[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||108576, 102946 CC||libreoffice-ux-advise@lists ||.freedesktop.org Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102946 [Bug 102946] [META] Styles bugs and enhancements https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108576 [Bug 108576] [META] Writer page style bugs and enhancements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15 ||3534 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16 ||0684 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 V Stuart Foote changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41 ||316 CC||mikekagan...@hotmail.com, ||rb.hensc...@t-online.de, ||vsfo...@libreoffice.org Keywords||needsUXEval --- Comment #1 from V Stuart Foote --- >From the Writer Guide (24.2) [1][2]: "Page styles control page properties (margins, page size, header and footer, among others). However, unlike paragraphs, characters, and frames, pages can not have directly applied properties. If you change the properties of a page, you are actually changing the underlying page style, so those changes are applied to all pages that use that page style. To change the properties of individual pages, you need to create a new page style. Headers and footers can be specified in one style to be different on left or right pages or first pages." So we directly format when we apply a page style other than what the current Page 'Organizer' tab "Next style", or a Paragraph 'Text Flow' tab "Breaks" defines. It is just a question of the how applied attributes of a page are grouped together and manipulated during document editing/layout and on export to ODF. In the UI, we can fully modify a page style from the Page Style... dialog or partially from the Page deck's content panels of the Sidebar. So we can manually force insert a page break onto a page with a different style. And that may be an existing page style, or have made a modification of an existing page style into a new page style that reflows the page--orientation, margin, layout, etc. attributes as found fully on the tabs of the Page style dialog. Noting the Sidebar Page deck omits some of the attributes. Absent Page style inheritance, bug 41316, each Page style requires its own style and only a defined "own style" [3] has meaning to be able to reuse from list box or the F11 Stylist in current document or as saved to template document. =-ref-= [1] https://documentation.libreoffice.org/en/english-documentation/ Writer Guide 24.2 [2] Byfield's Designing With LibreOffice treats page styles well. [3] https://help.libreoffice.org/24.2/en-US/text/swriter/guide/pageorientation.html?DbPAR=WRITER -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #2 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0) > If you were to say "such a modification is no longer, in fact, the original > style; and should have its own style name" - that is a legitimate view, but > only if you also apply it to character, paragraph, list styles etc. No. It is legitimate as long as there is no "page as a primary object" in Writer (which is the case), unlike characters, paragraphs, and other primary objects, that need *some* place, and by that, initiate *automatic* creation of pages, which uses properties of respective paragraphs (primary objects). The *logic* (this is *not* an implementation detail, but the underlying idea, defining the implementation) makes it a feature, that there is no direct formatting of pages. And no need for that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #2) > No. It is legitimate as long as there is no "page as a primary object" in > Writer (which is the case), unlike characters, paragraphs, and other primary > objects, that need *some* place, and by that, initiate *automatic* creation > of pages, which uses properties of respective paragraphs (primary objects). Yes, certainly. Note I kept saying "page (sequence)" to emphasize that it's not one page; and that I'm not suggesting making a single page a primary object. So does the bug title. But what is your opinion, Mike, on DF of page _sequences_? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #4 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #3) > But what is your opinion, Mike, on DF of page _sequences_? IIUC, the suggestion is to create a way to allow a *paragraph* (the entity that defines the page sequence) to use a *set of direct page properties* as an alternative to a specific page style. Am I right? Note that it is *orthogonally* desirable to introduce a new mechanism of page sequence bounds - e.g., a page break object *inside* paragraphs (similar to line breaks), which could also define page properties (page style as it is currently, or a set of direct page properties, as I understand your request). Now technically, it is not impossible. Internally, direct formatting is still implemented as a special kind of *style* (autostyles); but what would be the upside of this, and how could the *user management* be realistically implemented for any kind of page-break-with-direct-page-properties, which would be easy and different compared to the current situation? Including the important "next page style" mechanism, which needs referring to the set of properties of the next page, currently implemented by referring to the style name? I can see a dialog for "page break properties" (accessible from any page break, like paragraph, table, or the imagined intra-paragraph dedicated breaks), which would be ~identical to the current page style dialog. But it is completely unclear how that would be an improvement, given that such a set of properties would lack a big part of functionality allowed by styles, when it goes to the next page style machinery (which is important for things like e.g. odd-even/left-right/whatever sequences, or first chapter page - the rest