[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 134781] Redundancy in Table of Contents and Indexes

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134781

--- Comment #9 from Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@hotmail.com> ---
TLDR; the two entries in their first and default mode (Captions) are identical,
except for a pre-selection from *numbering range* list. It actually asks for a
change.

These two two entries in the "Type" selector, namely "Table of Figures" and
"Index of Tables", allow two modes of operation (selected using "Create From"):
"Captions" and "Object names". These two modes are quite different. In the
second mode ("Object names"), the tool actually looks for objects of related
category in the document. This mode justifies the distinction between these two
entries in the list.

But the first operation mode (Captions) seems to make no sense when
incorporated as a mode in these two entries, and instead looks natural to be
separated into own new entry, like "Table of numbering category" (or somesuch),
which would simply allow the user to choose any of existing numbering ranges
(also Illustrations or Drawings pre-existing, or just anything that user may
create using Insert->Field->More Fields->Variables->Number range, and which
already appears there in the ToX dialog's Category list).

So currently, if I want to create "Table of Illustrations" or Table of Drawings
or Table of Lists (if I decide to make such a number range) ..., I have to open
the dialog, and start from either one of these two elements (Table of Figures
or Index of Tables, doesn't matter), use the "Captions" mode, and then modify
the Category and all. It's not that obvious, and looks like a hack. An own
mode, dedicated to list the number range elements seems a good option, at the
same time simplifying the UI for the two modes in question.

A question whether some/all modes should provide an option to make alphabetical
lists with grouping is a separate IMO, and should not be considered along with
this one in the same issue.

Also a question about having hyperlinks for table lists by default is a
separate, with no clear reason not to have them.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.