[discuss] Re: How do I install and use several GUI languages on one system (Win XP)
Stephan Gromer wrote: Dear all, I am maintaing the PCs in a small university lab and I would like to switch my users from a competitor's product made in Redmond to OOo 2.0.1. My colleagues however come from different countries and would like to see their native language being used for the OOo GUI. Hi Stephan, AFAIK you only need to install a base OOo (OOo 2.0.1 us english) and apply as much as Language Packs (to acess GUI in sveral languages) and install as much dictionaries (to have spelling support in each language)as you want. teher is a list of language packs at http://oootranslation.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/2.0.1rc5/ for others, consult directly on Native Langs page http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html Once installed, you may change the language of the GUI in ToolsLanguage settingsLanguagesUser Interface. Each user may choose. Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: commandline tool: render ODT into PS or PDF
Daniel Carrera wrote: I don't know how easy it is. The OOo API is not exactly straight forward. But even if it's not hard, it would make OOo a dependency. Would you want a command-line tool to have a 300MB dependency? (all this assuming that OOo doesn't require an X server if you provide the -invisible option). One of the ODF developers has just confirmed that you can't run OOo without X. He tried the approach of using OOo2 as a back-end and failed. Because OOo requires a lot of things that have no place on a server (like X). Hi, What about the -headless mode? According to help: Starts in headless mode which allows using the application without user interface. This special mode can be used when the application is controlled by external clients via the API. and OOo site adds: The headless mode makes it possible to script an Office without any user interface and user interface interaction. It is a special mode used typically by external scripting clients. The Office has no user interface and the lifetime must be controlled by the external scripting client. By invoking OOo from commandline with -headless will be possible to run a macro _without_ X being up and running? (but perhaps installed) Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: commandline tool: render ODT into PS or PDF
Daniel Carrera wrote: One of our members has been working on an XSLT transformation to turn ODT files into HTML. It's already well advanced. So, if we can find a tool that converts HTML to PDF, we could combine them. Do you know of any program to convert HTML to PDF? HTMLDoc? It is included in several linux distributions Homepage is http://www.easysw.com/htmldoc/ There is a GPL license option Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Horizontal columns
John McCormick wrote: One feature that I would find useful would be the ability to make horizontal columns. Although text lines are horizontal columns of a sort, I'm working on an interlinear Bible translation which requires a line of Greek with a line of corresponding translated English below. If I add notations or expand the text, I usually have to hand-edit the lines so that they flow properly. If I could work in an interlinear mode, or with horizontal columns, I could simply add the text without worrying about editing each line individually. Basically, it would be nice to be able to input Bible-type text with center columns, side columns, interlinear text, and footnotes all simultaneously. I remember a quite old discussion (18 months) on a similar translation problem, with line-by-line paired texts. I do not have the details, but the advice was to use text frames, especifically _linked_ text frames so text could flow from a frame to the following. Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Re: commandline tool: render ODT into PS or PDF
Daniel Carrera wrote: Henrik Sundberg wrote: Did Arend Beelen use dispatching or regular API calls? Look, you're missing the point: 1. Even when run headless, OOo needs X to install. Yes, even if you use API calls. This is an *installation* requirement. 2. Even when run headless, OOo needs X to run. Even if it doesn't actually display a GUI. 3. Even if the above changed, OOo alone is still a huge dependency. OOo is an office suite. It is not intended to work as a command-line tool or a library. We know it is *possible* to make it work as a server backend. The point is that it's more trouble than it's worth. Hi Daniel, I understand your point. But not everyboby is in your shoes. If using OOo headless is *possible* just now on a server without X running, then this opens a possibility to set up a document converter server just now. This may be a selling point for a company that wants to migrate all legacy documents _just now_, not when the sofware will be developed (the Best is enemy of the good). Let's offer the OP all the information and let's him decide if OOo is a too big dependency or not for his demanded work. I think he wants an intranet solution for small business. But Apache, SQL, LaTeX etc are not small dependencies either. Más vale pájaro en mano... , que cliente en otra consultoría Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Official request for rectification of Mr. Andrew Brown's article
Hi Gianluca Gianluca Turconi wrote: I've just read the article present on your news site: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1660763,00.html?gusrc=rss and I have to say it includes misleading and false assertions, which I consider harmful for both my professionalism and my efforts in favor of the OpenOffice.org Free Software Community. [ ... ] In addition to this fact, I want to underline, as a personal correction to the quoted article, the large contribution made by amateurs to the OpenOffice.org Community, either with patches to the code (still included into the OpenOffice.org Issuezilla tool) either with free contribution to linguistic tools such as spellchecking dictionaries and thesauri that *are* code and involve tens of volunteers and thousands of work hours. I understand your point and see it friendly. As others have indicated before, the articles' assertions could have been less emphatic. But I do agree with Andrew Brown's main point: the quality assurance protocol, the bugfixing process for OpenOffice needs a dramatic improvement. You can search my previous posts during the OOo 2.0 development process. I have become very very upset by the way user demanded features, or simple buxfixes are dealt with. There are screaming examples of bugfixes delayed for ages without a clear reason. I am sure any users that have visited isuezilla has his/her own list. And what about releasing 2.0 final with significant regressions?, like broken numbering styles. We are mirroring other's practices. I have reported some bugs myself, and found many others that were already reported. I do use issuezilla, browse it, read the buxfixes part of release notes etc. And have bad feelings from that readings. What really scares me (and I see this fear also in Brown's article) when browsing isssuezilla is the impression I get from the comments of the project members. In many cases it seems that those programmers have never used OOo themselves for a productive work. They do not seem to realize what's the use for the feature they are working in. There are many talks about interfaces, framework etc. but not on usability. In addition, live discussions are not frequent on issuezilla, I get the impression they are not wanted. It seems that issuezilla is seen by developers as a point to pick up