of chapter page sequences, which is also very important part of page management). I do not see this whole suggestion as any kind of UX improvement; any "this is internally inconsistent" is IMO not a problem per se, and if some *real* UX problem can be solved by changing UI without introducing a direct formatting for pages, I strongly oppose this bug 161078 suggestion. I do not see a specific use scenario that gets better with this suggestion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #5 from Mike Kaganski --- Additionally, the page styles are *actually* not the problem that users struggle with. The largest user problem with page management in Writer is the concept that page sequences are *properties of text* (currently paragraphs and tables). This is not obvious; this creates confusion. There is missing UI for both easy *identification* of existing page sequences, and easy *application* of the wanted page properties (styles) to a user-defined range. My strong opinion is, that simply solving these UI problems without any DF in pages would solve most of the user confusion around page styles. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #6 from Mike Kaganski --- And let me also provide a "philosophical" view on this. The proposal argues that since we allow DF for other entities, we should do the same for pages. But this is like this: 1. There is a consensus that styles mechanism is generally superior to direct formatting. 2. But there are *reasons* why we can't avoid direct formatting in some areas - like steep learning curve, or compatibility, or legitimate use cases. 3. This justifies the *unfortunate* need of DF in many entities, giving raise to a huge set of problems, like unmanageable documents being overwhelmingly common, and not only when one writes a letter to a friend, and forgets that - but in most real-life documents offered as templates in official sites of organizations, governments, and so on. This is an inevitable evil, but not something to cheer. 4. And now, the unfortunate need to keep the DF in some entities provokes a suggestion to also support this same problematic "feature" in an entity which was lucky to survive without DF so far. And that lack of DF was not itself problematic for users - other problems (as mentioned in comment 5) could be solved to make the current no-DF a comfortable state. I disagree that a "consistency" argument is applicable / fair in this context. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #7 from Heiko Tietze --- While I fully agree with Mike's comments it might be worth to think about from another angle (actually as bugs should be reported). Something like: "I insert a graphic on page 5 and want to make this page landscape. Please add easy means to do so.". Theoretically we could do the same as for lists and create a page style on the fly, and add a page break with it after the last paragraph of the previous page, plus one with what was active before on the current page. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 Cor Nouws changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@nouenoff.nl --- Comment #8 from Cor Nouws --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #7) > While I fully agree with Mike's comments it might be worth to think about > from another angle (actually as bugs should be reported). Something like: "I > insert a graphic on page 5 and want to make this page landscape. Please add > easy means to do so.". e.g. ask (somewhere) "[] apply to current page only" (and then later on fight the trouble of people not understanding why the text flow in their documents is broken - fatal path..) Maybe the least bad option is to show a warning when applying a page style via selecting (Manage Styles or Status Bar) "mind that see [] do not show this warning again" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #9 from Cor Nouws --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #6) > I disagree that a "consistency" argument is applicable / fair in this > context. Apart from your arguments, "making use of styles easy/promoting the use of styles" is a good principle in our work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #10 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #4) > ... it is not impossible... but what would be the upside of this[?] The opposite of the problems with which I described the current situation: * Consistency with styles of other entities. * Format | Page (Sequence)... becomes a less confusing action, with no spooky action at a distance on other page sequences which the user never intended to affect. * No need to go to the trouble of defining a new page style just to apply some formatting to the current page sequence. To be concrete: I want to have some of a couple of pages of mine to exhibit a blue background. Why should I need to define a style just for that? And of course, I can't have my Default Page Style go blue, since my pages are basically white. So, it's DF for me, tee hee. Also, while we don't have composable and inheritable page styles, defining multiple page styles for many kinds of sequences requires a lot of maintenance, in the sense that whenever you change something that's common to multiple styles, you're likely to have to change all of them. > and how could the *user management* be realistically implemented ... which > would be easy and different compared to the current situation? I don't propose any changes in how users manage this compared to the current situation: * Format | Page... (or Format | Page Sequence...) will apply DF * Double-clicking the current page style will clear the DF * Clicking another page style will apply it, but try to keep the DF where possible > Including the > important "next page style" mechanism, which needs referring to the set of > properties of the next page, currently implemented by referring to the style > name? Ah, that's a good point. Here are two options for when a Next Page Style is defined: 1. Only the first page in the sequence gets the DF, and then it's just a clean application of the Next Page Style, and the next-next-page style etc. 2. For each transition to the next page, act as though the user had double-clicked that style while having DF in effect. That is, try to apply the DF to the extent possible. (actually (2.) is not perfectly well defined.) I like (2.) better, but I think this is kind of a non-issue, because the use of alternating styles like that only happens intentionally, when the user carefully styles his/her page sequences. Such a user can be assume to not be fazed or confused by our choice of DF application behavior, and realize they may need to clear the DF. There is also the possibility of warning about DF'ing a page sequence with Next Page Style defined, if we believe this should be avoided. It's not clear to > I do not see this whole suggestion as any kind of UX improvement; any "this > is internally inconsistent" It's _externally_ inconsistent. I find it inconsistent. I forget that this is the case, and mess up my documents. And if it happens to me, it happens to many users. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #11 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #7) > While I fully agree with Mike's comments Then please read my last comment and I'm sure you'll change your mind. > it might be worth to think about > from another angle (actually as bugs should be reported). Something like: "I > insert a graphic on page 5 and want to make this page landscape. Please add > easy means to do so.". > > Theoretically we could do the same as for lists and create a page style on > the fly, and add a page break with it after the last paragraph of the > previous page, plus one with what was active before on the current page. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The ability to format a single page / create a single page sequence is relevant with or without the ask in this bug - when considering named styles. Maybe I have a "blue background" style that I've defined; a desire to apply it to a single page is also relevant. But - that's not the scope of this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #12 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #9) > Apart from your arguments, "making use of styles easy/promoting the use of > styles" is a good principle in our work. Unfortunately - it isn't; and this is a key point. That is, it is a good principle for users to adopt, but our policy is to enable the opposite user behavior, of "I'll just DF and I don't care and styles and consistency." We could decide we want to enforce the use of styles; but - if we're not enforcing this for most entities, it does not make sense to enforce the use of "styles only" just for page sequences. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #13 from Heiko Tietze --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #11) > (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #7) > > While I fully agree with Mike's comments > Then please read my last comment and I'm sure you'll change your mind. Indeed, it changed my mind and I vote to not introduce any page level DF. Your blue background example strikes me as somewhat random, and even my more realistic orientation topic is prolly going to end in a lot headaches. We rather should drop all DF than adding more. => NAB/WF -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dgp-m...@gmx.de Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #15 from Dieter --- Reading the discussion, I think, it's not a bug, but an enhancement request. So I change severity. And I also don't see the need for DF of page styles -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 --- Comment #16 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #13) > We rather should drop all DF than adding more. > > => NAB/WF Now, wait a minute, Heiko. If I opened a new bug today, asking to remove the ability to apply DF to, say, characters - would you support it? Set it to NEW? Even though it would mean dropping almost all commands on the Formatting toolbar? Less facetiously though: Are there official, binding policies regarding the extent of DF and the eventual "fate" of DF? If there are, let's talk about how they apply to this bug. If there aren't, then if we ever "drop all DF" - we can drop the page sequence DF as well, and I don't see why it should be left out of DF'ing. Let us also not forget DFing in other modules, like Calc or Impress, which have even more DFable entities. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 161078] Allow direct formatting for page sequences instead of editing the style
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161078 Heiko Tietze changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needsUXEval | CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |heiko.tietze@documentfounda |.freedesktop.org|tion.org Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #17 from Heiko Tietze --- (In reply to Dieter from comment #15) > I also don't see the need for DF of page styles (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #13) > => NAB/WF (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #2) > there is no direct formatting of pages. And no need for that. (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #16) > If I opened a new bug today, asking to remove the ability to apply DF... Off-topic, and answered by Cor (less provocative phrased): (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #9) > Apart from your arguments, "making use of styles easy/promoting the use of > styles" is a good principle in our work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
