Re: Need for better dialogs (was: 1.5.0beta2: bibliography nuissances window/dialog style not OK)

2007-07-08 Thread Mael Hilléreau

To Richard: please, don't forget the list in your reply ;-)

Le 6 juil. 07 à 23:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :


Le 5 juil. 07 à 16:34, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :


Mael Hilléreau wrote:

1. Create a new doc.

2. Run latex.

3. View the LaTeX log.

4. Switch to another buffer. Zoops! The log dialog is closed.

Bug?


Probably yes.


I agree, but I have bad news... There are going to be many of dialogs
that behave like this one. AFAIU, precisely all dialogs whose
controller has a method virtual bool isBufferDependent() const
returning true. You can find them in all src/frontends/controllers/
ControlXXX.h source files.

BTW, there seems to be an rc1/rc2 bug for some of them (e.g. graphics
dialog don't hide anymore when switching buffer, whereas it did in
1.4.4). Please could you confirm?


This was changed a while ago: Buffer dependent dialogs are not
automatically closed when switching buffers any longer. There was a  
bug

report about this, in particular, concerning the TOC/outline.


Does automatically means for every class of dialog?


But I'm now convinced that most of these dialogs should remain hidden
when another buffer is displayed. Indeed, it is senseless (despite
respecting the don't close without prompt UI guideline) to keep on
screen e.g. a graphics dialog when switching to another buffer
(unrelated info).


Right, but what this means, it seems to me, is that the
isBufferDependent() function was being double-used. To be buffer
dependent, in the intended sense, is to make no sense absent a buffer.
That is different from being dependent upon the specific buffer  
displayed.


Then I can confirm. There's a problem related to the use of  
isBufferDependent(). Into LyXView.cpp (line 168), you have this  
function call:


// Buffer-dependent dialogs should be updated or
// hidden. This should go here because some dialogs (eg ToC)
// require bv_-text.
getDialogs().updateBufferDependent(true);

Then, if you go to Dialogs.cpp, Dialogs::updateBufferDependent()  
(line 214), you can see that isBufferDependent() leads to hiding  
buffer dependent dialogs (assuming that dialog-controller 
().initialiseParams() will always return false, which is the case  
for log dialogs).


I checked that if you modify isBufferDependent() for LaTeX logs  
(hence into ControlLog.h) so that it returns true when belonging to a  
LaTeX log dialog, then it is no more hidden when switching buffer  
(but this isn't sufficient because there are update issues to deal  
with...).


I'm curious to know how one should specify that a buffer dependent  
dialog has to hide/keep displayed when switching to another buffer.



As for the graphics dialog, a question: If you click away from the
graphics inset to which the dialog is attached, what happens?


The dialog remains as is if you stay into the same buffer. It is  
emptied if you switch to another buffer. But in the latter case I  
think we have a bug: despite the dialog is emptied, if you modify  
some parameters and click the Apply button, then parameters are  
always linked (and so applied) to the graphics inset. IMO, this is  
really unadapted!



What should
happen?


In my vision, this shouldn't be possible for dialogs such as graphics  
(modal dialogs). You'd have to close the dialog before. This would  
avoid undesired effects (e.g. modify some graphic parameters whereas  
the preview is no more visible due to scrolling, or buffer  
switching...).



If you click in a new graphics inset, then the dialog gets
updated, I'm sure.


True.


But what if you just click elsewhere?


However, IMO, for most of these dialogs (such as graphics, label,
citation, reference, etc.), there would be an easier and better
solution regarding buffer switch (among others): make them modal!
After all, what is the benefit of keeping such dialogs independent
from the main window?


This is a much discussed issue. Some people like having non-modal  
dialogs,


Ok. I'm not of them, with a fiew exceptions, e.g. for the LaTeX log  
in the scope of master/children docs.


e.g., the text settings dialog. But there are issues about update  
that led
to the paragraph settings dialog becoming modal. Abdel is working  
on this.
The intention is for it to become non-modal again, once he's got it  
sorted

out.


Well I can't see why. If you want to apply the same settings to  
several paragraphs, you could select them all, and then apply  
settings, no?



If you want to deal with several paragraphs in a row, it's much more
convenient to be able to keep it open.


Several paragraphs in a row?? I don't understand. Could you explain  
please?



Clearly, this would have non negligible advantages:

[snip]
But it's overkill, I think, to make everything modal.


I didn't say that. I think there should some exceptions for dialogs  
managing info related to more than one buffer, or even more than one  
inset, if applicable.


