On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Mirek M. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I find this discussion a bit misguided. The idea seems to be simply to do
an all-encompassing, radical UI redesign without considering the pros and
cons of the current one, platform and toolkit limitations, or a possible
development plan. It seems as though you are trying to find solutions
without first framing the problem(s).
I'm not going to lead a pros and cons discussion of radical UIs. My idea is
just that in Python we could very quickly prototype anything radical you
could draw. What exactly is better is above my pay grade. I'm here asking
if you've got anything.
I'm not interested in finalizing toolkit discussions. That is a dev issue
rather than a UX issue. I'm just going to document that there is no de
facto Python widget library and let the dev team figure out which is the
best for LibreOffice.
I'm not here asking for a development plan. I've got the first step figured
out which is just to create a totally empty Python toolbar / sidebar. After
that, anyone with Python knowledge could be involved to fill it in.
Right now, the plan is to do iterative improvements rather than a one-go
radical redesign, as we don't have the development power for one (we don't
even have enough interested devs to work on our proposed easy hacks right
now ), we want to test and refine as we go, and we want the transition
to be as smooth as possible.
I think you should have plans for a radical redesign. Incremental
improvements are important for today's customers but it is also good to
think beyond that for excitement, strategic, and competitive reasons.
I understand that given you find the incremental improvement slow you don't
understand why it would make sense to spend any effort on anything very
different. But a key point of this proposal is that we could prototype
something radical in Python.
It doesn't surprise me that you find it hard to get people to work on Easy
Hacks, nearly all are C++, and require lots of knowledge beyond that. It is
like looking for supermodels, when there are plenty of regular models
(Python programmers) around. It is really not that hard to prototype
anything you could draw for Writer in a few months of one person fulltime.
Unless you know what you want, you don't know how smooth the transition
However, I don't mind considering the big picture.
Given that most UI redesign proposals stem from Microsoft Office's UI
redesign, let's compare our current UI to Office's.
The advantages of Office's UI, as I see it, are:
* A single place to access commands. The user doesn't have to hunt for
commands across menus, toolbars, dialogs, and sidebar panes to find the
* Context. Irrelevant disabled commands are inaccessible and the most
relevant commands are brought to the forefront, thereby making it much
easier to find the desired command. Commands that are not relevant to
editing the current document, like New, Open, Templates, or Print, are
* No dialogs. There's very little need to use dialogs, which speeds up the
editing process and keeps the user focused on the document.
* Previews. Changes are previewed instantly in the document. Whereas
dialogs tend to have a preview area showing only the selection, using the
ribbon, the user can see what the changes look like inside the document.
* Better categorization. LibreOffice uses different categorization systems
for menus, toolbars, panes, and even the "Customize..." dialog. All of them
are unsatisfactory, with vague categories and oddities. Office has a single
categorization system and while it also has vagueness and inconsistencies,
it's a bit more logical.
* Visual design. The icon theme and the skin in Office seem much more
modern than our current look.
* Less customization. It's much harder to mess up your installation in MS
Office than in LibO with bad choices. Also, the Office Options screen is
much easier to go through and use.
* Readability. It's much harder to read through the ribbon than a standard
toolbar, as there is no clear path for the eyes to follow.
* Complexity. The ribbon is much more complex than a standard toolbar.
Therefore, it's harder to maintain and to make it adapt to changes.
* Touch-friendliness. The ribbon is not suited to a touch-environment. Even
under "Touch mode", it can be hard to target the commands shown with
* Nonconformity. The ribbon is alien to all platforms except Windows. Mac
OS requires a menu bar for each application.
* Space usage. The ribbon takes up a ton of space. (Some propose putting it
on the side, yet that could be a problem for people who need to have two
documents side-by-side, e.g. translators.)
* Inconsistencies. While I argued above that the categorization is better,
it certainly has its quirks. For example, some commands cannot be found
within the ribbon and are instead presented in a "Quick Access" toolbar or
are not presented at all. The "Home" category is too vague.
Notice that the advantages listed above don't require a ribbon-like UI and
can be accomplished using toolbars while retaining all of the advantages of
LibreOffice's current UI. Focusing on toolbars also allows a smoother
change and less development effort. The proposed EasyHacks are a first
You could quickly prototype any kind of toolbar or ribbon in Python.
Do you have a better toolbar design? I'd update my wiki page with anything
radically better. For this task, I suggest you not worry about what is
doable and instead what you want.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
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
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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