[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar Problem


I don't think it's that no-one can be bothered so much as it's really hard
to get EVERYONE to agree with any proposed design change. With a project
this size changing the UI can result in a lot of angry users. Just look at
what happened to MSOffice after Ribbon. Leaving aside the arugments of
whether it did indeed change things for ther better, it undeniably changed
them dramatically. This resulted in lots of hate from people that were
force to change their work flow. Also was inconvienient to the people who
had to switch between 3 different versions of word.
Leaving aside the angry user for a second, you've also got to convince the
management that this is a good idea. Then you've got to find programmers
who are willing to make this new design. LibreOffice uses it's own
internal toolkit with a custom selection of UI elements thus any massive UI
change would require the writing of new UI elements into the toolkit and
probably the rewritting of a fair ammount of old ones. Not being familiar
with the actual code involved this could take anywhere from a few months to
a year or more depending on how well designed the toolkit is.


On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Pedro Rosmaninho <mota.prego@gmail.com>wrote:

> The mock-ups posted by Evil Overlord are very nice. But if there's no real
> discussion or interest in this board to improve the LibreOffice UI then
> this won't change in the near future.
> And with the discussion mostly focusing on portraying the Sidebar as a
> "problem" instead of a potential way to kickstart an UI evolution I guess
> real changes are very far away.
>
> It's a shame that the members of the LibreOffice UI team have no interest
> in improving the UI because right now, a lot of other open-source projects
> (such as Gnome, KDE, Elementary, Cinnamon, etc, etc) are doing great
> innovations in design and UI/UX and LibreOffice as one of the most
> prominent open-source projects is completely stagnant in that regard -
> prefering to stick to an UI inspired by an outdated piece of closed source
> software (Microsoft Office 2003).
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Daniel Hulse <simplecontrast@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Evil Overlord wrote
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > Your mockup looks okay, but I'm a little confused. You say that
> duplicate
> > > controls are bad, but you included duplicate direct formatting controls
> > in
> > > your bottom toolbar. For me, the whole point is to shift controls to
> the
> > > sidebar, and avoid toolbars. I don't think there's any problem with
> > > duplicate controls, so long as it's clear they do the same thing.
> >
> > Those are not in fact duplicate controls. The bottom bar is direct
> > formatting, while the sidebar is stylistic formatting. What that means is
> > that all the controls shown on the right edit the current selected style,
> > while the bottom bar formats the current selected area/where the cursor
> > is--it's contextual, and does not edit the current style. That's why
> > there's
> > no option to choose the typeface or font size there (although you could
> if
> > you pressed the "more" button which I now see didn't make it into the
> > mock-up) The idea is that this would make it incredibly simple to edit,
> > define, and apply styles--instead of editing the current style by
> selecting
> > a style from the stylist and looking through cumbersome dialogues that
> get
> > in the way of the document. At the same time, editing options that are
> > better done directly--that only have to do with individual words or parts
> > of
> > words--are preserved in the bottom bar.
> >
> >
> > Evil Overlord wrote
> > > I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a default sidebar, but
> > make
> > > it customizable so that those who wish to can put their own controls
> > where
> > > they want them. Far better than trying to divine the correct placement
> of
> > > single controls would be to allow users to create the interface they're
> > > comfortable with; the tools I use most often won't be the ones you
> > choose.
> > > Most software seems to have headed this way in recent years, and it's a
> > > good thing.
> >
> > Customization is /okay/, but my point is that it has to be limited so
> that
> > it doesn't diverge too far from the actual design of the software--it
> needs
> > to happen within constraints. For example, you could rearrange elements
> in
> > individual sections of the sidebar, or add appropriate elements. You
> could
> > add whatever buttons you want to the end of the standard toolbar--I for
> one
> > like to be able enter a formula really quickly, but don't think that
> > necessarily needs to be there for everyone. The idea is that the actual
> > purpose of each part of each element of the ui should not be broken in
> > customization. Meaningful customization is not about radically changing
> the
> > layout and button placements, or arranging every button in the exact
> place
> > you want it just for the fun of it--it's about getting to needed
> > functionality quickly. It shouldn't be a substitute for learning how a
> > piece
> > of software works, and allowing customization should not take the place
> of
> > designing something well in the first place.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're talking about about customization in software
> > becoming more common. If anything, the rise of mobile and web apps (which
> > are rarely customizable) suggests otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/The-Sidebar-Problem-tp4094331p4106481.html
> > Sent from the Design mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
> > Problems?
> > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> 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
>



--
Sean White,
Within Temptation - Your Argument Is Invalid

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

Follow-Ups:
[libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar ProblemTeo91 <mcavalleri91@gmail.com>
[libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar ProblemTeo91 <mcavalleri91@gmail.com>
References:
[libreoffice-design] The Sidebar Problem"Mirek M." <mazelm@gmail.com>
[libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar ProblemEvil Overlord <bma_junk@yahoo.com>
[libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar ProblemDaniel Hulse <simplecontrast@gmail.com>
[libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar ProblemEvil Overlord <bma_junk@yahoo.com>
[libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar ProblemDaniel Hulse <simplecontrast@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-design] Re: The Sidebar ProblemPedro Rosmaninho <mota.prego@gmail.com>
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.