Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi All,

I don't know too much (khm. I don't know anything:)) about the internal structure of the LO code base. But the question is what I would like to see in 2 years so, if you don't mind, I let me go crazy and come up with wild ideas, regardless of how easy they are to implement.



I think it is a waste of the developer resources to redesign the user interface every fifth year, when the fashion changes. What did work very well in the past, is the add-on system of Firefox. I would like to see something similar in LibreOffice.

(I am talking about the first version of the FF addons, when there was a lot of freedom, not the newer model, when a lot of nice old addons don't work anymore.)


It would be great if there was a separate code base in LO which manipulates the document itself and a sharply separated other one which is responsible for the UI. They should communicate on an interface which makes it possible to write UI add-ons for LibreOffice in easier-to-learn programming languages, for example Python and/or JavaScript, not just C/C++/

In that case, the community would win a lot of competing UIs from enthusiastic developers and some of them would be really good. People, who are experts of UIs but don't necessarily want to learn the deep secrets of the LO code base, would be able to make their on add-ons, like thousands of Firefox add-ons made the browser really popular.

After this structural change, people who know LO deeper, can focus on new functions, performance improvements, better compatibility and other useful things while people, who want to make spectacular UI, can focus on just the UI, without knowing too much about the internal parts of LO.

There would always be one or two official UI packages which offers an acceptable balance between functionality, beauty and used resouces but people could choose 3rd party UI add-ons freely, from a LibeOffice add-on store.




Disclaimer: I am writing this idea without having any clue what the current structure of the code base is and how complicated this change would be. Take this just as it is. As an idea which can be ignored if it is totally useless. :)

Cheers,

Csongor




On 14/08/2020 06:45, Heiko Tietze wrote:
Hi all,

other communities such as KDE [1] plan the work for next releases. This idea
also comes up repeatedly for LibreOffice; and while steering in a narrow sense
is not possible, it make sense to have a common vision for the next two years.

That's why Andreas Kainz suggested an IRC meeting. We should do this similar to
the question what topics to foster for next year's GSoC [2]. An example for such
a 2-year plan clould be to rework all property dialogs and to get rid of tabs in
favor of a sidebar with text/icons (see tdf#113418; controversially discussed in
the design meeting today).

Please think about where you see LibreOffice in 2 years and what you want the
design/UX group to achieve. I suggest to share the ideas first here.

The meeting should be on Sep/02 at 6pm UTC / 20:00 CEST (Berlin) (replacing the
usual weekly meeting). We talk on IRC #libreoffice-design (bridged to Telegram).

Looking forward your thoughts,
Heiko

[1] https://community.kde.org/Schedules
[2] https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/msg09343.html


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

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.