clear and well-defined tasks. But it is impossible for end-users to setup such clear-cut commands. Issuezilla is complex and scares users, but more fundamentally, users do not know how to implement a feature, and programmers seem to listen only to code-jargon: the two communities speak a different language. My impression is that we, OOo developers and users, need a better communication channel between these lists/newsgroups and core programmers. An intermediate layer between end-users and programmers, managed by experienced users with a knowledge of OOo internals (people like Andrew Brown himself and many others). Dedicating payed people to read these lists and extract statistics of most demanded features, most frequent FAQs, most frequent user confusion with tools etc. This would not be wasted money, even if that mean two programmers less for the core. Relying only in isuezilla votes has revealed non-practical. I see the need for some kind of authority that sum up user input, define tasks and priorize them for isuezilla. I have no doubt this process is done now, but on the programmers end and hidden from users. I would like to see this decicsion-making process open, transparent and web published. Last but not least, I must agree that bugfixing depends on good QA team. I do not know the internals of this process in OOo. I do not know if currently QA members are Sun employers or volunteers. I do see a need for full-time (payed) people. But I do see this as a very good niche for volunteer work. And I would not dismiss the efforts dedicated by QA volunteers as not writing code. I read Andrew Brown's article as meaning that any effort (even non-programming tasks) put into bugfixing and quality assurance is essential for overall quality and success of the software. Thus, volunteer work into QA is, to my eyes, as important as the core-programmers team. An essential, and community-contributed, part of OOo development. The article missed this point: programmers are not all. Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Official request for rectification of Mr. Andrew Brown's article
Gianluca Turconi wrote: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:50:39 +0100 M. Fioretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Said this, I find the rest of the article objective. It says things that are actual problems and needed to be said, things which I too was planning to write sometime. Well, Marco, I've to object vigorously to your statement because the article's author has committed the worst error in pure Logic, this is to say he has elevated a concept from the particular level (the OOo project) to the general one (the open source developing method) without any kind of evidence except some empiric and limited experiences done by him. Hi Gianluca, I don't think we are talking in the sphere of Pure Logic. It is a reasonable scientific procedure to take a significant and representative example and trying to extract conclusions from that (with all reserves about being a single example, not generalize beyond facts etc). On the other hand, it is impossible to have _all_ the knowledge and evidence, thys is a Logic myth. All progress in knowledge is inductive (but falsable). I think we all agree that that OOo is a very big project, and one very relevant for the acceptance in use of FOSS. To analyze it and drive conclusions from it is not bad logic. I think the main point in that article is in the title: OpenOffice.org is buggy. I will say more, OOo 2.0 is much more buggy than 1.1.x. Even, some design decisions for 2.0 have broken features that worked well in 1.1.x. OOo 2.0 may be a significant step for newcomers, making even easier to migrate from MS-Office, and as such, a success. But for people that is using OOo from 1.0.x, I feel that there is an increasing distance between user needs and project management in the feature-request/bugfixing field. As Marco Fioretti has pointed, these things must be said. These things have been said in these lists, but they must be debated openly in general newspapers too. Let do not add secrecy to bugs as others, closed companies, may tend to do. Pointing out those problems is not an attack to OOo but a way to make it ever healthier in the future. Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Official request for rectification of Mr. Andrew Brown's article
of translation, from plans to implementation. In less words: I am proposing to reform Issuezilla and issue-management protocols (please read these proposals in the understanding I have no real knowledge of the internals of OpenOffice.org Community Council or engineering policies at the programmer's core) Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Number/bullet styles NOT applied with paragraph style
Hi all, I have just upograded by Ubuntu system to Breezy Badger (which ships with OOo 1.9.129) and installed also teh FINAL beta on Windows XP. To my surprise, I have found that I cannot apply a numbering style with a paragraph style. If you attach a numbering style to a paragraph style (in teh numbering TAB for the paragraph definition) and then apply that paragraph style to a text, all attributes are changed correctly but numbering style. Something in the internals is changed, because if you turn on the numbering you will see the right number/bullet scheme. But the issuse is that numbering is severely broken as it is. Both in Windows 2.0 Final and in Linux 1.9.129 versions. This is an ESSENTIAL feature of OOo styles system. I, and a lot of people, have a lot of templates and documents with heavy use of bulleted/numbered lists that become a nightmare to edit now. I have found that this is a FIXED bug: issue 52888 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=52888 I am quite upset with this and other bugs in 2.0. Not by the bug itself, but management of it. I realize I am quite hot right now, but how a feature that was working well in OOo =1.9.118 can be so badly broken in the FINAL version? and, what drives me to write this post, have the target milestone set at 2.0.1?? and at the same time claiming it is a Fixed issue??? The issue has 11 duplicates, it is by no mean a rarely used feature. Ok this is only complaining in loud. But when will be 2.0.1 ready?? Is there any patch applicable meanwhile? Thanks in advance Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: OO.o Macros with Python interpreter?
Ian Laurenson wrote: At the risk of getting flamed I think that Marco has a good idea, Hi Ian, Yes, the idea of standarisatin is a really good one. Internet is the proof: it wouldn't have been possible without common standard protocols. I can imagine a world where all applications share a common set of standard objects. For instance, text paragraphs, tables, page formats etc. I remember Oberon, some years ago, an OS from N. Wirth that was based in this model. But we are very far from that. Even for the very basic GUI toolkits we have several different models (MFC, Qt, GTK ...), although a common denominator is appearing. But still, a Table is a different beast for OOo, KOffice, AbiWord or MS-Office, page numbers are a property of page styles for ones, and first hand, independent, objects for others etc. Is it possible to define a common API to manage OpenDocument programmatically?(not including GUI aspects), yes, of course. And with some more rounds of standarization and agreement between software makers it will be a reality. Not in the short term, but an idea that deserves consideration and long-term determination to make it happen. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: OO.o Macros with Python interpreter?
