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


Of course, you're right, if I understand you, but I did not say that LO
should not look great for linux, on the contrary. It seems that there have
been attempts to redesign the icons, to be modern and..., but I can only see
a bunch of different pictograms whose design not belong to any of these
systems philosophy. Access to the tools is a major problem. I'm interested
in just who decides about all of this and how I contribute, Does it make
sense to talk about this, or continue business as usual :)

On 19 June 2011 19:10, RGB ES <rgb.mldc@gmail.com> wrote:

2011/6/19 Budislav Stepanov <budo345libre@gmail.com>:
Of course it looks like MSO, LO now looks like MSO 2003:). Everyone
should
take part in this, I just gave a suggestion.
@ Ricardo - I do not understand what is so special in the current
interface
and so well that it should not be changed, is it not better to be easily
manipulated with the tools,I read somewhere that people in the company
can
not find their way in, Is not it better to simplify it. Who is against
it?
we all, as designers need to design how everything should look like, not
to ask developers what is better, that all of the tools in one place r
that
the user loses until you find what they need . What is the aim of
developing
this program? . No one said that he would deviate from KDE, but it would
be
much easier to use all the features of the program. After all let's ask
many
people who use the LO what is better, maybe they make a suggestion? LO
should be used with enthusiasm, not because we must, because it is free.
Without ideas there is nothing. Just my opinion.

I'm not talking about the current interface that for sure needs a
redesign, but about how the interface integrates with the desktop
environment used.
On your mock-up you wrote that LibO should have an unique look
independently of the OS and I do not agree with that, that's all ;)
Which tools are available and where (dockers, side toolbars, etc.),
and the way to access all the others must be a desktop independent
trademark for LibO, that's right: each app is unique in many senses
and so they are their tools. But how menus and buttons are
highlighted, the colour scheme, even icon theme (the save, open,
new... buttons, for example) should be, if possible, in harmony with
the rest of the system so users can feel "at home" with the app and,
first of all, do not get that second of confusion when changing from
LibO to another apps or vice versa.
That's why I mentioned the file picker. Right now, LibO's own file
picker is bad (to be nice...), but even if it were good a user that
needs to save a file to a new location needs also to switch his/her
mind from what they are used to use to whatever LibO offers *every
time*, and that is counter-productive.
I mentioned KDE just as an example: what I'd said holds, I think, for
gnome, xfce, mac (acqua?)...
LibO must be an unique product, granted, but it should not look as an
intruder on the desktop session.
Cheers
Ricardo

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




-- 
Regards,
Budislav

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/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.