Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2015 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Jay,
Le 10/06/2015 14:20, Jay Philips a écrit :
Hi Sophie,

On 06/08/2015 12:02 PM, Sophie wrote:
Hi Jay,
Le 07/06/2015 19:07, Jay Philips a écrit :

Would 'Exchange Database' be more suitable in the Tools menu next to
'Bibliography Database'?

Why, you're not working on the database, but editing the link to the

So editing the data in the database makes it suitable for 'Bibliography
Database' to be under Tools but editing the link to the database
shouldnt be considered suitable for it to be under Tools. Bibliography
Database is the tool and all things related to that tool should be under
Tools, similarly Macros is a tool and running, assigning, editing, etc
of macros is located under tools. We dont have a Edit > Macros entry.

It's not only for Bibliography, but for all the databases registered
under LO. An example, I've one template designed for a mailing for
different sets of clients, those clients are in two different databases
registered under LO. Once my first mailing done on the first database, I
edit the link between the template and the database to chose the second
database under Edit > Exchange database.
There is no actions on the database, the action is between the template
and the database or on the template because it keeps the link to the

I'm assuming he meant Insert > Hyperlink and Edit > Hyperlink, which do
use the same dialog. :D

So to edit an hyperlink you chose the insert menu?

To edit a hyperlink, I would use the context menu or click the Hyperlink
entry in the toolbar, as the Hyperlink dialog box is multi-purpose.

And if you don't know about context menu (like most of our new users)
and don't use toolbar, will you chose Insert as main menu to edit the

Stats for Edit > Hyperlink (.uno:EditHyperlink) :-
Context Menu : 90%
Menu Bar : 10%
Note: There isnt any means to know how many users clicked the
'Hyperlink' button (.uno:HyperlinkDialog) to edit a hyperlink.

Not very commonly used according to the stats, which likely means its
commonly used only by experienced/advanced users (aka Eve). The stats
have Insert > Image > From File as the highest used entry in the menu
and its submenus and Insert > Section as one of the lowest in the first
level. Even behind Insert > Envelope and Insert > File. (the namings
given here are according to LO 4.3)

which is wrong, but no time to discuss that

Which part is wrong? That it is one of the least used entries in the
insert menu, that it is less used that inserting an image, that it isnt
used by average users.

Section isnt a common feature found in documents, as its not even a
common feature found in word processors. I would presume that if we
analysed all the documents on bugzilla, that sections would likely be in
less that 1% of them. As a simple example, the Writer user guide has
tables, frames, images, bookmarks, hyperlinks, and indexes, but no

So the migrations I've made may have been with wrong users as they rely
on sections first to insert a page (Word usage) but when made aware of
it used them a lot ;)
In general, I find sad to hide things on user's preferences when they
improve the layout and the robustness of the document, same reasoning as
styles vs direct formating.

As HIG says we have to have all of them in the menu, we can only do so
much. As you said you had to scroll to display them, i checked my laptop
which is 1280x768 and the insert menu was the longest, but i didnt need
to scroll according to today's master. It can be reduce by 1 if i move
Insert > Chart back into Insert > Object.

Insert and format are too long for my screen

What screen resolution do you have? Both the insert and format menus now
have 25 entries in it. In 4.3, before the menus began changing, the
insert menu had 23 entries and the format menu had 21 entries.

1366x768 and both are ok in 4.4

There is an absolutely good reason for them. Firstly its defined in the
HIG that all commands be available in the menus, but secondly you
previously stated "when you train people on software, the first thing
you tell them is to be curious and to visit the menus if they search for
something" and if these items are not available in the menu, how would a
user discover useful shortcuts like Ctrl+] for Increase Font Size.

Who would encourage users to use this command instead of styles?

The use of direct formatting is not in competition with styles, as you
can create a suitable set of direct formatting options and easily
convert it into a paragraph style, or set a paragraph style and apply
direct formatting to it, and then update the style based on the
additional direct formatting.

