FW: Smart-Art in Writer - Correct 'Import' approach ?

[Adam Fyne]

Anyone ? any thoughts on the correct approach to take ?

I haven't received any feedback about the main question … :\



*Adam Fyne*

*Office:* +972-77-517-5008

Twitter  |
LinkedIn
 | Facebook  | Blog



*From:* Adam Fyne [mailto:adam.f...@cloudon.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:54 PM
*To:* 'libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org'
*Cc:* Tsahi Glik (tsahi.g...@cloudon.com)
*Subject:* Smart-Art in Writer - Correct 'Import' approach ?



Hi Community,

We are doing some work on implementing 'Smart-Art *Preservation*' in Writer.

Meaning – if the user doesWordèLOèWordround-trip we plan that they
won't lose their Smart-Art object.

Currently Smart-Art is being imported into *simple shapes* in Writer (which
don't exactly look the same), and most of the actual data and binding
between shapes is lost (not to mention it doesn't look the same).

In order to preserve the original Smart-Art object – we would plan on
loading the entire XML nodes and attributes of Smart-Art to property maps
(e.g. Miklos's great 'InteropGrabBag').

In addition, instead of showing to the user simple shapes (that he can
currently edit and move around) –

we would like to change this and show the user a *locked* bitmap of the
smart-art, that the user cannot manipulate (so that he can at least
preserve the original Smart-Art).



Is the approach we are taking good (changing the current malfunctioning
behavior that converts Smart-Art to shapes).

Should we take a different approach that maybe pops a message when loading
a DOCX with Smart-Art asking the user:

*"We noticed you are importing a DOCX with Smart-Art. Would you like to
preserve it and keep it un-editable or convert it to simple shapes ?"*

And then act according to the user's choice? (choosing simple shapes will
lose the 'Smart-Art' functionality, while choosing 'preserve' will not let
the user edit the smart-art, only see it).



Best,

*Adam Fyne*

*Office:* +972-77-517-5008

Twitter  |
LinkedIn
 | Facebook  | Blog
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: FW: Smart-Art in Writer - Correct 'Import' approach ?

[Miklos Vajna]

Hi Adam,

On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 05:35:12PM +0300, Adam Fyne  
wrote:
> We are doing some work on implementing 'Smart-Art *Preservation*' in Writer.
> 
> Meaning – if the user doesWordèLOèWordround-trip we plan that they
> won't lose their Smart-Art object.
> 
> Currently Smart-Art is being imported into *simple shapes* in Writer (which
> don't exactly look the same), and most of the actual data and binding
> between shapes is lost (not to mention it doesn't look the same).
> 
> In order to preserve the original Smart-Art object – we would plan on
> loading the entire XML nodes and attributes of Smart-Art to property maps
> (e.g. Miklos's great 'InteropGrabBag').

This makes sense, yes.

> In addition, instead of showing to the user simple shapes (that he can
> currently edit and move around) –
> 
> we would like to change this and show the user a *locked* bitmap of the
> smart-art, that the user cannot manipulate (so that he can at least
> preserve the original Smart-Art).

What is the benefit of this, from a user's point of view?

> Should we take a different approach that maybe pops a message when loading
> a DOCX with Smart-Art asking the user:
> 
> *"We noticed you are importing a DOCX with Smart-Art. Would you like to
> preserve it and keep it un-editable or convert it to simple shapes ?"*
> 
> And then act according to the user's choice? (choosing simple shapes will
> lose the 'Smart-Art' functionality, while choosing 'preserve' will not let
> the user edit the smart-art, only see it).

This is certainly possible, e.g. the ASCII filter asks for encoding
IIRC, the CSV import filter is also interactive, but one popup for every
smartart is probably a bit too much, imagine a presentation containing
100 smartart shapes. :)

Miklos


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: FW: Smart-Art in Writer - Correct 'Import' approach ?

[Adam Fyne]

Hi Miklos,
See my comments below.
Thanks,
Adam


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Miklos Vajna  wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 05:35:12PM +0300, Adam Fyne 
> wrote:
> > We are doing some work on implementing 'Smart-Art *Preservation*' in
> Writer.
> >
> > Meaning – if the user doesWordèLOèWordround-trip we plan that
> they
> > won't lose their Smart-Art object.
> >
> > Currently Smart-Art is being imported into *simple shapes* in Writer
> (which
> > don't exactly look the same), and most of the actual data and binding
> > between shapes is lost (not to mention it doesn't look the same).
> >
> > In order to preserve the original Smart-Art object – we would plan on
> > loading the entire XML nodes and attributes of Smart-Art to property maps
> > (e.g. Miklos's great 'InteropGrabBag').
>
> This makes sense, yes.
>
> > In addition, instead of showing to the user simple shapes (that he can
> > currently edit and move around) –
> >
> > we would like to change this and show the user a *locked* bitmap of the
> > smart-art, that the user cannot manipulate (so that he can at least
> > preserve the original Smart-Art).
>
> What is the benefit of this, from a user's point of view?
>

Because at this phase, we are not going to add logic to 'manipulate' the
Smart-Art object,
so if a user is allowed to changed the location of the shapes, and then
saves back the file - and opens it in Word -
he won't understand why his 'changes' to the shapes weren't persisted.
That's why we believe it is best to simply not allow any changes, because
they won't be persisted anyway.


