https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #49 from bentus...@yahoo.fr ---
HI there. Thanks for your work so far. i'm just a random user who has been
bored with this limitation, and opened a similar bug report, that lead to this
one as a duplicate...
I explain my
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #48 from Dieter ---
(In reply to andis.lazdins from comment #47)
> I don't understand the comment No 43. There are no such preferences in
> Expert configuration - slide to collapse.
That's right. And therefore we have
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #47 from andis.lazd...@gmail.com ---
I don't understand the comment No 43. There are no such preferences in Expert
configuration - slide to collapse. I would be thankful for more detailed
instructions. I'm tired from this ugly
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://bugs.documentfounda |
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tele...@surfxs.nl
--- Comment
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #45 from V Stuart Foote ---
*** Bug 141952 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bentus...@yahoo.fr
--- Comment
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #42 from Apt ---
Thanks for the reply, Heiko. Here is the new ticket I submitted:
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140360
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
Christian Lehmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Severity|minor
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #39 from Apt ---
Stuart, thank you for the work you've done so far on the underlying issue,
which as I understand it is the incorrect width calculation for the sidebar
with UI scaling applied. If the fix for this is a ways
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #38 from andis.lazd...@gmail.com ---
Sad to hear such absolutely non-substantiated decision. Thanks' to such
decisions it becomes very hard to tempt somebody to stay with Libreoffice.
In our company will find better use for
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||libreoffice-ux-advise@lists
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #36 from andis.lazd...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #33)
>
>
> The Sidebar assemblage was always intended to optimize visibility of
> controls by making use of the extra horizontal space on a
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #35 from V Stuart Foote ---
(In reply to Christian Lehmann from comment #34)
> Okay, this is evidently a different weighing of priorities. Users like the
> ones on this bug discussion list, who have less than 30" monitor size
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #34 from Christian Lehmann ---
Okay, this is evidently a different weighing of priorities. Users like the ones
on this bug discussion list, who have less than 30" monitor size and need to
work with more than one Writer window
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #33 from V Stuart Foote ---
(In reply to Christian Lehmann from comment #32)
> ...
> However, I still miss an argument why the controls cannot be arranged in two
> rows from start, esp. if the same is acceptable on the
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #32 from Christian Lehmann ---
Thanks for the clarification. However, why don't you take up the argument (by
myself and quite a few users by now) that the deck has double the width that it
would need? It occupies space on the
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #31 from V Stuart Foote ---
(In reply to Christian Lehmann from comment #30)
> Just for clarification: It is not a just question of reducing the size of
> the icons and their spacing a bit. The point is that, in order to
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #30 from Christian Lehmann ---
Just for clarification: It is not a just question of reducing the size of the
icons and their spacing a bit. The point is that, in order to display the
styles' names, at most _half_ of the width
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #29 from Christian Lehmann ---
Ad comment 27,
"No, allowing the Sidebar Deck and its Content panels to shuffle controls--to
maintain visibility but loose context--is no solution, and would be worse UX
than the simple 'slide
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #28 from Apt ---
Thanks for the reply, Stuart. If a mitigation measure like multiple rows is not
acceptable to the designers, I do hope the incorrect width fix is not too
delayed then. At the moment this is my second biggest
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #27 from V Stuart Foote ---
(In reply to Christian Lehmann from comment #23)
> Two considerations may be added to this design decision:
>
> 1) The same reasoning obviously has not applied to the Navigation bar, whose
> width
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #26 from Apt ---
I second Christian's suggestion of multiple rows. That seems like a very
commonsensical fix which maintains visibility of the controls while providing a
lot more flexibility in the sidebar's width.
In my
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #25 from John ---
Thank you for indicating that this was a deliberate design change, not a
regression or other bug. It looks like I will be left using 6.4 for the time
being.
While I note the discussion, it never appeared to
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #24 from andis.lazd...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 167803
--> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=167803=edit
Page sidedar - much wider than the contents
In attached picture you can see that page tab
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
--- Comment #23 from Christian Lehmann ---
Two considerations may be added to this design decision:
1) The same reasoning obviously has not applied to the Navigation bar, whose
width can be shrunk such that some controls get hidden.
2)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131947
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Writer sidebar minimum |Writer sidebar minimum
32 matches
Mail list logo
