Hi everyone, @Bernhard: > 1. [Apply] button <pressed> as standard: > Every change is visible immediately (or after a short time as Christoph > suggests) in the document. > > a. The user wants to keep the changes and leave the dialog: > -> Just press [Close] > b. The user wants to revert the changes and leave the dialog: > -> press [Apply] to switch to the <released> style, so no change > is applied to the document, and press [Close]. You should > reach the same result with [Esc] on the keyboard or [x] in > the dialog's upper corner by just one click. > c. The user wants to revert the changes, but keep the dialog: > -> double-click on [Apply]: The style is changes to <released>, > and all entries in the dialog have been reverted. > > 2. [Apply] is <released> as standard behavior: > Changes are only visible when applied to the document manually: > > a. The user wants to apply the changes and leave the dialog: > -> Double-click on [Apply]. > b. The user wants not to apply the changes and leave the dialog: > -> press [Close] (or [Esc] or [x]) > c. The user wants to apply the changes with open dialog: > -> press [Apply]. > d. The user wants revert the changes while the dialog stays open: > -> this is tricky here, because it would mean to introduce a > [Revert] button. In my eyes it should not be too hard for > the user to close the dialog and re-open it again. >
I'm sorry to say this, but double-clicking on _buttons_ (as opposed to icons or similar things) really doesn't seem to have a precedent. And this behaviour is so complicated that you have to actually learn it. If we are sticking to the current dialog for now, I would like to make another suggestion. What about a combined button of two symbols, one an arrow to the left (Undo/Revert), one a tick (Apply), like this: [ ← | v ]. That would create a visual unity and while not actually making much easier, it might look cleaner and would consume less space. @Christoph: >> Also, [Revert], can be removed in favor of making the dialog work with >> Undo/Redo. > > We've talked about that earlier, but it might be helpful for any direct > formatting (e.g. paragraph formatting) and essential for styles (e.g. > paragraph styles). > > Why? Because use a dialog to format a bunch of things, or to iterate > some settings. Providing them "Revert" helps to form a logical step - > all changes made when the dialog was open / has been used on a certain > object. But this should be checked with real users ... or at least with > a prototype, if we can't solve it by exchanging thoughts. > > If the "lessbuttonsapproach" dialog can be used for styles (I still > think whether it will work at all), then "Revert" might be essential. > People will rather set back a value (e.g. font size) instead of using > the faaar away undo button - but this sets a real value instead of (in > most cases) inherit the value from the parent style. This is not to say that the behaviour of the new dialog wouldn't have to be learned, especially how it ties into the global Undo/Redo function. Could the little bulb help here (the assistant in the corner of the screen)? My position on this is, that once we provide Revert or Undo button, we'll (logically) have to add a Redo button, too. So, another idea could again be a dual button, this time [ ← | → ] (the icons should be those the global Undo/Redo function uses, too) -- these would duplicate only those parts of global Undo/Redo that concern the current dialog (e. g. what you were thinking about). Astron. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
