[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 148473] Use field type for subtreeing in Navigator
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148473 Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dgp-m...@gmx.de, ||libreoffice-ux-advise@lists ||.freedesktop.org, ||rayk...@gmail.com Keywords||needsUXEval Whiteboard| QA:needsComment| --- Comment #2 from Dieter --- I think it is an advantage in documents with a lot of fields, but a disadvantage in documents with only five fields or less. cc: Design-Team cc: Jim Raykowski for further input and decision -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 148597] FORMATTING request enhancement: create formatted Table of Figures using tabs before and after index
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148597 raal changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement CC||r...@post.cz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 141452] Rename Tools > Chapter Numbering back to Outline Numbering
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141452 --- Comment #28 from Mike Kaganski --- Or you could see it this way: There is *only one* content structure defined in Writer, and that structure is defined using outline levels (let me ignore a small structure created by lists, which is unrelated to the discussion, and would just confuse the following). Paragraph styles do *not*, *never* define any structure. They can only *help* in such structuring - in the same way that they may *help* in semantical structuring, and in formatting - but no style itself is equal to "bold" formatting, even if you name the style "bold". There are several solutions: 1. Make all terminology follow the Outline concept (and then, drop *everything* related to the use cases - so drop all "headings", "chapters", "tables of contents", and only keep technically clear terms, like "outline paragraphs", "parts of text governed by an outline paragraph", "index of outline", etc.) 2. Introduce additional - orthogonal - content structure. That, again, must *not* use paragraph styles, but some similar *property* (which, indeed, could be set in a paragraph style, as a convenience method - but doesn't make the style *internally* special). Then - why limit to two structures? Let us define arbitrary number of orthogonal structures. Then user could name each structure as they wish. And shoot into their feet (or, rather, make others' life harder, because even the second orthogonal structure would introduce huge confusion). 3. Just improve the existing structure in steps, using the established and familiar terms, in the ways that make it not too hard for users to grasp it, but not trying to create something absolutely perfect (trying to do which would simply stop any progress). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 141452] Rename Tools > Chapter Numbering back to Outline Numbering
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141452 --- Comment #27 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #26) OMG. Are you trying to make just anything that *you personally* touch in the bug tracker to become completely unmanageable? > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #24) > > Please note that you try to force some *dictionary* meaning of terms into > > Writer. This is wrong. > > It's not wrong. That is, users read text in an application's UI and > interpret it according to the common meaning of the terms (the "dictionary" > meaning). This will necessarily happen and cannot be defined as "wrong". > while users can be educated about certain terms having a different meaning > within an app, it's usually a good idea to minimize the extent to which that > happens. Any term used in an application needs to meet *several* criteria. Among them: - Being consistent *inside the application*; - Being *familiar* to users who intend to use it *in the most common case*; - Following the common terminology in the industry... and many more (being short, translatable, you name it). However, the criteria have their *relative* weight. Users having problems with any term because of inconsistent use inside the program is a real bug. You claiming that users have problems with a term because it doesn't fit the dictionary meaning is just words, until we made the original term *self-consistent*, and *only after that* any *following* user confusion could be treated as the term being poor itself. So each time you mention a term used inconsistently inside a program, and try to push your vision of dictionary-based approach, you just do it wrong personally. The only proper order is as I described: make its use self-consistent inside the program, then wait for user reports to see if further actions are needed. > > Outline, chapter, and heading are OK to (and *must*) have *special* and > > specific meaning in Writer. > > Technically, they _can_ have a very special and specific meaning in Writer, > but why _must_ they have one? Or rather, why _must_ it be very different > than the dictionary meaning? No they are *not* very different. We need to use the words from common language to create *associations* for the *most common* tasks associated with the term. We need *not* pursuit complete match with dictionary article. Users use the functionality *most often* when they crate headings for chapters (the words used *here* in a dictionary meaning), and even when they don't have strictly *chapters* in their documents, but, say, name them "sections", the "chapter" word is likely to occur to them when looking for the functionality. Use of *any* feature outside of the *originally intended* use case is common, but does not require any rename until that use becomes frequent enough, uniform enough, and in that process, the evolution would come through creation of some tutorials/how tos, FAQS, etc., until it formed the clear vision how that new use case fits into the terminology. You just claim some uses that don't yet deserve the said attention. Users who need that use case are likely already familiar with the original, most prominent use, and won't have problems with that terminology *if* it's self-consistent (again: self-consistent in the sense that it is used consistently to mean something specific in this program, not in any broader sense). > > When you write "Most documents people write > > don't have Chapters anyway" (and the like), you are completely away from the > > problem of correct use of specific Writer term, confusing different entities > > (and making a potential fix much harder). > > You are focusing on myself personally, but it is the _users_ who are > "completely away" from the use of Writer terms you expect. A user writing a > document with sections, whose heading paragraphs use styles Heading 1, > Heading 2 etc., would assume a "Chapter Numbering" menu item is irrelevant > to their document. I can imagine that there might be a couple of users who would not recognize Chapter Numbering as related to their task at first (but they could easily find it using help: typing "heading" there immediately gives "headings -- numbering/paragraph styles", which leads to "Chapter Numbering"); however, I fail to see how could you imagine *any* term to not have that property - anyone not familiar to it would be possibly confused; and using the term familiar to most is likely to ring a bell in most. (However, I still think that Chapter Numbering is worse than Outline Numbering, because that was a term having its established meaning in the industry - but this is unrelated to your argument above.) > And yes, this fact makes it somewhat harder to fix things: We/you will need > to better reconcile the meaning ascribed to terms in regular (English) > language use with the desire to use LO-Writer-specific definitions. No, not that fact, but your personal preference to do it in the wrong order (see
