Hi Craig, [snip]
> That reminds me ... we could really use a tracker category for > "usability" to distinguish it from "UI" (ie to make "UI" specific to > functional defects of the UI). Good idea! [snip] > I have to object to several of those points. > > First, I think Quark is actually pretty usable at least in some areas. > It does take a little while to get used to the strongly modal nature of > editing with it, but not that long. After that, much of the app is > pretty intuitive and you can actually *find* things. > Of course it usable -- once you are familiar with it. But if you look, as an example, at the "Item" drop down menu (in 6.5, at least), this *is* a usability nightmare, at least to me. And QXP's context menu isn't nearly as useful as scribus'. That doesn't mean it couldn't get worse (RagTime, Canvas) ;) >> Unfortunately, that does not extend to configuration (printer styles - >> *shudder*) or most of the dialogs. Dialogs and configuration, yes, that's also covered by usability, I think ;) > As for OO.o, I find it less usable than MS office in the vast majority > of areas (the exception being some bits of Writer, such as the style > system). And I mostly use OO.o not MS Office so it's not an issue of > familiarity. I tend to disagree, but this isn't /. IMHO, both could need some UI cleanup. ++++++++++++++++ > Louis Desjardins wrote: > >> So, network usability could be improved a lot. All related to Scribus, >> if we could come up with a solution that would include a font server, >> we'd be getting closer to heavy production capabilities. > > I haven't tested network fonts, but will soon. It should be as simple as > an NFS file share :-) . That's more than good news. > When cvs is next sync'd, you will have it back on the context menu :) Great, thank you. But if others like it as it is 1.3.0, that's perfectly fine with me. Your suggestion with the shortcut is a good replacement. Cheers, Christoph