The command is a feature of libreoffice and is no different that opening
the font size combobox to increase or decrease the font, so there isnt a
need to hide it from the menu bar. The menu bar didnt even have style
shortcut entries in it until i just added them, so how would a user know
that ctrl+1 is for the Heading 1 style.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against changes and value your work, you
know it, I won't discuss and spend time to check everything otherwise.
See my explanations below about direct formating and styles

menu also has commands that weren't previously easily accessible until i
added them to the toolbar (e.g. superscript, subscript, line spacing,
increase/decrease paragraph spacing, etc).

We want the document produced with LibreOffice to be robust with
roundtrip to other format, so please do not encourage users to use
direct formatting, on the contrary we should make them aware of styles
and simplify the process to access them, this is what should be worked
on and where we should put resources and creativity.

As stated above, direct formatting options are not in competition with
styles as styles are simply a bundled collection of direct formatting
and not showing direct formatting options because users may not know
about styles or choose not to use it is not the correct way to go.

They are not treated the same when written in the file format. Take the
Documentation templates for example, try to use an old one and to export
it or to use it with a CAT tool or extract data with a script, direct
formatting clutters the file everywhere while styles tags are very well
interpreted. That's why it's important to rely on styles instead of
direct formatting. We are not creating text to be printed, but data to
be imported and exported in different file formats or environments. For
this we need robustness when creating our documents, tags that are
easily interpretable by filters, and so on.

We can want users to not use direct formatting, though we present them
with direct formatting in the toolbar and also in the context menu until
recently, but it will always be used until styles are presented to users
in such an easy manner that even a beginner would understand and be
convinced that it is the only way. We dont even provide an easy means
for users to select character styles, so if a user wants to make some
text bold, he will click the bold button in the toolbar over opening the
styles and formatting dialog, switch to character styles and select
strong emphasis.

This is exactly where efforts should be put and not to reproduce the
same old wrong behavior.

Efforts are ongoing to improve the use of styles, some of which i've
initiated, but there is a long road before they are completed, but even
then we wont force users to use styles.

not force them but invite them ;)

Look forward to your next round of suggestions, though i had already
gone through all of Heiko's suggestions with him last wednesday after
the design meeting. :D

Not sure what does it mean, I'll just check for feature loss then.

I was stating that i had gone through Heiko's suggestions with him as
you were replying to Heiko's suggestions in the initial email.


Frame is doubled in the Insert menu

There is a Frame submenu in the Insert menu, which has two Frame
commands - one allowing a user to draw the shape of the frame and the
second which opens up a dialog box to insert a frame.

You can't have two commands with the same name, side by side in the same
menu, their must be something wrong somewhere :)

Is inserting index something so little used that it should be down in
the menu too?

Position of index in old menu, 15, position of index in new menu, 19.
The new insert menu is broken into 8 sections, with related commands
grouped together and based on usage and importance of the command in the
creation of documents. So is inserting and index less or more
important/used than inserting a page break, image, textbox, hyperlink or
special character (aka symbol)?

Maybe make a distinction between what can be achieved using a shortcut
(i.e. Ctrl+Enter for page break) and what needs a dialog box and put the
latter upper in the menu as you can't take another route to open it.

Clear Direct Formatting should be at the same place in Writer and Calc,
both at the top.

It is placed in the same place in both Writer and Calc, in the section
with the Styles submenu, as users of styles would be interested to
'Clear Direct Formatting'.
It's at the top of the menu in Calc for me.

Did you remove entries in Calc menu?

No entries were removed in Calc, they were only moved and renamed.


I've seen 'Rulers' reappeared in the menu in a patch yesterday, this
feature has been removed since several versions now because of
compatibility issues, any reason to add it again?

'Rulers' has always been an entry in the view menu, i created a 'Ruler'
submenu which includes both 'Rulers' and 'Vertical Ruler', which is a
feature hidden by default in 4.4.

So you didn't bring back the rulers that was in the Gallery? That was my
question I didn't thought about the rulers in the UI.

Did you work on the help files already?
The one you're concerned with in Writer are
I'll search for the Calc and Impress one later today


Sophie Gautier
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.