Hi Christoph, Cor,
Thank you for the feedback!
On 2011-06-11 at 23:25 +0200, Christoph Noack wrote:
I know that people complained from time to time that the gradient looked
quite awful on some platforms, but I never heard "active" complaints
about its behavior. Of course, it doesn't mean anything at the
moment ...
Yes - I is not that big an issue, OTOH, I think people might appreciate
the nicer look ;-)
But (a huge but) we should prepare for _serious_ noise if we remove the
option buttons. Especially since we break with Microsoft Office 2003
(Windows) behavior, and we have impact on the usability for
close-to-no-context-menus platforms like Mac OS X.
I guess that similarity to 2003 will not be that a big issue; 2003 comes
from the days when the UX had a trend of overwhelming the users with the
possibilities to configure just everything. Today, I see the trend of
giving the user maximum of the workplace for her/his work, with minimum
distraction - and at least for me, these buttons are distracting :-)
By the way, my only complaint is the next/previous "navigation" toolbar
that really breaks the look/feel/behavior.
This is orthogonal to my change; I mean, I did not do anything about
them with my change, they are just there by default in master
(towards-3.5 branch). You are right we should do something about them
too, but let's treat that separately.
So, I do have two proposals to solve these inconsistencies - but I'm
still unsure whether people will (more than) complain. Touching this
functionality gives a 50/50 chance for improvement/non-improvement.
Proposal 1: Based on your proposal ...
* In all cases, keep the context menu as it is today (e.g. show
the remaining items if the toolbar cannot be fully shown and
hides some items).
* Docked toolbar, sufficient space: (like you proposed)
* Docked toolbar, limited space:
* remove the toolbar options
* keep the items being shown due to limited space for the
usual toolbar
* remove the downwards triangle
* center the double-arrow (>>) that indicates items are
hidden
* Floating toolbar: Remove the triangle to access the options
menu.
Sounds good to me, thank you! Since what I have done is half-way there,
would it be OK for you to let the rest as an Easy Hack? I mean, I think
that after my change, it is "good enough" (TM) and I can/will easily do
the removal of the downwards triangle and center the double-arrow (>>),
but the rest is slightly more work [not _that_ much, but because the
same menu is currently used for the context (right-click) menu, and for
the "more" functionality, the code will need to do a bit more handling
of these two possibilities].
Proposal 2: If the current proposal mainly relates to the visual noise
the current option button causes, then ...
* We might adapt this button to be less visible (I have some ideas
ranging from "less saturated colors" to "mouseover animation").
* Fix the forward/backward (navigation) toolbar to be less
distracting as well. (No ideas yet, since I don't know what it
is currently used for).
I like 1) more ;-)
By the way, I noticed that we do not conform to Windows standards - our
floating toolbar titles do not react on right-clicks to open the
corresponding context menu, see [4].
[4] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511500.aspx#paletteWindows
Sounds like one more Easy Hack :-)
Sorry for the long reply, but changes with regard to menus and toolbars
are something that caused quite some noise in the past ;-)
Sure - that's why ask for feedback in the first place :-)
Thank you,
Kendy
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.