2009/9/8 Lars Nooden <larsnoo...@openoffice.org> > M Henri Day wrote: > > > I should have nothing against an updating to the OOo GUI, but I can't > help > > thinking that it's what's under the hood that is most important. Still, > we - > > the developers - do have to keep in mind that new users to OOo are often > > going to have a background in MS Office 2007 and later, rather than in > > versions 1997 -2003.... > > Oh bullshit again. Just because a small cluster of deIcaza types wants > OOo to stop UI work, turn around and spend effort copying MSO simply > because it's MSO, doesn't mean we should. Copying is stupid. Copying > failure is more stupid. M$ has virtually made a trademark of suckitude. > Don't go the route of trademark infringement. > > Quick quiz: > > Q: What is the goal of OOo? > > a) a deIcaza-style M$ love-in, dutifully copying every > aspect of MSO > > b) providing a good productivity suite > > Updating the UI is very good idea. Updating without specific goals is a > waste of resources. Updating it to copy a failure is not very nice to > those who wish to use OOo. > > If the ideal is more general, improvement of the "User Experience", then > it may not be UI work that is needed so much as streamlining and > modularization. Faster program == more ( enjoyable && productive ). > > Regards > -Lars >
Lars, before characterising your fellow users' posting as «bullshit», you might want to consider reading them more carefully. Nowhere in my post above do I suggest that the MS «ribbon» or other elements of their GUI should be copied - as I point out, it's what's under the hood - which to me, at least, includes such matters as the streamlining and modularisation you mention - that matters. When I read your statement to the effect that «Faster program == more ( enjoyable && productive )», the impression I get is that we, in fact, are in substantial agreement. At the same time, given MS's present dominance of the field, we are going to have to take into account that many who will be considering whether or not to install OOo will have an MS Office background, a fact which should have consequences for the design of the former. You seem to have interpreted this as a suggestion that OOo «copy» MSO, but that was not at all my point, which was rather that we have to offer a *better*, more user-friendly alternative then the legacy maker, in which such aspects as speed and simplicity of use certainly play an important role. Again, from what you write, you seem to agree with this. These are, of course, the goals of any update - but to make them operational we must, as you point out, make them specific. Let us then discuss these specifics, instead of dismissing - and indeed, misrepresenting - others' opinions as «[u]pdating [OOo] to copy a failure». I, for one, would like to be able to change the language I'm inputting directly from the toolbar, instead of having to go via a menu. Perhaps if we confine ourselves to discussing such concrete matters, we'll not need to refer to each other in a manner which tends to wake opposition rather than cooperation.... Henri PS : Thanks for the remark about «delcaza types» - uninitiated as I am, I'm not sure I follow, but I choose to take it as a compliment !...
