Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hello Christoph

Em -10-01--28163 16:59, Christoph Noack escreveu:> Hi all,
That's a good description ;-)
Thank you very much. I'm a writer in my spare time and english is not my primary language, so this is a big compliment.
Well, that might be difficult, since context-menus are a de-facto
standard and also required for accessibility reasons.
I wasn't aware of that.
But, I agree that the menus itself don't help that much at the
moment ... so let's try to balance context menus (being a direct /
alternative access) and more direct means.
See what we can do.
Still the point is - why do people need to add more styles? I think the
number of styles is quite sufficient, but maybe the defaults are
unwanted ... don't know.
Someone answered this point, and I agree: personal styles add consistency between documents, since you can import them, without having to use templates (which are not a good alternative if you're constantly modifying both documents, and not simply generating a new one based on the former).
>  2. Now, a right-click on an empty area could lead to 'New Style'
>  directly, without a one-option context menu appearing.
That would be against the platforms standards and to what users expect
when using LibO - all lists have (if there are any further commands) a
context-menu. And, it is less discoverable - clicking on "New" gives you
some clue, but starting an activity (e.g. if having accidentally clicked
on whitespace) is less user friendly.

Word introduced a nice "on hover" drop-down - to avoid cluttering by
adding a drop-down to each of the list entries, they showed a drop-down
on mouseover. So you don't even need to use the context menu.
I hadn't thought like this, but agree with you. We here hit the old exchange: friendly interface to extended funcionality. But this leaves very little room. If one-click works, it leads to confusion ("how did I get here?"), if it doesn't, it's a pain in the ass. And we already have too many buttons on that window. I would go as far as adding one more, but not further.

That single one, functioning as an "on hover" drop-down menu, could add functionalities to a) create new style, b) create new style based on selected, c) delete selected. Well, that would work even if it was not a drop-down. This could be redundant to the context menu, so we would have both self-explanatory and fast ways at the same time. And we could forget about clicking the empty space. It's not intuitive, and we already got our shiny new button for that.

My main concern is on 'Modify Style'. Since we would retain double-click assigned to 'Apply Style', we have to think of a better way to hit 'Modify Style'. And it is so simple I can't believe I haven't thought of that before. We would have a plus sing (+) on the left side of each style name in the list. Click that sign, you expect something related to that particular style to appear in front of you. And that would be our new, beautiful and easy to use style-dialog-on-steroids. No surprises to the new user, fast access to the experimented one. Besides, a sign in front of every item on the list helps to visualize that each line is a different item, and not just a bunch of words listed (my very first impression, years ago, when inadvertently looking at that window).

I'll try a mock-up in the weekend, see how it appeals.

Cheers,
Rafael./

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.