>
> > Should we take a different approach that maybe pops a message when
> loading
> > a DOCX with Smart-Art asking the user:
> >
> > *"We noticed you are importing a DOCX with Smart-Art. Would you like to
> > preserve it and keep it un-editable or convert it to simple shapes ?"*
> >
> > And then act according to the user's choice? (choosing simple shapes will
> > lose the 'Smart-Art' functionality, while choosing 'preserve' will not
> let
> > the user edit the smart-art, only see it).
>
> This is certainly possible, e.g. the ASCII filter asks for encoding
> IIRC, the CSV import filter is also interactive, but one popup for every
> smartart is probably a bit too much, imagine a presentation containing
> 100 smartart shapes. :)
>
The idea was to show a single pop-up for 'all Smart-Art' objects in the
file - asking
"do you want to convert the Smart-Art in this file to simple shapes (and
lose functionallity) or preserve the original Smart-Art objects ?"


>
> Miklos
>



-- 

[image: appicon.png]


*Adam Fyne*

Twitter  |
LinkedIn
 | Facebook  |
Blog
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: FW: Smart-Art in Writer - Correct 'Import' approach ?

[Miklos Vajna]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:26:31PM +0300, Adam Fyne  
wrote:
> > > we would like to change this and show the user a *locked* bitmap of the
> > > smart-art, that the user cannot manipulate (so that he can at least
> > > preserve the original Smart-Art).
> >
> > What is the benefit of this, from a user's point of view?
> 
> Because at this phase, we are not going to add logic to 'manipulate' the
> Smart-Art object,
> so if a user is allowed to changed the location of the shapes, and then
> saves back the file - and opens it in Word -
> he won't understand why his 'changes' to the shapes weren't persisted.
> That's why we believe it is best to simply not allow any changes, because
> they won't be persisted anyway.

Hmm, when we discussed the InteropGrabBag idea in the ESC call, AIUI the
proposed solution for the "attached unhandled meatada vs user editing"
problem was to empty the InteropGrabBag in case the user edits the
object in question:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2013-July/054428.html

"invalidate on copy/mutate"

This way, in case of no editing, the metadata is kept, in case of
editing, the edited object is exported as a normal groupshape and the
user's modifications win over the unhandled metadata.

> The idea was to show a single pop-up for 'all Smart-Art' objects in the
> file - asking
> "do you want to convert the Smart-Art in this file to simple shapes (and
> lose functionallity) or preserve the original Smart-Art objects ?"

Ah, that sounds better. And then would you do this for all filters that
may contain smartart: PPTX, DOCX, XLSX? (Not sure if we support smartart
inside XLSX ATM.) If so, opinion from someone hacking Impress would be
appreciated.

Miklos


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: FW: Smart-Art in Writer - Correct 'Import' approach ?

[Adam Fyne]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Miklos Vajna  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:26:31PM +0300, Adam Fyne 
> wrote:
> > > > we would like to change this and show the user a *locked* bitmap of
> the
> > > > smart-art, that the user cannot manipulate (so that he can at least
> > > > preserve the original Smart-Art).
> > >
> > > What is the benefit of this, from a user's point of view?
> >
> > Because at this phase, we are not going to add logic to 'manipulate' the
> > Smart-Art object,
> > so if a user is allowed to changed the location of the shapes, and then
> > saves back the file - and opens it in Word -
> > he won't understand why his 'changes' to the shapes weren't persisted.
> > That's why we believe it is best to simply not allow any changes, because
> > they won't be persisted anyway.
>
> Hmm, when we discussed the InteropGrabBag idea in the ESC call, AIUI the
> proposed solution for the "attached unhandled meatada vs user editing"
> problem was to empty the InteropGrabBag in case the user edits the
> object in question:
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2013-July/054428.html
>
> "invalidate on copy/mutate"
>
> This way, in case of no editing, the metadata is kept, in case of
> editing, the edited object is exported as a normal groupshape and the
> user's modifications win over the unhandled metadata.
>
> > The idea was to show a single pop-up for 'all Smart-Art' objects in the
> > file - asking
> > "do you want to convert the Smart-Art in this file to simple shapes (and
> > lose functionallity) or preserve the original Smart-Art objects ?"
>
> Ah, that sounds better. And then would you do this for all filters that
> may contain smartart: PPTX, DOCX, XLSX? (Not sure if we support smartart
> inside XLSX ATM.) If so, opinion from someone hacking Impress would be
> appreciated.
>

Currently - the scope of the work is for DOCX.


> Miklos
>



-- 

[image: appicon.png]


*Adam Fyne*

Twitter  |
LinkedIn
 | Facebook  |
Blog
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice