https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131760
--- Comment #19 from Kenneth Hanson <[email protected]> --- (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #18) > Would still be interesting to hear from @Kenneth about thoughts or > experiences that motivated this ticket. Sorry for the delay. Thank you for looking into this. The current customization menus are extremely confusing due to a combination of (1) inconsistent naming conventions, (2) duplicate names, (3) names that don't match the application menus, (4) miscategorized commands. Currently, it is excessively difficicult find the command you are looking for, whether by searching for the name, browsing by category, or sometimes both. When you've found something, you don't actually know what it does. It seems quite obvious to me that this is a usability problem for *ALL* users. When I investigated and first reported these bugs, I got the impression that there were implementation issues that made it difficult to fix the command names. I don't know whether the situation has changed. In the meantime, at least fixing the categories would help a lot. (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #10) > I can see now that not all commands are categorized (e.g., Character > .uno:FontDialog). Yet another problem! (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #10) > Do you know if it is possible to use the Styles category for commands? I > could not determine if it was possible (or see how to do it). (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #13) > The topic was on the agenda of the design meeting and we appreciate your > work. If the category Styles cannot be used a similar name like "Style > Functions" works as well. I never saw an answer as to whether the current "Styles" category can be used. If so, this seems like the the obvious thing to do. If not, Heiko's solution seems sensible to me. The result might not be ideal, but it would be an improvement. (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #14) > In this concrete case, how about: > Templates --> Styles and Templates > a Styles Functions would not have many entries either (and Templates would > have even fewer if split up). I don't understand the problem with having categories with few entries. As Heiko mentioned somewhere, they don't have anything to do with each other (or any other category). A combined Styles and Templates category could be workable if others insist on it, but note that the names of the commands *must* be fixed to disambiguate. You can't just have "New", "Edit", and so on in a mixed category. This is exactly the problem with searching by name in all categories. (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #15) > Do we need a category at all? My take is to get rid of the tab and all > categories and have it at the commands list, see > https://design.blog.documentfoundation.org/2015/01/22/how-to-make- > libreoffice-customization-usable/ This is a terrible idea. There is a huge benefit to being able to filter a monstrous list, or to browse by category. This would be true even if not for the problems I reiterate here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