Marco Fioretti wrote: Laurent Godard wrote. IMHO, macros (developepd in StarBasic, python, beanshell, whateverlanguage) do not deal with openDocument at all It only deals with the layer the software (OOo) that render an OpenDocument gives the script through its API. It is implementation specific OpenDocment is /only/ the description of the xml files (eg content.xml), and not a specification of the api of the implementation The only answer I have to this is the same I gave to the KOffice developers when they made the very same remark a few days ago: 1) technically, you are 100% right, and I even agree, but 2) after years of advertising what is now OpenDocument as THE one, application-independent, truly open, durable solution etc... that frees your data from lock-in to any single SW provider (including free as in freedom ones)... ...end users are going to be mightily pissed when they start exchanging .odt files from/to OO.o and KOffice or whatever else and they don't always work in the same way. Perhaps I am too learned, but I'd NEVER expect interoperability on OpenDocument to extend to macros or any programming function. OpenDocument attaches to its title: a document, a piece of paper. If you go to macros you are talking about an _application_ standarising on that has been much more difficult ever. For that several software makers MUST agree in a common API. Even within single companies like Microsoft or Adobe, different products use difefrent APIs, just because they were created by different people. It is rather impossible that an .odt file may contain a macro functional at OOo, KOffice or whatever. This is not the same as saying that a CONVERTER cannot be build. But that is a different approach. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Patch acceptance
Daniel Carrera wrote: Please, keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that we nuke the JCA. I simply said that for *add-ons* it could be removed. That's it, nothing else. After reading this thread, I tend to see JCA mostly as a defensive barrier bulid by a big corporation with legal concerns. This is definitely a barrier for newcomers, but may have a lot of sense for teh core codebase. I do wholeheartly agree with you Daniel that JCA is not appropriate for add-ons. Regarding your proposed testing release, I see it not like a kind of stabilized developing branch. I would think of this testing more like a OOExtras/OOMacros included site. A distribution of OOo based on latest _stable_ and with submitted macros and add-ons alarady applied. Ideally, with a way to customize the download on the fly: Let say you offer a web interface to choose Base+macros 1,57, and addons 2,4,6. You download base installer, and the patch aplicator that runs automatically (not know if dreaming) I see that basing testing on development branch will always result in a highly unstable system, and just unusable for long periods of time (when early after a mayor code rewrite). I think that in this other way new functional additions by the community could be tested and polled (if one macro/addon is widely used, you have a quantitative basis to support claims for inclusion on core codebase). Individual contributors are more likeky to add small self-contained functionality, but often very useful. Once the functionality has proved useful in this testing release then it could be incorporated into codebase. Perhaps with a total rewriting, but I think that many steps of the Sun enginering process would be speed up by having a functional prototype working. (It is not as in: I want word-count, and then no, not _that_ word-count, this other way; but as in RFE: this is the BASIC working prototype, rewite to do the same in C++) This testing site should have any legalese needed to warn that it include third-party, non-Sun developements etc: use at you own risk Only after a macro/add-on is accepted and decided to be incorporated into OOo main code base, *then*, teh author could be rquested to sign the JCA. It is very different physologically to have to sign first, without any chance of getting work included, than been asked permission to include actually use it. cheers, Enrique - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Issue 46347 - Clearer Explaination Need ed in the File Associations Dialog during Inst allation
Tony Pursell wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 at 21:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with the wording of issue 46347 is that it is not a complete
specification of the change to the dialog. It also refers to a user action
('If you choose NO') that cannot be taken on the form. I.e. there is no
YES/NO choice, only boxes to be checked/unchecked.
If anyone want to propose wording different to mine, or a variation on
the wording in 46347, then it must be worked up into a complete
solution, like mine, which I repeat here:
OOo 1.9.79 can be made the default application for opening the
following file types. This means that if you click on one of these files,
OOo will open it, not the Microsoft progam that opens it now.
... then after the list of file types and check boxes, add ...
If you are just trying out Open Office, you probably don't want this to
happen, so leave the boxes unchecked. If you want to try opening these
files in Open Office, you can do that by using 'File Open' and selecting
the file there.
I am all for your wording Tony.
Just a little tip: As I understand it, it is a matter of proposing a
*single* string text. That's the way to ensure rapid adoption of this
change. If QA, Requirements team and developers have to evaluate the
feasability of adding text *after* the check boxes (where there is none
now), I think the whole issue will be delayed a lot.
So do you think that the meaning is preserved in a *two paragraphs*,
SINGLE string?
- Enrique -
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: File association dialog: Issue 46347
Hi Daniel, I have added my votes there. In addition, I want to thank you all the positive work you are doing! - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] No more file association to MSO when installing
Hi, There have been a lot of discussion in these newsgroups about the association of MSO .doc, .xsl etc files with OOo when installing OOo. Before releasing OOo 2.0 I would propose something radical: Just give up that dialoge and making NO association at all at install time between OOo and MSo files. At least, move that option to the Custom install route. In the beta the dialogue is still there, and wording is not preventing newbies from this long know confusion. This is a windows-only issue, and one that involves just beginners and windows-only users. By the time a newby actually needs to change file associations to use only OOo, *then* file associations can be explained, and he/she wil be very happy to have learnt a geek-trick. I think that the inconvenience for the experienced user (having to do the association manually, *once*) is negligible compared to the benefit for these newsgroups as support line for OOo. Just my 2c - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: No more file association to MSO when installing
OK, Daniel. I posted here, not in IZ, to avoid developer distraction. Cheers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: No more file association to MSO when installing
Daniel Carrera wrote: Now, if you can bring down this UI change to just changing a string, that has a better chance of success. If you can do that, please file an issue. OK, Daniel, I was trying to save people like you, regular posters in these newsgroups, quite a lot or work if OOo 2.0 is really a success and lot of windows newbies give OOo a try. Do you see as feasible at this stage to add something like this to that wording: If you check these boxes OpenOffice 2.0 will replace Microsoft applications when opening those files. You will not be able to launch Microsoft applications by doubleclicking in that files. Leave unchecked if you want to preserve the association with Microsoft applications There are three senteces there, if too long perhaps the middle could be dropped. I am not killing for this. It is OOo support line who is suffering the effects of this dialog. If you see this as more disturbing that helpful, I will not insist. Exchanging a couple of posts here is not a waste for OOo development, I hope :-) - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
Mathias Bauer wrote: I don't think that there is something wrong in the process of designing specs. IMHO there are some errors made in some of the specs. Consider the *huge* amount we made for OOo2.0 - it's not surprising that some of them are not, well, satisfying. We learned from that for the future: we will create less specifications and let more people review them. Please remember: only people that don't do anything don't make errors. (I thought this thread was dead) I understand that doings things have the risk to make a mistake from time to time. I make errors many more times than I would like. I am not blaming anyone. Just pointing out from outside point of view (with perhaps a different bias) some minor defects. That errors are expected is a big project is a different thing to not complaining about them because they are expectd. I see this whole discussion as a very very positive landmark. It started as consideration about the number of votes needed to change a design decision. As already indicated, the system works: community asked changes are here!. I consider that this thread shows up perfectly the FOSS model advantages. I am very grateful. And I cannot agree more with the conclusion you draw: more people review. Thanks a lot! - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
