Is the Stylist about making pretty? About adding ornaments? Hell, no! The so-called "Stylist" is, foremost, about *structure*, and while this is still not *that* clear in the new term, it is much less misleading now, IMHO.
I guess that is true. I think for most people, maybe just me, the stylist list has very to do with structure. I rarely use it for that purpose. Yes it does serve that purpose, but for me it is about quickly changing the style of the text.
Further, I want to know the rationale, I fear it is another one of these, everyone else calls it this so we should.
Does everybody call it "Stylist"? When I first encountered StarOffice, the term was new to me (for Software). Introducing new, uncommon terms adds to the learning needed to become productive in a program.
Then why not Styles & Structure. Just some kind of term that reminds us that we are unique and special.
I think this is a silly reason to change. If there are valid reason for a change fine. However, we are told that there aren't enough developers and the project has been delayed. If this is true, why are changing things that aren't broken?
Because some people -- and that certainly includes me -- consider misleading terminology and usability problems maybe the worst kind
of brokenness a software can have.
I guess I disagree that it was misleading.
-- 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]