But note that some dialogs are already modal (I think of open, save  
and so on...).




Re: Need for better dialogs (was: 1.5.0beta2: bibliography nuissances & window/dialog style not OK)

2007-07-08 Thread Mael Hilléreau

To Richard: please, don't forget the list in your reply ;-)

Le 6 juil. 07 à 23:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :


Le 5 juil. 07 à 16:34, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :


Mael Hilléreau wrote:

1. Create a new doc.

2. Run latex.

3. View the LaTeX log.

4. Switch to another buffer. Zoops! The log dialog is closed.

Bug?


Probably yes.


I agree, but I have bad news... There are going to be many of dialogs
that behave like this one. AFAIU, precisely all dialogs whose
controller has a method "virtual bool isBufferDependent() const"
returning true. You can find them in all "src/frontends/controllers/
ControlXXX.h" source files.

BTW, there seems to be an rc1/rc2 bug for some of them (e.g. graphics
dialog don't hide anymore when switching buffer, whereas it did in
1.4.4). Please could you confirm?


This was changed a while ago: Buffer dependent dialogs are not
automatically closed when switching buffers any longer. There was a  
bug

report about this, in particular, concerning the TOC/outline.


Does automatically means for every class of dialog?


But I'm now convinced that most of these dialogs should remain hidden
when another buffer is displayed. Indeed, it is senseless (despite
respecting the "don't close without prompt" UI guideline) to keep on
screen e.g. a graphics dialog when switching to another buffer
(unrelated info).


Right, but what this means, it seems to me, is that the
isBufferDependent() function was being double-used. To be buffer
dependent, in the intended sense, is to make no sense absent a buffer.
That is different from being dependent upon the specific buffer  
displayed.


Then I can confirm. There's a problem related to the use of  
isBufferDependent(). Into LyXView.cpp (line 168), you have this  
function call:


// Buffer-dependent dialogs should be updated or
// hidden. This should go here because some dialogs (eg ToC)
// require bv_->text.
getDialogs().updateBufferDependent(true);

Then, if you go to Dialogs.cpp, Dialogs::updateBufferDependent()  
(line 214), you can see that isBufferDependent() leads to hiding  
buffer dependent dialogs (assuming that dialog->controller 
().initialiseParams("") will always return false, which is the case  
for log dialogs).


I checked that if you modify isBufferDependent() for LaTeX logs  
(hence into ControlLog.h) so that it returns true when belonging to a  
LaTeX log dialog, then it is no more hidden when switching buffer  
(but this isn't sufficient because there are update issues to deal  
with...).


I'm curious to know how one should specify that a buffer dependent  
dialog has to hide/keep displayed when switching to another buffer.



As for the graphics dialog, a question: If you click away from the
graphics inset to which the dialog is attached, what happens?


The dialog remains as is if you stay into the same buffer. It is  
emptied if you switch to another buffer. But in the latter case I  
think we have a bug: despite the dialog is emptied, if you modify  
some parameters and click the "Apply" button, then parameters are  
always linked (and so applied) to the graphics inset. IMO, this is  
really unadapted!



What should
happen?


In my vision, this shouldn't be possible for dialogs such as graphics  
(modal dialogs). You'd have to close the dialog before. This would  
avoid undesired effects (e.g. modify some graphic parameters whereas  
the preview is no more visible due to scrolling, or buffer  
switching...).



If you click in a new graphics inset, then the dialog gets
updated, I'm sure.


True.


But what if you just click elsewhere?


However, IMO, for most of these dialogs (such as graphics, label,
citation, reference, etc.), there would be an easier and better
solution regarding buffer switch (among others): make them modal!
After all, what is the benefit of keeping such dialogs independent
from the main window?


This is a much discussed issue. Some people like having non-modal  
dialogs,


Ok. I'm not of them, with a fiew exceptions, e.g. for the LaTeX log  
in the scope of master/children docs.


e.g., the text settings dialog. But there are issues about update  
that led
to the paragraph settings dialog becoming modal. Abdel is working  
on this.
The intention is for it to become non-modal again, once he's got it  
sorted

out.


Well I can't see why. If you want to apply the same settings to  
several paragraphs, you could select them all, and then apply  
settings, no?



If you want to deal with several paragraphs in a row, it's much more
convenient to be able to keep it open.


Several paragraphs in a row?? I don't understand. Could you explain  
please?



Clearly, this would have non negligible advantages:

[snip]
But it's overkill, I think, to make everything modal.