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 141452] Rename Tools > Chapter Numbering back to Outline Numbering
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141452 --- Comment #26 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #24) > Please note that you try to force some *dictionary* meaning of terms into > Writer. This is wrong. It's not wrong. That is, users read text in an application's UI and interpret it according to the common meaning of the terms (the "dictionary" meaning). This will necessarily happen and cannot be defined as "wrong". while users can be educated about certain terms having a different meaning within an app, it's usually a good idea to minimize the extent to which that happens. > Outline, chapter, and heading are OK to (and *must*) have *special* and > specific meaning in Writer. Technically, they _can_ have a very special and specific meaning in Writer, but why _must_ they have one? Or rather, why _must_ it be very different than the dictionary meaning? > When you write "Most documents people write > don't have Chapters anyway" (and the like), you are completely away from the > problem of correct use of specific Writer term, confusing different entities > (and making a potential fix much harder). You are focusing on myself personally, but it is the _users_ who are "completely away" from the use of Writer terms you expect. A user writing a document with sections, whose heading paragraphs use styles Heading 1, Heading 2 etc., would assume a "Chapter Numbering" menu item is irrelevant to their document. And yes, this fact makes it somewhat harder to fix things: We/you will need to better reconcile the meaning ascribed to terms in regular (English) language use with the desire to use LO-Writer-specific definitions. > So: > * Heading is a paragraph having an outline level other than "Text Body". No it isn't. We can set the outline level of an arbitrary style, with no intention of considering it to head anything in the text (Example: Perhaps I want certain blockquotes of particular importance to appear in the outline view of my document). If instead of "Outline level" you called that property "Heading level", then you could make your argument. But we/you have chosen to say "Outline", so... no, a paragraph having an outline level other than "Text Body" is not necessarily a Heading. > * Chapter is a part of text starting from a heading with outline level 1, > and up to the next heading with outline level 1. Here my objection is somewhat weaker. That is, it's counter-intuitive to define chapters like this, but it's not incoherent and doesn't cause inconsistencies. You're just using the term in a way which would surprise the user - who may not think of what they wrote as containing chapters. If stereotypical user "Benjamin" is writing a short paper for school, Heading 1 paragraphs are the heading paragraphs of the top-level sections of the paper, not the headings of chapters. It's also worth mentioning that if you choose that definition, then it's not clear where we should even use this term; after all, you too agree Chapter Numbering should revert back to using another name. > * Outline is a concept of paragraphs having the associated levels, creating > corresponding structure. Indeed. But that contradicts - as a typical user would see it - your claimed definition of a Heading paragraph. > Trying to make it more complex, by mixing with so insanely complex matter as > human language is (aggravated by translations, which multiply the associated > meanings) is a mistake. Unfortunately, LO is used by humans, and the UI is full of text in Human language, so I don't quite see how you expect to "unmix" that. Anyway, what's wrong with the following definitions (for English of course)?: * "Outline paragraph" is a paragraph having an outline level other than "Text Body". * "Heading" is a paragraph with style "Heading", "Heading 1", "Heading 2" etc. Perhaps some additional specific styles (e.g. "Title"). * "Chapter" will be unused/undefined by LO Writer, as we don't seem to have facilities specific to chapters in books as opposed to Heading/Outline paragraphs. * "Outline" is a concept of paragraphs having the associated levels, creating corresponding structure. and the menu item can either be "Outline Numbering" (my preference) or "Heading Numbering" (which won't be an exact name but some might argue would better attract users needing it) or "Outline/Heading Numbering". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 148728] Should Format -> Character/ Paragraph entry's not be called Paragraph/Character Direct Formatting
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148728 --- Comment #2 from Telesto --- (In reply to Timur from comment #1) > Let's not over complicate. > If someone doesn't understand the difference between styles and DF, calling > DF will not help. If you modify a style a PS style or introduce a new style, the caption of the dialog will be Paragraph Style: Style name The dialog for Paragraph... will be Paragraph. A) If it where that obvious, you could call the Paragraph Styles dialog Paragraph. You are in the styles deck, so it would be a style anyhow. B) If you call the dialog Paragraph Direct Formatting people might use Google :-). What do the mean by "Direct Formatting?" -- It's surely a detail.. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 148698] Page Format Margin settings incorrect for Letter Size in LO Writer
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148698 Telesto changed: What|Removed |Added CC||libreoffice-ux-advise@lists ||.freedesktop.org Keywords||needsUXEval -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 148728] Should Format -> Character/ Paragraph entry's not be called Paragraph/Character Direct Formatting
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148728 Timur changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|medium |low Severity|normal |trivial --- Comment #1 from Timur --- Let's not over complicate. If someone doesn't understand the difference between styles and DF, calling DF will not help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