While reading other topics I came acroos this citation: If people did not do silly things, nothing intelligent would ever get done. (Ludwig Wittgenstein) There is a lot done in OOo!! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
by Daniel Carrera is a good one. If those anouncement spec doc are posted here, someone will read them and there will be a greater possibility that wide discussions arise. The next step is digesting such discusions, making a final point and posting it again. This is a crucial step: knowing that decisions have been taken (either accepting o rejecting proposals) And the general discussion list is *the* way to do that, not some obscure list. General users, newbies, and those that daily help to newbies in this list are the target for that discussions. Do not ask people to subscribe to a dozen lists: at the end it will be you and you cat discussing in a no-one-care list. Please, have a look at Python community and web site. It's probably a smaller project, but it's standards of transparent decision making rules, community contribution and communication are the higest I know of. (and I do not mean every body and you cat having access to the CVS). What I like most there is the high level of *design* decisions. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
Jacqueline McNally wrote: I've been experimenting with using server-side programs to *guide* users towards making useful bug reports: http://website.openoffice.org/tryouts/dcarrera/miniZilla/ The advantage I see of this is that you can see it without having to login. But if you login to the OOo website and go to http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/enter_bug.cgi?component=%2ATestproduct there is not much difference between the current form and minizilla The trickiest bits and the most enquiries that come to webmasters are wrt to logging in and choosing the relevant component. How is this addressed in minizilla? Hi Jacqueline, The improvement with MiniZilla is HUGE. It is not a matter of having to register (I would vote for not requiring it at Minizilla, leaving as optional. If not registered the issue is labelled as genarl user. Only votes would *require* login). I am not a newby, and I do have problems to identify the relevant component and other options in IZ. And the matter is that we cannot impose users to know if an issue affects framework or UI. The user simply uses OOo, he/she don't need to know HOW things works inside OOo (data structures, components etc.). MiniZilla puts a filter to accomplish issue-reporting task in three separate and well explained steps. The key point is not to demand too much from the user, and offering him the tools to understand what he is doing. As I understand MiniZilla, this is simply a frontend to an issue tracking system as IZ. Developers can maintain a more detailed frontend for their use. In fact, there should be the QA team or developers who defined the fine granularity of component or target milestone and such fields, not end users. In a second thought, a problem not addressed by MinioZilla now is issue tracking by the user. An option would be let things as they are and ask people who want to follow their issue to login at IZ if they do want to. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
Daniel Carrera wrote: Joerg Barfurth wrote: Actually the quickstarter is specified in this exact specification (the Desktop Menu Integration one). It is just too small a detail (relatively) to be mentioned in the abstract... Alright, then all the more reason why that email would be welcome in the discuss list. :-) Yes, if those announcements had been available in the general discuss list, there had been more probabilities of these issues been raised by anyone. Two hundred eyes see more that just two. This is a quite easy improvement action: just e-mail those annoncemente here. It cannot hurt if nobody read them here. But I am sure they will be read. Another separate question is the distance between spec and implementation. Apparently the spec doc talks about UI integration, I can fully agree with the spec, and raise no objection to it. But No where in the spec it is written that some function should be removed. Thats a very different move!! That reveals an structural problem in the process of code implementation, as you have descrided it. As a general rule, removing a single bit from the screen, even more for an existing function, should ring all the alarms. The removal should have beed announced specifically (not in the context of teh improvemenmt of otehr function), and accepted as such. And every removal of function/code should not proceed without having on hand already developed replacement. In the GANTT diagram the removal should wait for completion of the tasks it depends on. I think this is common sense. By the way: many, many thanks for taking the time to do that, it's really reassuring. I feel the power of FOSS here. I do not dream with a similar talk with Adobe, Microsoft or Macromedia developers (even Sun's Oracle ones) I hope after the pressure for 2.0 relase there will be time to settle a better RFE and requirement establishing procedure. have a nice holidays! - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Can educational programs be written for OO in VB or VBA? There is an offer to do so.
Sweet Coffee wrote: A the webmaster for a site called Teachers-Pet.org is interested in writing some educational software for OO. Presently he writes software for MSWord. His software is free. He indicated that the reason why he has not written software for OO as of yet is because OO does not provide the option to write macros in VB or VBA, Is this true? Yes, OOo do not suppor the Visual Basic language. But OOo macros can be written in StarBasic, another dialect of the Basic language. In fact Visual basic and StarBasic are probably closer than american english and british english. In addition, if your websmaster is an experienced programmers he/she would be happy to know that OOo macros can be written in several other languages, specially real ones like C, C++, Java and *Python*. Is there anyway he could write programs for OO? The real problem to write macros for any application is not the language (Basic, Java, Python or what ever), but to get used to the object model and idiosincrasies of that particular application. I am NOT a programmer but a biologist and I do have writen several macros for OOo (and for MSO in VBA formerly). It is not a particularly more difficult task than for MSWord. Some things are even easier. Is there a link I could refer him to which would be helpful. The resources list to point is OOo Development Project page http://development.openoffice.org/index.html Of the resources there listed, those particularly useful are: Programmer's Tutorial (a good overview of the structure of OOo coding) http://api.openoffice.org/basic/man/tutorial/tutorial.pdf StarOffice Software Basic Programmer's Guide (then language reference) http://api.openoffice.org/TipsAndTricks/external.html OpenOffice Macro Document by Andrew Pitonyak A superb guide full of useul examples http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.sxw OOo Developers Guide: http://api.openoffice.org/DevelopersGuide/DevelopersGuide.html OpenOffice.org API Reference (part of SDK) http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/module-ix.html I hope he will decide to develop educational software for OOo. OOo is much and much in use everyday in Schools and Universities around the world - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
Mathias Bauer wrote: Daniel Carrera wrote: Andrew Brown wrote: I think Peter puts it best: This kind of thing would NEVER happen this fast with a MS product. I know this seems slow, but it really only took 3 - 4 months of serious squacking to get it changed. It's good that it's changed -- and it seems to me that the change will be in the m88 builds, which are not quite yet out. But let's not be too smug about MS here. This kind of public beta is what we have to do instead of usability labs. And I think it's obvious that they would change anything that got feedback as bad in the usabilty labs as the castrated quickstarter did. Also remember that it took 200 votes to have it changed. It became the single most requested feature in IZ before a developer did what ammounted to less than an hour's work. I think we should expect more responsiveness than this. Sorry, but why do you think that it was less than an hour's work (what is in fact wrong)? Dear Mathias, the point is not how much work have been involved in getting this again, but the effort wasted in a silly usability test, time wasted in making up the decision and writing a specs document to remove that functionality from the quickstarter. If NO designer were had thinked about touching a single line of code here, what a saving of developer time! Casually, I was readig issue 39486 before reading this. http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=39486 There you have another example of existing functionality that is wasted due to deeply wrong and biased usability scenario. And there are some more expamples. I agree that many real improvements too of course!!. But why to drop out good and working functions? This is what I do not understand. I hope that the designers could realize that there's something that has gone very wrong in the process of designing specs for 2.0. When I read the Q document I do not see it implies all that silly changes. If we would want to work with a clone of MS-Office, we were working with the real MS-office. Many of us like OOo *because* it is different from MS-Office: more profesional, cleaner interface, easier to do the normal things (not the absolute beginner things). I remember a citation (don't know fron whom): do not argue with an idiot, perhaps sideviewer do not realize which is the idiot. If OOo ends up being designed to the root for the absolute beginner users, we may upset and lost the regular people. Again, not a rant against some user people, simply that the usability scenarios I have read supporting these decisions are completely absurd, imaginary and non-existent in real world. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