I didn't say that. I think there should some exceptions for dialogs  
managing info related to more than one buffer, or even more than one  
inset, if applicable.


But note that some dialogs are already modal (I think of open, save  
and so 

Need for better dialogs (was: 1.5.0beta2: bibliography nuissances window/dialog style not OK)

2007-07-05 Thread Mael Hilléreau

Le 5 juil. 07 à 16:34, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :


Mael Hilléreau wrote:

1. Create a new doc.

2. Run latex.

3. View the LaTeX log.

4. Switch to another buffer. Zoops! The log dialog is closed.

Bug?


Probably yes.


I agree, but I have bad news... There are going to be many of dialogs  
that behave like this one. AFAIU, precisely all dialogs whose  
controller has a method virtual bool isBufferDependent() const  
returning true. You can find them in all src/frontends/controllers/ 
ControlXXX.h source files.


BTW, there seems to be an rc1/rc2 bug for some of them (e.g. graphics  
dialog don't hide anymore when switching buffer, whereas it did in  
1.4.4). Please could you confirm?


But I'm now convinced that most of these dialogs should remain hidden  
when another buffer is displayed. Indeed, it is senseless (despite  
respecting the don't close without prompt UI guideline) to keep on  
screen e.g. a graphics dialog when switching to another buffer  
(unrelated info).


Besides, this reinforces my idea that UI guidelines are good in  
theory, but that there's a need to consider functionality and  
practice as well ;-)


IMO, exceptions are to be when dealing with child documents. For  
example, the LaTeX log of a master document shouldn't be hidden when  
switching to one of its children (because it contains info related to  
the contents of children). But it should be hidden otherwise.


However, IMO, for most of these dialogs (such as graphics, label,  
citation, reference, etc.), there would be an easier and better  
solution regarding buffer switch (among others): make them modal!  
After all, what is the benefit of keeping such dialogs independent  
from the main window?


Clearly, this would have non negligible advantages:

* This would definitely unseat problems such as the one described by  
Rob at the beginning of this thread, increasing UI intelligibility.


* This would also unclutter the screen, as complained in bug #3836.

* Finally, this would also simplify some code (e.g. disabling some  
menu entries, as mentioned in bug #1720, wouldn't be needed anymore).


May I file an enhancement request for better/modal dialogs?

Mael.

Need for better dialogs (was: 1.5.0beta2: bibliography nuissances & window/dialog style not OK)

2007-07-05 Thread Mael Hilléreau

Le 5 juil. 07 à 16:34, Jürgen Spitzmüller a écrit :


Mael Hilléreau wrote:

1. Create a new doc.

2. Run latex.

3. View the LaTeX log.

4. Switch to another buffer. Zoops! The log dialog is closed.

Bug?


Probably yes.


I agree, but I have bad news... There are going to be many of dialogs  
that behave like this one. AFAIU, precisely all dialogs whose  
controller has a method "virtual bool isBufferDependent() const"  
returning true. You can find them in all "src/frontends/controllers/ 
ControlXXX.h" source files.


BTW, there seems to be an rc1/rc2 bug for some of them (e.g. graphics  
dialog don't hide anymore when switching buffer, whereas it did in  
1.4.4). Please could you confirm?


But I'm now convinced that most of these dialogs should remain hidden  
when another buffer is displayed. Indeed, it is senseless (despite  
respecting the "don't close without prompt" UI guideline) to keep on  
screen e.g. a graphics dialog when switching to another buffer  
(unrelated info).


Besides, this reinforces my idea that UI guidelines are good in  
theory, but that there's a need to consider functionality and  
practice as well ;-)


IMO, exceptions are to be when dealing with child documents. For  
example, the LaTeX log of a master document shouldn't be hidden when  
switching to one of its children (because it contains info related to  
the contents of children). But it should be hidden otherwise.


However, IMO, for most of these dialogs (such as graphics, label,  
citation, reference, etc.), there would be an easier and better  
solution regarding buffer switch (among others): make them modal!  
After all, what is the benefit of keeping such dialogs independent  
from the main window?


Clearly, this would have non negligible advantages:

* This would definitely unseat problems such as the one described by  
Rob at the beginning of this thread, increasing UI intelligibility.


* This would also unclutter the screen, as complained in bug #3836.

* Finally, this would also simplify some code (e.g. disabling some  
menu entries, as mentioned in bug #1720, wouldn't be needed anymore).


May I file an enhancement request for better/modal dialogs?

Mael.