https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158301
--- Comment #7 from ady <adylo811...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #5) > you > ask for a checkbox, I doubt it's needed. Accepting the control is not a big > deal for me, just one of many places where we make the application _feel_ > heavy, dated, inefficient. We disagree because the perspective of non-newbies for Calc is very rarely considered. It is not the first (nor third) time I find myself describing a process/procedure in Calc with painful detail and verbosity just because such perspective is not understood/considered. > > I think your arguments are not really strong, well the objection is but I > don't see the wide-ranging evidence. Anyway, you need to convince > volunteers, and Andreas is usually open for ideas. The original request in tdf#146781 was for an _option_, not "let's force the search on function's descriptions so newbies that have almost never used a function could find it without consideration for non-newbies at all". If I were to adopt a similar initiative, I would have to request now to undo/reject the original change. Instead, I am logically requesting to keep helping newbies while avoiding the inefficiency that was introduced. If you don't like the checkbox suggestion, please suggest a better solution to keep helping newbies but without negatively affecting experienced users. After all, I hope you want for newbies to turn into more experienced users, with better performance. (In reply to Andreas Heinisch from comment #6) > What if we sort them differently? First the functions where the name matches > and afterwards the functions where the term is in the description? The list is currently sorted alphabetically. It is intuitive, in whichever direction users' eyes are moving. While separating the resulting list into 2 "categories" might be appealing in the context of this discussion, it would be less intuitive. I am sure that at some point users would "miss" the target function in the list. For experienced users that use the FW frequently, the procedure has to be like muscle memory. If users have to "branch" the semi-automatic reaction to the resulting list, it is less efficient. The FW already has inefficiencies that could be improved (tdf#155316 is only one of them); please don't make it even worse. Some experienced users type-in the formulas directly without using the FW. The FW avoids typos and similar errors, especially with complex formulas, so it is used not only by newbies. Please respect the original request and make the search on functions' descriptions optional, not forced. The way to help newbies and experienced users alike is to allow the _option_ within the FW dialogue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
