the first database, I
edit the link between the template and the database to chose the second
database under Edit > Exchange database.
There is no actions on the database, the action is between the template
and the database or on the template because it keeps the link to the
database.


Yes i was aware its not only for the bibliography, i did open the 
dialog. Its not such a crucial thing, so its fine where it is. :D



To edit a hyperlink, I would use the context menu or click the Hyperlink
entry in the toolbar, as the Hyperlink dialog box is multi-purpose.


And if you don't know about context menu (like most of our new users)
and don't use toolbar, will you chose Insert as main menu to edit the
hyperlink?


Any user who uses a computer will be introduced to the context menu 
before they likely get introduced to the libreoffice. Context menus are 
used to managed your desktop (e.g. change your wallpaper), context menus 
are used in file managers (e.g. to access properties of a file), they 
are used in browsers (e.g. for copy text of a webpage). The stats do 
show this as well, with 90% of users access editing the hyperlink 
through the context menu and i'd assume the same stats would have been 
for any of the other entries in the Edit menu that i initially removed.



Which part is wrong? That it is one of the least used entries in the
insert menu, that it is less used that inserting an image, that it isnt
used by average users.

Section isnt a common feature found in documents, as its not even a
common feature found in word processors. I would presume that if we
analysed all the documents on bugzilla, that sections would likely be in
less that 1% of them. As a simple example, the Writer user guide has
tables, frames, images, bookmarks, hyperlinks, and indexes, but no
sections.


So the migrations I've made may have been with wrong users as they rely
on sections first to insert a page (Word usage) but when made aware of
it used them a lot ;)


I believe sections in Word are different then sections in LibreOffice.


In general, I find sad to hide things on user's preferences when they
improve the layout and the robustness of the document, same reasoning as
styles vs direct formating.


I maybe confused but the section entry isnt being hidden, its position 
in the menu is just further down. One of the reasons why page break is 
at the top of the insert menu is because it will improve document 
layout, as many users still press enter many times to push content to 
the following page.



What screen resolution do you have? Both the insert and format menus now
have 25 entries in it. In 4.3, before the menus began changing, the
insert menu had 23 entries and the format menu had 21 entries.


1366x768 and both are ok in 4.4


Screenshot of the insert menu on my 1280x768 laptop running Linux Mint 
Mate. Fits just fine for me.


http://www.picpaste.com/insert_menu-rvndXAj7.png


The use of direct formatting is not in competition with styles, as you
can create a suitable set of direct formatting options and easily
convert it into a paragraph style, or set a paragraph style and apply
direct formatting to it, and then update the style based on the
additional direct formatting.

The command is a feature of libreoffice and is no different that opening
the font size combobox to increase or decrease the font, so there isnt a
need to hide it from the menu bar. The menu bar didnt even have style
shortcut entries in it until i just added them, so how would a user know
that ctrl+1 is for the Heading 1 style.


Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against changes and value your work, you
know it, I won't discuss and spend time to check everything otherwise.
See my explanations below about direct formating and styles


Sorry if that may have come off strong, as it wasnt intended. Yes i know 
you value my work and of course i value yours as well. :D



As stated above, direct formatting options are not in competition with
styles as styles are simply a bundled collection of direct formatting
and not showing direct formatting options because users may not know
about styles or choose not to use it is not the correct way to go.


They are not treated t

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[Christoph Noack]

Hi Klaus-Jürgen, hi all!

Am Mittwoch, den 10.06.2015, 23:07 +0200 schrieb K-J LibreOffice:
> Hi Christoph,
> Am 08.06.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Christoph Noack:
> > Hi all,
> 
> Nice to see you're back.

Have I been away? 

Just kidding. Thanks for the kind words ... I recently started (and
still am) looking into current Design team stuff.

> > I hope you don't if I also add some thoughts...
> 
> Your thoughts are worth enough to listen to.
> Maybe you should tell the new guys who you are.

Well, I was one of the UX Team guys who worked on LibreOffice /
OpenOffice.org. With regard to the latter, I really enjoyed the
collaboration with the Sun UX Team at that time - hence my explanations
about their work.

Cheers,
Christoph


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-design] feedback on #91781

[K-J LibreOffice]

Hi Christoph,
Am 12.06.2015 um 23:42 schrieb Christoph Noack:

Hi Klaus-Jürgen, hi all!

Am Mittwoch, den 10.06.2015, 23:07 +0200 schrieb K-J LibreOffice:

Hi Christoph,
Am 08.06.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Christoph Noack:

Hi all,


Nice to see you're back.


Have I been away?


Our Sleeping Beauty. ;-)


--
Grüße
k-j

Member of TheDocumentFoundation
http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/members/
http://de.libreoffice.org
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted