On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:09:01 -0500, Paul_B
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:27:04 +1100, Daniel Kasak wrote:
Some people, who seem to be in key positions, like the way OO's
internal structure is organized.
?
That's a vague conspiracy theory if I've ever heard one. What changes
would you make to OO's "internal structure"?
"Internal structure" probably is the wrong technical term, but
I'm referring to what goes on under the hood, namely, the various
dialogs. The worst I've found is the mail merge. The database is
up there too. The table of contents should be quite intuitive,
but isn't close.
Take in account that this UI design is not very mature. The Base module
was introduced relatively on a short period of time. Other than that,
office is also famous for their ugly implementation of dialogs.
I used to be fairly good at writing Word macros. Three years on,
I still only 'record' OO Basic.
Have you got into writing OOoBasic? A lot of users and developers have
created really cleaver ways to create components with custom dialogs based
from the code. Which is true that Basic is very verbosed is also true that
some developers have generated abstract libraries to make OOo language
more compact and easier to understand.
I still don't understand how templates centralize changes in
Styles data.
In short, I love OO as deep at the document and menu levels, but
deeper than that I find it extremely frustrating. I hope
significant changes are being planned, as I'm tempted to migrate
back, much as I don't want to.
p.
Well giving that the whole UI is on XML, isn't this easier to change to
your satisfaction?
--
Alexandro Colorado
Grupo de Usuarios Linux Tabasco
http://www.gultab.org
OpenOffice.org
Community Contact // Mexico
http://www.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