Joerg Barfurth wrote: And of course many votes don't necessarily mean that the issue must be done with any urgency or even done at all. First, we don't have countervotes. What if there are 200 in favor, but 2000 against? Second it is probably easy to summon a few dozen or even hundreds of people to raise an issue to the top of the list. Compared to the number of users of OOo or even to the registered project members, 200 is not much. And last in an OSS project no developer is obliged to develop anything on someone else's schedule or priority list. We try to listen to our users, but this includes those users that don't shout loudly in the OOo project. For paid developers their paying customers surely come first, for unpaid ones their very own preferences are foremost. . Sorry for the rant. I don't want to offend anyone. I rather hope that more people will discover all the wonderful instruments we have for participating in the development process and use them. Of course there is much to be improved processwise. But I really hope that e.g. the new RFE process will get more people involved at an earlier stage for the next release (the one after 2.0). The whole point about this issue and similar ones is that many of us do not understand who ever asked to remove that menu from the quickstart (is an example). There was an issue on that? Many of us think that developers are willing to add features, not to remove them. It is in human nature that a less change (less freedom, less option, less function, less money) will be reacted much more that a positive change. If you add something, probably get some congratulations from some people. If you remove it, you bet even those who do not use it will complain. I do not know about SUN deadlines, but the community is not imposing a deadline on 2.0. If a *functional* beta were out for longer, the quality control process by final users would be much better. You may understand that users want to test the things working. Perhaps reading the spec doc we do not realize at first the problems that may arise. As for RFE, its new for me. I am used to RFEs in the Python community. I only hope OOo new RFE procedure will be as transparent and dynamical as Python´s. There announcements are very clearly marked in the general list and main page, opinions and votes raised outside core developers, and decisions well explained before commited. And they have an excellent track of backwards compatibility! These newsgroups are a direct source of user feedback on OOo developers. Please, do not dismiss them in favor of more in house development. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Open Office and my blood pressure
Andrew Carroll wrote: I used and recommended MS Word for a long time. I decided to try something else because Microsoft products are too expensive for me and my clients. I chose to try Open Office and have been using it frequently over the past few months. I downloaded 1.1.4 which is pretty close to the most current. I commend you developers for the work you have done. Thanks for using OOo! I do however have to say that you have incorporated some features that I think will end up giving me a heart attack. But please, take into account that OOo is NOT a clone of anything else, either in Windows or Linux. You should try to learn how thing get done in OOo Take for instance trying to add two dashes, one right after the other, in a text field of the drawing program. I turned off the setting in Tools - Autocorrect - Options replace dashes and that doesn't work. Okay, well that's not exactly true. Here is an example with comments: Thie is not a bug for me. I can type as many -- as I want with out automatic conversion them into em dash. You should re-check you system Another bug in the drawing program is the background or fill color. I select a fill color, then I select a rectangle that should be filled (NOT the unfilled rectangle) and then draw the rectangle but it does not fill. So I say ahh, I don't need the fill color, I'll just type some text in it and when I type the text the fill color shows up behind the text while I am typing and disappears when I am done typing. Now that's a really helpful feature!! Again, It works for me. Are you really sure you are selecting the shape fill color, and not, for instance, the text background color? Also, frequently when I try to use the quicklaunch icon to create a Text document Open Office crashes and tries to send like 10MB of information about why it crashed. That's odd, you spent all that time developing a system that reports the error when you could have spent that money and time doing some reviews to get it right so that you would not need the reporting system. Oh well, what do I know. That's odd. In my computer OOo is far more stable than MS-office. I think that if this happens to you often, that's an indication that OOo is not correctly installed in your system. Please, could you give full details of OS, model, version, and other software installed? I tried to write some macro's but apparently you have to have a degree in obfuscated code to understand the documentation. Maybe you could have paid more attention to the Visual Basic Object browser feature and the elegance of the MS Macro system? WHO CARES IF IT'S SO SIMPLE IT'S DANGEROUS, AT LEAST I CAN WRITE A MACRO! At least I don't need to download an SDK to write a macro or just to get the documentation to use the obfuscanted, overly designed class library. I agree that API documentation can be improved a lot. It exposes you too much to Java/C++ interfaces. For simple BASIC macro writers that's a whole overhead. Having and object browser offhand would be a great help. I know, I have spent the last three days writing OOo macros. But there is very decent documentation, do you know Adrew Pitonyak macro document? And therer are debug functions that do report objects methos and properties. If you just want quick and dirty macros, you have the macro recorder. I DO care for security in macros. I do not want OOo to become a virus nest as many MS-Office documents. And the list - goes - on But it seems that those issues are either a) you are not using the right tool withing the program or b) you installation is corrupted, in every other installation I have seen that features are working. Please, revise your system - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: shortcuts quickstarter
Joerg Barfurth wrote: Okay, we're getting somwehre. There is certainly a communication problem here. I don't think that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a good way to reach the community. I can't see people signing up to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and reading the specs in the off chance that one of them happens to forshadow a loss of a feature which they feel should obviously be there, because it's already there. But people that are not developers (e.g. from the marketing project) could track that and act as a relay telling a wider audience in less technical terms about important specs and feeding reactions back to the developer. Completely unmoderated communication between developers and a wider less techinalical audience often don't work well, as can be seen by the way issue commenting is often (ab)used in ways that are perceived as counterproductive by most developers. But currently the only way to comment on OOo development is through issues. That's where the voice is taken. The official advice in in these newsgroups is file an issue or forget about seeing it in OO ever Issuezilla is seen as *the* channel for RFEs I have a question: How regular are the emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? How long are they? Hypothetically speaking, if those were CC'd to discuss, would they totally drown the list? If they wouldn't, then perhaps that's an avenue to explore. What do you think? As mentioned before I think some active mediators ar needed. Simply pushing the technical content out to non-technical people won't work, just as noisy non-technical discussions won't be well received by the developers. I had never heard of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and I suspect that I am in more OOo lists than 90% of the active