https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131760
--- Comment #20 from [email protected] --- (In reply to Kenneth Hanson from comment #19) Thanks for giving your thoughts Kenneth. Good to have the motivating POV for the OP. > The current customization menus are extremely confusing > excessively difficult …. > usability problem for *ALL* users. Ack. Command names issue goes far beyond categorization, but understand that sensible categorization in existing Customize dialog can be an improvement. > difficult to fix the command names. The problem arises because some commands (e.g., the one labelled “Edit”) are used in different applications, so in Writer, the command that appears as “Edit” edits Paragraph Style, but in Impress the same command “Edit” will edit Graphic Styles, hence the neutral (and hard to interpret) "Edit". However, there is a technical solution, designed exactly for this purpose, where it is possible to make an alias just for Writer, and another for Impress (and a third for Calc...), each with its own (more meaningful) “name”, appropriate tooltip, label, etc. But then it becomes necessary to find and change the right toolbars and menus (across the different applications) so that the right alias is appearing on all the right toolbars and menus, and not appearing where it shouldn’t (where there can easily be dozens of menus and toolbars to check). In short, a tedious task, that must be done with high (about 100%) accuracy. Not difficult technically, but not the sort of thing to attract voluntary efforts. (Same issue with changing "Edit" to "Edit Style". Maybe it would work, but would require a lot of checking/testing to see the consequences because the command is used in many places). > names of commands *must* be fixed to disambiguate. > 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. Agreed. In some individual cases, it may be possible (i.e., relatively easy) to make name improvements. (e.g., bug 134432). In other cases, such as Edit (and probably several others), then the just-mentioned complications arise. To evaluate and revise command names requires knowing what the command does, discover where it used, and decide what aliases are needed, as well as get acceptance about possible changes. Not exciting work. The point of these explanations is to give a hypothesis for why your sensible suggestions have not been tackled systematically. > (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #10) > > not all commands are categorized (e.g., Character My mistake. It was categorized. I believe now all commands are categorized. >never saw an answer as to whether the current "Styles" category can be used. No definitive answer, but my best guess (from looking at the source code) is it cannot be done in a simple, nontrivial way, so then it becomes a question of whether it will be accepted to make a special change in the source code to allow this. Not to sweep the general issue away, but perhaps this ticket should be closed – because it has too many issues running here. My friendly recommendation: - file a new ticket requesting large-scale, systematic evaluation and revision of the existing Customize dialog (if it does not already exist – I have not searched). Then that “big idea” is available (and Heiko can add his link to an alternative vision). - meanwhile – as a completely different strategy – file bug reports in relation to specific difficulties with specific command names or categories, etc. when using the existing interface (such as you did here). That strategy does not immediately address the global problems that you have raised here, but if you think that small, incremental changes to the existing dialog are also worthwhile (or better than nothing), then it may slowly start to reduce some of the “noise”. If you follow that strategy, then there is an advantage to have each report focus on one specific limited issue. If you file 10 different tickets for 10 different, specific problems, so be it. If each one is clear, limited, focused, then there is a much better chance that someone actually might address it. (see bug 129549 as example). So – to repeat myself: > cannot see that much more can be done for now, so I pass the baton to others. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
