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

Le 10/06/2015 14:40, Cor Nouws a écrit :

So the challenge - where the issues are about - is to make working with
Styles more natural, visible. 

Hi all,

[Summary: style should be promoted by better answering user needs
(several -new?- features proposed), not (only) by changing the ui]

Here is a list of things we could add if we want to promote styles.
Explaination of my reasonning after:

- change management / training but probably out of scope. However, this
is the root cause, i think. When you don't say how to use a software to
users, they use it the way they think is good.
- We should make an enhancement in Tools -> Options, it should be
possible to reset the UI configuration of menu/tool/event/Sidebars to
Basic, Normal, Advanced with 3 predefined configuration and ask at first
launch which one to use.
- we should, do all that is possible to promote meaningful styles over
direct formatting. Taking into account this: when the name of the style
is Bold and underline, that is not far from direct formatting style.
Also, in writer, compare Addressee, Footer, Footer Left, Footer Right,
Frame Contents, Header, Header Left, Header Right, and so on. There are
(visually at least) all like Default style. I would do something that
makes these styles different. I believe you have to visually excite your
audience (in a certain limit) if you want to retain their attention. For
exemple, Right formatting could be right formatted, we could use
colours, tooltip on the style to better describe it.
- we should have a tool / wizzard / whatever that helps you detect
direct formatting and replace by existing / new styles. Kind of code
style checking. Or fixing.
- In writer context menus could allow to apply a style to current
selection (text, paragrap, ...)
- I believe that when a direct formatting is applied, a new style name
could be automatically asked
- It should be possible to send documents with locked (read-only) styles
(I gave you a template with these styles, you cannot use other styles,
you have no direct formatting, produce your part of the final document).
Or: if you want a new style, it will be managed as a change request and
document integrator will have two choices: accept it / replace it by an
existing one.

And now the origin of these features for those who still have few minutes:

The software must not be developped for the developpers but for the
target audience in order to answer needs.

So, do we have an idea of the demographic composition of LO users ?

Among users, how many are skilled in computer use and how many are users
that have never been trained to "good practices" ?

The second population will probably express its needs with a very
limited vocabulary. I would say: text, new line (paragraph as advanced
concept), bullets, bold, underline, italic, recover the text that I
forgot to save, print. All other buttons are noise (at least at the very
beginning, the more they learn, the more buttons should be displayed)

If the guy is using LO at work, maybe one day, he will add titles and
later images to the vocabulary.
For this kind of population, I think one unique side panel is enough.
You can present them a style named Bold and they will be happy. Kind of
"basic" mode

Among users, how many use LO for professional work / how many for
private tasks ?

The second population will be using LO to write a letter to an
administration, to make a (one) slide with pictures of the last week-end
activities just to print and paste in child's book. They will probably
fall back in the previous "small-needs" category.

Let's see the need of the first population (pro workers): they will be
using LO for writing user manuals, answering tenders, writing letters to
customers and so on. There is a (visual) quality expected for these
documents especially if they are writen by several people.

Now let's describe all the cases I met in this situation:
- the guy (or the girl) has always used Word before and knows only
direct style buttons (how many times did I see titles writen without
styles, with tabs, spaces, numbers)
- the guys uses Word and uses styles. But as soon as a part of a
paragraph is bold, it's style + direct formatting,
- the guys uses LO for first time, he used Word previously. He does not
understand the (new for him) concept of Paragraph Style, Character
Style, Table Style. He does not understand how to put numbers in front
of titles (Chapter Numbering). Nobody proposed him at first launch to
explain how to migrate ways of working from Word to LO. (kind of
eLearning before / after). So, he uses few styles and lot of additional
direct formatting.
- the LO user. He uses styles and few direct formatting. My case: I tend
to put images in writer, crop them, anchor as char, and apply Center.
- the perfect user. Never met.
- and finally the poor guy is charge of mixing all the contributions in
a single document. He started a clean LO document, 5 styles in use.
After copy / paste of all the contributions, he has 123434234 styles.
There are 1000 pages. It is just a nightmare to stay with styles only.
Even if it was his target.

These use cases are real cases and so I think the feature describes
above shoud help if we want to promote styles.

To conclude (thanks for reading to the end):
see summary :-)


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.