contributors. When looking for it I found it to be (too) well hidden. It isn't even mentioned on our main mailing list page. BTW: Do you know of [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the list to track the step from specification to implementation. I agree that discussing about implementing something with that algorithm or that, using a sequence or a collection or what ever is not for end users. But programmers need an spec to work on and comply. If you read my previous post I have used the term designers. Someone decided to take a usability lab on que quickstarter. Someone decided to remove the menu and wrote an spec doc asking that removal. A programmer simply took out the lines of code involved. It is the former person who should have cared a bit about. Those designers or decision makers shoud work tightly with end users, even more that with developers. They should understand the problem and the task involved in a user request, they should have a problem-solving orientaion to translate it into good general solutions, applying common sense. Just not people going directly to click here put that there. As a general rule, end users know much better how a program works and behaves than actual developers. It's human nature you are more interested in pointers and Java interfaces than in how to setup style rules and get an assignment written within deadline. As for developers, sometimes I wonder if you actually work with OOo. The wordcount is another infamous example. Easy to implement, actually done before via a macro that could have been incorporated into regular 1.1.x distributions. You mention that only professional writers and some studenst do need wordcount, that the majority of our users use the program to write personal or business letters, memos and similar documents and don't care about word count at all. By the same rule they should not care about header and footers, master documents, TOCs, autocaptions, bibliography, footnotes, references and many handy features that OOo has and that the user you have in mind, I promise you, never have heared of. Again, we the end users, those that do work with OOo functions (not on OOo code) many hours a day, those that know what type of documents are normal or standard in their fields and the tools we need to accomplish the task (and you may be surprised by the sophisticated demands of even a grandma: suppose she want the photograph of each of her grandsons in the header of each chapter or her document, but not as a watermark. And automatically update it upon birthdays). - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Novell planning big splash around OOo 2.0
Christian Einfeldt wrote: Hi, It looks as if Novell is planning a big splash around OOo 2.0 with their next SuSE Linux release: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775214,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K616 So next time that we get frustrated with each other let's remember our successes, too. Of course, we can always do better, and of course we want to be as flexible as possible, but this is some good stuff! Hi Christian, This is a Great Truth. I myself have got frustrated by some things in 2.0, as you may have read here. But only within this community, I understand that these newsgroups are for discussing, not only for praying OOo virtues. Doors out, I will we supporting 2.0 when released, advocating for it and promoting its use by my peers. And using it to the extreme. Long live to OOo 2.0! - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] General options in OOo 2.0 beta
Hi, I have realized that in OOo 2.0 the central Options panel is now different for each application. If you want to set your personal settings in options for the whole OOo you need to open each separate application (Writer, Impress etc.). The settings available in the dialog open by ToolOptions are different. I do not understand the logic of this move. ¿Is not OOo an integrated application with several entry points?, I remember to have read in these newsgroups proud comments of MSO been a bunch of separate programs, but OOo being an integrated one. ¿Is that no longer true? I do not think that having separate options available will make OOo any easier for the new user. And we loose the clear image of a central tree were all optional settings are stored. ¿What's the reason for this change? - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Find Replace
Chris BONDE wrote: I thought that I could find how to do this but could not. Is there documentation on what to use for non-printing characters? To look for such special chars you must use regular expressions. There is a checkbox in FR dialog to indicate you want to use reaular expressions. Click on help on that dialog, there is an entry for Regular expressions and a Regular expressions list that explains teh syntax you may use to specify a search. There were some comments on finding the end of a para but I did not note. Into finished now the question: There is NO search for paragraph marks (like in MS-Word, ^p). Actually, OOo seraches are confined within single paragraphs. You may specify to search at the start of a paragraph (^something) or at the end (something$). ^$ finds empty lines I have been importing some *.doc files. Then there are a lot of different formating styles that appear and need changing. Underlining, tabs, abbreviations. Best solutions? For underlining I highlight the whole selection, click on underline once (to underline everything) then twice (to remove all underlining). For tabs I have to find then DELETE each one, then replace with a space. Is there a way to do with such FIND and REPLACE? I could not find. You are lucky, this is an easy search: look for \t Next, is the removal of periods after CAPS for abbreviations. Such as F. R. I need to change to F R (say for Find Replace) or T. M. C. to T M C. I have no easy cue here. Have a look at ToolsAutocorrection (or Automatic correction, I'm using OOo in spanish and menu names are not the same). There you can definen a list of abbreviations to translate, also a number of optiosn to , for instance, eliminating paragraphs in DOS-text (with end paragraphs on each line end), manage capitals an so on. I am not an expert on that, but if I had to convert a lot of files I will study that carefully. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Layer mode on Impress
Sophie Gautier wrote: Hi all, Layer mode has disapeared from Impress 2.0beta, it's only available in Draw. Will it be implemented later ? Impress help explain how to use it, but is only speaking about Draw. Will there be a way to recover the functionnality to import 1.1.4 presentations (currently all objects on the different layers are edited and make those presentations unusable). Sophie, you are a respected member of the OOo community. I have readed many of your howto documents. Thanks a lot for all that work! Your question has touched me. As I have said in other threads, I agrre that Impress was the more variant part of OOo with respect o MSO. The new design of Impress is more like MSO (no comment here) and that may ease the migration for new users (and this is a Good Thing). But with that change there are several functionalities of 1.1.4 Impress that has gone completely. I see two mayor problems: a) I have been training teachers on Impress an my University, indicating how that divergent design was not less functional but in some aspects superior to MSO. Now those precise points have dropped and I feel like floating in a vacuum. b) As you correctly indicate, some of us do have a lot of pressntations in 1.1.4 that don't do very well in 2.0. Three examples: The point on layer is severe. It makes the editing of a slide in 2.0 an absolute mess. I use a lot of callouts. The new Shape callouts toolbox has fancy callouts but NOT the classic callout drawing object (I have filed an issue). If you import and draw qickly, you ger with different types of callouts, unintentionally. I do use dimension lines in Impress, it is impossible now to add a dimension line in Impress (anotehr issue filed) My feeling is that a lot of UI decisions have considered ONLY new users coming from PowerPoint, and making life easier for them. But those decissions have affected useful items that were in use by former users of Impress. I have a feeling of have been relegated to second plane. This is not to say that I do not want to see Impress updated. The page and task pane, the shapes, the enhanced animations and transitions. All that are good and welcome additions. I do know how difficult is to write code and I respect the work of teh developers. All my thanks to them. Just that I think that the new additions do not imply, necessarily, the loss of existing useful functions. Even more when that function do exist on OOo 2.0, it's just a matter of changing a toolbar o adding a handle to something. Sophie, your voice is not justy another more in OOo community. After seeing you post, I hope developers and designers will re-think a bit the whole issue of Impress refactoring, taking more in consideration the needs of those of us used to 1.1.x Impress. In any case, I will be using OOo 2.0 when it'll come out, and advocating for it and trying to spread its knowledge in my academic world. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: The new OpenOffice Impress: all that glitters is gold?
