Hi Adam, On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 05:35:12PM +0300, Adam Fyne <Adam.Fyne@cloudon.com> wrote:
We are doing some work on implementing 'Smart-Art *Preservation*' in Writer. Meaning – if the user does WordèLOèWord round-trip we plan that they won't lose their Smart-Art object. Currently Smart-Art is being imported into *simple shapes* in Writer (which don't exactly look the same), and most of the actual data and binding between shapes is lost (not to mention it doesn't look the same). In order to preserve the original Smart-Art object – we would plan on loading the entire XML nodes and attributes of Smart-Art to property maps (e.g. Miklos's great 'InteropGrabBag').
This makes sense, yes.
In addition, instead of showing to the user simple shapes (that he can currently edit and move around) – we would like to change this and show the user a *locked* bitmap of the smart-art, that the user cannot manipulate (so that he can at least preserve the original Smart-Art).
What is the benefit of this, from a user's point of view?
Should we take a different approach that maybe pops a message when loading a DOCX with Smart-Art asking the user: *"We noticed you are importing a DOCX with Smart-Art. Would you like to preserve it and keep it un-editable or convert it to simple shapes ?"* And then act according to the user's choice? (choosing simple shapes will lose the 'Smart-Art' functionality, while choosing 'preserve' will not let the user edit the smart-art, only see it).
This is certainly possible, e.g. the ASCII filter asks for encoding IIRC, the CSV import filter is also interactive, but one popup for every smartart is probably a bit too much, imagine a presentation containing 100 smartart shapes. :) Miklos
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature