https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173772
--- Comment #7 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Neil Roberts from comment #6) > Personally I think that cut and paste being in two steps is less confusing. It's two steps both with traditional cutting and with ghost-cutting. > If you want to move some text a relatively long way, it makes sense that > when you cut the text it shows you what the document will look like without > the text so you can check if it looks ok, for example, make sure that you > haven’t accidentally removed the spaces between words etc. Then you can > scroll to the part where you want to paste, paste the text and then check if > it looks ok there too. If this was done in one action then you would have to > scroll back to the place where you cut in order to check it. I doubt users spend a lot of time inspecting text when they have a "hot potato" piece of text they've just cut and are waiting to paste it. > In the animation in the article it’s quite hard to quickly analyse what has > happened because the point where the text has been moved to is different > after the move and I find my eyes have to search for the new location to see > the new text. Ok, valid point I guess. > > If you only want to move the text a short distance it’s already possible by > just dragging and dropping the selected text. That argument works both ways: If dragging-and-dropping doesn't remove the text, then why should cut? And if it keeps the original text while you drag, when shouldn't cut keep it too? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