Peter Kupfer wrote: For me Impress is such a huge improvement, that I tend overlook anything else. Hi, I agree that Impress was the more divergent part of OOo, with respect to MSO and that closing that gap may help OOo by making easier to change to OOo, for instance in business wolrd were super simple usage of PowerPoint is like a plague. But I do feel like Byfield and others that Impress redesigners have let themselves drop in the eye candy mistake. I feel that some functions that are simple in 1.1.4 are complicated by the new design. I miss the old long-click toolboxes, this is bloodyly true in Impress and Draw. There are just NO menu items to insert several drawing objects. They can be added ONLY from toolbar buttons. And the initial Tools toolbar or Impress is crowded with new Shapes (some as useful for professional work as hearts, pointed stars, rolled papers etc), but some regular items are lost in translation. Callouts: they are in the Text toolbar, but this Toolbar is not displeyed unless you know it is there. We know most users do not configure interface at all. The new callout shapes has some fancy shapes, but it lacks the old-style line callouts. I am a teacher, so I use those callouts a lot. New Line 1, line 2 callouts are useless: The line is actually several lines: if you set an arrow end, you will find several arrow ends in middle of eth lien, not just at line end. (i am filling a bug) Archs: Again, circle and ellipse archs are now hidden in their own toolbar. Why are those items not callable from teh main toolbar? 3d Objects: The same as Archs Arrows: There is a toolbar for lines and arrows with diffrent ending, as well as dimension lines. But the amazing thing is that I have not seen a way to actually open that toolbar, even knowing it exists. It is not listed in the Viewtoolbars menu, nor can be adden to an existing toolbar. Thus, I have an interface crowded with silly and unused tools, and the tools I do need are hidden. At least I can add some of them by docking hidden toolbars (more space wasted that in 1.1.4), but So, the main questions would be: Why the first item in the Tool toolbar (rectangle, ellipse and text) are not toolboxes ? Why lines and arrows do not have an entry in the toolbar list? In addition: Why toolboxes did not behave as the old long-click toolbars?: they remember the last tool used and you do not need to reopen it again. I have expected a lot from OOo 2.0, but I feel some deception. Every day we see on these lists that developer's time is the real bottleneck, always in shortage. I cannot avoid a feeling of waste od resources, while important things like Database, SVG import or the bibliographic support (that would put OOo miles ahead of any other Office) progress at the slower rate. Reading what I have written I might sound upset. I'm not so. I wholeheartly respect the work of all involved in OOo development. But I want to share these feelings. After 2.0 release there must be time for evaluate the direction of the OOo project. I am sure we do not want it bloated with any possible feature and a kitchen sink. That's the model of other guys. We need the simplest thing that works: simplest from the point of usability, not implementation speed. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] New toolboxes in OOo 2.0 beta
Hi, After playing for a while with version 2.0, I do have the feeling of missing some things that worked in 1.1.x. I do not understand the logic around the changes in toolbar function. In particular, the *lack* of the old long-click behaviour. Now we have toolboxes, they are depicted by the small black triangle meaning they open the toolbox. This is considered more standard than the old green triangle. But these toolboxes are less functional: they do not remember the last tool selected. With the old toolboxes, the last tool selected was remembered. I you needed again the same tool, you only needed to clicl again in the tool box item. Now we are forced to always open the toolbox and reselect the tool: a less efficient way to do things. I cannot accept the argument that this is like MSO: if OOo have a better UI I do not see reason to drop it away. There is no new concept involved here. In the UI will appear an incon with a small tringle indicating that is an openable box with several tools inside, just as in MSO. Remembering the last selected is just added value, not user confusion, in my opinion. I can imagine that another change that's annoying me can be traced to make it work as MSO. Now there is no Arrows toolbar in Impress. But PowerPoint *do* have an arrow tool. With this change we have lost dimension lines in impress. Actually, the expandable items in MSO Powerpoint Drawing toolbar *DO* remember the last selected item. The triangle expandable itehts thers are the fill and font color tools. They do change to reflect the last color selected. In fact, only Shapes toolboxes behave in the handicapped way. Why should OOo copy a bad design from MSO if ours is more logical and better? - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Good news 2.0 beta
Hi again, My prevous post was a bit bitter. I do not want to give the impression that I do no like OOo. I love it!! There are improvements in v 2.0 beta,a lot of them. The wordcount, format painter, and, not the least, the enhanced PDF export with bookmarks and notes and the new Base. Base alone do make 2.0 a must in many contexts. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: New toolboxes in OOo 2.0 beta
Ain Vagula wrote: Long click works exactly as before, when you long-click on button, not on arrow. At least here in m83. m83? I have downloaded OOo 2.0 beta and it is labeled 1.9.79. On the other hand, it is not long-click the point, but that old toolboxes remembered the last selected item. Why not the new ones? In addition, why now we only have line, rectagle, ellipse and text tools as the first items of the Drawing toolbar?. With the old behaviour we had also circles and arrows an callouts there, in the same space. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: The new OpenOffice Impress: all that glitters is gold?
