Re: [libreoffice-design] Re: Proposal for the "Cross-Reference" dialog

Hi Björn,

Sorry, just now I saw this email. I'm having many problems with my email 
client (I think it is looking for revenge because my Forums thread, 
hahaha), so if there are any email that I didn't replied, please call my 
attention. :)

My reply:

On 01-02-2011 19:13, Björn Balazs wrote:
> I agree. This is the very basic differentiation. I followed that in the
> mindmap. But I alos think this is not the most relevant differentiation for
> about 99% of the use-cases. Because you can only create References, Bookmarks
> (and I guess variables and stuff I do not yet understand). Nearly no users -
> except from power users - will use this features. So this functionallity needs
> to be there but should step a little to the back.
It's true, I didn't think trough this point of view. Thanks for 
explaining that way, the whole is clearer now. But just a note: 
references are very important in my documents and its the only field 
type I already used in this dialog actually. Maybe this happen for 
others too.

> It is problematic that there are soooo many fields. This makes it hard 
> to find the field you want. This is way I tried to do some 
> categorizastion of the fields.
Yeah, I admit it would take more clicks, but maybe

> It it one of the foundations of cognitive psychologiy. If you should have any
> information that I do not have, please give it to me! You can of course use
> methods of chunking to extend this information, but the number of 7+-2 simply
> is the capacity of your short term memory. No discussions I know of :) (Ok,
> can be less, e.g. when you drunk a lot of alcohol - but not talking about any
> clinical aspects)
Well, I can't present any evidence, it was just my intuition and memory 
about things I had read. I'm personally a bit worry about these exacty 
numbers. Stress situations, like a final day to finish a big college 
work, could not change these values? And also the organization of the 
options on the screen? But it seems to be no important things to care 
about now, since they can be solved (or even more affected) by other 
choices of this wizard.

> If you take too few categories, the tree gets very deep. This is not good
> either.
I actually agree, but maybe there are some way to avoid go very deep in 
the tree path.

> I suggest to rethink the whole dialogue. And we can only find the best
> solution if we understand what users do in here and what they use the fields
> for. I think the following is true, but I am not sure that is all.
Yeah, again I agree totally. Now the whole issue is clearer to me. Since 
I saw your [wiki] fisrt organization, I perceived my solution 
(Create/Use) can not hold on all the possibilities that good.

> We will need this anyway - and Cederic actually initiated working on this
> topic. Hopefully he is not scared about the scope the whole discussion takes
> :) - Cederic: are you?
It's great! I didn't know Cederic is part of the developing team! Really 
great! :)

Best regards,
~Paulo
--
Paulo José O. Amaro
Computer Science Student
Federal University of São João del-Rei
WebDesigner / Linked Empresa Júnior
Blogger / casatwain.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***