https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127283
Heiko Tietze <heiko.tietze@documentfoundation.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|needsUXEval |
CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |heiko.tietze@documentfounda
|.freedesktop.org |tion.org
--- Comment #7 from Heiko Tietze <heiko.tietze@documentfoundation.org> ---
We discussed the topic in the design meeting.
On the one hand, this would allow to switch to and work on layers in complex
files, with many layers, without having to lock, or unlock the layers on each
time you switch layer. And it's know from different applications. Drawback is
the unclear relation with Lock (if locked the selection is not possible as
well).
On the other hand, you may have a per-object option in mind. This is kinda WFM
as every object could be placed on one layer. Locking a layer makes objects not
selectable and that's likely the most common workflow when you have a couple of
static objects or done drawings and some pieces are under review. Putting those
on a dedicated layer works well for me.
The idea with "Lock all but this" (and similar changes) is questionable as
commented by Regina in c6.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Context
- [Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 127283] Add option to layers, to prevent selecting objects on inactive Layers, also if the layers are not locked · bugzilla-daemon
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.