Peter Kupfer wrote: Enrique wrote: I miss the old long-click toolboxes, this is bloodyly true in Impress and Draw. There are just NO menu items to insert several drawing objects. Where are the menu items to insert drawing shapes in 1.1.4? The point is that as there are no menu items (neither in 1.14 nor 2.0) for that toolbar buttons are absolutely essential. They are the only to actually add some drawing They can be added ONLY from toolbar buttons. And the initial Tools toolbar or Impress is crowded with new Shapes (some as useful for professional work as hearts, pointed stars, rolled papers etc), but some regular items are lost in translation. What is a *Tools* toolbar? OK, my fault, it is the Drawing toolbar Callouts: they are in the Text toolbar, but this Toolbar is not displeyed unless you know it is there. We know most users do not configure interface at all. The new callout shapes has some fancy shapes, but it lacks the old-style line callouts. Actually, both connector (Line callouts I think as you call them) and the callouts with fancy shapes are available in the draw toolbar which is open on the bottom of the screen by default when you open Impress. No, a connector is not a callout. In 1.1.4 callout is the third button in the text toolbox in teh Drawing toolbar. A callout looks like a box for text with a line that points to somewhere. You can have this line ending as an arrowhead. I know the toolbox you mention. It has several fancy callouts. But it DO NOT have a button for the unique callout object availabel in 1.1.4 (actually, there is a button for this drawing object, but it is included in the Text toolbox). Thsi is at least inconsistent. I am a teacher, so I use those callouts a lot. New Line 1, line 2 callouts are useless: The line is actually several lines: if you set an arrow end, you will find several arrow ends in middle of eth lien, not just at line end. (i am filling a bug) I don't understand what you are saying. What are trying to do that you can't? My typing is not very good when I type too fast. I am sorry. I have retry it and the problem appears only with the callout called Line Callout 2 . This is a text box with a kinked line (a line with an angle) attached. If you select and arrowhead as line end, you will see that the line is not a polygonal line (one start and one end) but actually to lines held together. So you get an arrowhead pointing to the angle. Archs: Again, circle and ellipse archs are now hidden in their own toolbar. Why are those items not callable from teh main toolbar? Both in the draw toolbar. Not at all. In the Basic Shapes toolbox you have filled circles and ellipses, and circel pies. But not arcs. An arc is a line (not a filled area). They are very handy to make round circular arrows (trust me, a lot of processes in chemistry and biology do need circle arcs arrows) Arcs are in the Circles and Ovals toolbar, which is not visible from start. You need to know it exists and make it visible. In 1.1.4 they were availabe as default, in the ellipse toolbox. 3d Objects: The same as Archs Make a shape with the draw toolbar. *Right click Convert To 3D* Not sure where it was in 1.1.4, but it took me 4 clicks in 2.0. And could be done with just one click in 1.1.4 and 2.0. In 1.1.4 one of the entries in the Drawing toolbar was the 3d objects. Now in 2.0 we have Basic Shapes and the other shapes, why put 3d objects in a separate toolbar? Arrows: There is a toolbar for lines and arrows with diffrent ending, as well as dimension lines. But the amazing thing is that I have not seen a way to actually open that toolbar, even knowing it exists. It is not listed in the Viewtoolbars menu, nor can be adden to an existing toolbar. The *line and filing* toolbar is open by default under the standard toolbar when Impress opens. Peter, have you tried to draw a dimensioning line in OOo 2.0 Impress? It's impossible: there is no toolbutton to do that. If you go to Draw and go to Viewtoolbars, you will find an Arrows toolbar, and there the tools that in 1.1.4 were readily available in both Draw and Impress. Now that toolbar cannot be accesed from Impress. So, the main questions would be: Why the first item in the Tool toolbar (rectangle, ellipse and text) are not toolboxes ? The first one is kind of quick button to just make a quick shape. Right down the line in the *Draw* toolbar (what you call the Tool tool bar) is the toolbox for all shapes, labeled basic shapes, it is a diamond by default. But my point is that there is no point in having separate buttons for the quick draw shape and afterwards the Basic Shapes toolbox. With the 1.1.4 behaviour you had both in the same space. The key point is that 1.1.4 could remember the last item selected in a toolbox. So you had the placeholder for Rectangle shapes, you selected a Square and that become the icon showed in the toolbar. If you needed to add more squares just clicked
[discuss] Re: New toolboxes in OOo 2.0 beta
Peter Kupfer wrote: Enrique wrote: I can imagine that another change that's annoying me can be traced to make it work as MSO. Now there is no Arrows toolbar in Impress. But PowerPoint *do* have an arrow tool. With this change we have lost dimension lines in impress. Have you tried the *Line Filling* toolbar. I have posted a picture at http://www.openoffice.peschtra.com/line_toolbar.png. The big red arrow points right at it. It is under the standard toolbar. You can do whatever you want with it. For instance, after drawing the red and the turquoise lines (They started as black) I made all of the changes to them with this toolbar! Try it! Hi Peter, of course I know this toolbar. But if you have to add a lot of arrows and other lines without arroheads in a slide , it is more handy to have an icon for Lines (plain lines without decorations and ends), another icon for Arrows and even another for both-ends arrows. 1.1.4 did have separate tools ready to use, and using less screen space!! I am not saying that you cannot change the appearance of a line a posteriori. Simply that the previous interface was better for this particular task. What I *DO* say is that it is impossible to draw a dimensioning line within 2.0 Impress. What upset me is that the capacity is thre, Draw can do it. Its simply that UI designers or developers has forgotten the Arrows toolbar within Impress. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: endnotes solution for OOo?
mp wrote: hi, what is the alternative in OOo to Word+Endnotes? Given that most students are introduced to and see the usefulness of Endnotes, it appears imperative for the success of OOo in the academy to provide a seamless non-expert-skill-requiring reference database solution. OOO has better bibliographic support that Word. For many users yo do not need Endnote, a very expensive progrma by itself. At least OOo do have bibliographic support included by default. Bibliographic support in Linux is far better that Endnote (look for sixpack, pybliographer and related). For professional work on Windows, saving as RTF or .doc will allow to work with Endnote or Biblioscape. And have a look to the OOo Bibliographic project: http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/ That's the real future. Please see if you can contribute. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[discuss] Re: Idea for a Feature - Insert AutoText
Ricardo Pinho wrote: Idea for a Feature: Microsoft Office's Word's Insert AutoText for inserting pre-defined oppenig and closing senteces for a letter, for example. This feature has been in OOo for several releases now. Editautomatic text or just type abbrv. aand predd F3 (by the way: identical to MS-Word) OOo has nothing to envy from MS-Word. Actually, I think they are copying OOo. - Enrique - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
