Evil Overlord wrote > Daniel, > > Your mockup looks okay, but I'm a little confused. You say that duplicate > controls are bad, but you included duplicate direct formatting controls in > your bottom toolbar. For me, the whole point is to shift controls to the > sidebar, and avoid toolbars. I don't think there's any problem with > duplicate controls, so long as it's clear they do the same thing.
Those are not in fact duplicate controls. The bottom bar is direct formatting, while the sidebar is stylistic formatting. What that means is that all the controls shown on the right edit the current selected style, while the bottom bar formats the current selected area/where the cursor is--it's contextual, and does not edit the current style. That's why there's no option to choose the typeface or font size there (although you could if you pressed the "more" button which I now see didn't make it into the mock-up) The idea is that this would make it incredibly simple to edit, define, and apply styles--instead of editing the current style by selecting a style from the stylist and looking through cumbersome dialogues that get in the way of the document. At the same time, editing options that are better done directly--that only have to do with individual words or parts of words--are preserved in the bottom bar. Evil Overlord wrote > I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a default sidebar, but make > it customizable so that those who wish to can put their own controls where > they want them. Far better than trying to divine the correct placement of > single controls would be to allow users to create the interface they're > comfortable with; the tools I use most often won't be the ones you choose. > Most software seems to have headed this way in recent years, and it's a > good thing. Customization is /okay/, but my point is that it has to be limited so that it doesn't diverge too far from the actual design of the software--it needs to happen within constraints. For example, you could rearrange elements in individual sections of the sidebar, or add appropriate elements. You could add whatever buttons you want to the end of the standard toolbar--I for one like to be able enter a formula really quickly, but don't think that necessarily needs to be there for everyone. The idea is that the actual purpose of each part of each element of the ui should not be broken in customization. Meaningful customization is not about radically changing the layout and button placements, or arranging every button in the exact place you want it just for the fun of it--it's about getting to needed functionality quickly. It shouldn't be a substitute for learning how a piece of software works, and allowing customization should not take the place of designing something well in the first place. I'm not sure what you're talking about about customization in software becoming more common. If anything, the rise of mobile and web apps (which are rarely customizable) suggests otherwise. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/The-Sidebar-Problem-tp4094331p4106481.html Sent from the Design mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
