[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cursor position and title are not confusing.
Speak for yourself. I was confused when I saw anything other than my filename in the title bar. And I would be confused if my document opened to page 15 paragraph 3 line 4 word 6 letter 3. They are not confusing to *you* because you like these so-called "features".
Wouldn't it have been nice to have an option in OOo to show your filename so you wouldn't be confused?
I counted 52 *pages* of preferences in "Tools->Options" alone. Each of these pages has several individual preferences. And that is only "Tools->Options". There are also preferences in "Tools-> Configure" and "Tools->XML Filter Settings" amongst others. Spreadsheet prefs are twice in that screenies of 1.1.3, but I did not want to spend hours pho^H^H^Hgimping them.
I think everyone needs to take into account the fact that OOo is at a minimum 5 different programs, so we should expect 500 options. 100/app doesn't seem unreasonable. Look through Word or Excel or PowerPoint and I bet you will find more than that. Luckily for us some of the options common to multiple components are only listed once, unlike MS Office.
It wasn't 500 (that was my number) It was more like 1500, according to
the email you were quoting. 52 pages with more than 10 items each - I believe the OP said 1500. 1500 is way too many options for *ONE* dialog box - I don't care what program you're running. If NASA had a GUI menu-driven interface back in the day - they wouldn't have needed 1500 options to get Armstrong to the moon!
If you would find me a combination of products, Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Presentation, Drawing, that has less options once you go through every option dialog in the program that you would consider as good as OOo.
MS Office has at least as many. I haven't used others, but I bet they all do. This seems to be the industry standard, to give users choices.
We will not get market share if our philosophy is to arbitrarily cut options and to remove and change options in order to be more like the other guy. If there is not substantial reason to favor us people won't.
Good night.... It's not about being like "the other guy" - it's about accepting *universal* standard operating practices. Aren't we all about "standards" here? It's about meeting users expectations. It's about providing the user a clean interface that makes sense and isn't flooded with thousands of text-only options that fill 52 pages....
Fine, we can get a new interface. I just think it is unfortunate that you are in favor of the arbitrary elimination of options.
I think the standard should be choice. I don't want every decision made for me in the name of simplicity.
I only mention being like the other guy, because part of the motivation for both of the changes was for OOo to be like the MS Products.
Agreed, but let's not alienate technical people.
This reminds of teaching. We spend so much time trying to get the special ed kids caught up so we pass state tests, that the gifted students get no attention.
Not to say that non-technical people are mentally challenged or anything like that, but hopefully my analogy is clear.
I understand your analogy - I hope everyone gets it in the spirit in which it was given. I don't think you were intending to insult anyone. However, I think it is misplaced here. It's not a matter of "gifted" versus "challenged" or even "geek" versus "end user". It's a matter of making a better product.
A cleaner user interface benefits *everyone*. There might be a learning curve, or a loss of some features (and by removing *any* options, you will be removing something that *someone* might consider a "feature") - but the end result will be a cleaner interface, a faster program, and a more pleasant user experience for all.
A cleaner interface would be great. If that were the motivation of this, I would understand and perhaps support it. That is *not* why these changes were made. They were made to clone others.
How about trying to increase the computer abilities of people and help them understand these features that are "so" confusing so that we are all a little more computer savy.
If you consider yourself technically superior to those who do not wish to have your features - you can always hack OOo for yourself to be however you want it. It is open source, after all.
I can't do that. I don't consider myself "technically superior to those who do not wish to have your features". I think, and more than not have agreed with me, that these are worthy features. I can roll over and accept these changes as you suggest since 2.0 is coming. Or I can do something about it and try to change things.
The fact is, the choice has been made. The official build will be the way they will be - and we can waste hours and bandwidth until hell freezes, and that's not going to change the fact that those two options, for good or ill, are gone --- or changed ---- or whatever they really are. Unless you "roll your own" or write a macro or find a work around, you can either use 2.0 or not. It's up to you.
My belief is that a person should speak up if they think something should be different. If you don't want to engage in this dialog, that is fine. I think your opinions make the discussion stronger, but you are allowed to not type.
I, however, will try to change things, if I think it is necessary.
-- Peter Kupfer OOo user since 'OO4 http://peschtra.tripod.com/open_office/ooo_front.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
