[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #133 from Heiko Tietze --- I appreciate the passionate discussion. It shows how much interest and dedication you _all_ have in the project. To summarize, we more or less agree on the need to finalize the Notebookbar. Stuart's task list in comment 110 could be a start to get developers' wisdom into the discussion. Point is that we have a functionally pretty well-working Standard UI and we should balance the effort for a Ribbon-like interface with the benefit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 Thomas Lendo changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10 ||2062 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #132 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #131) > TBH my main goal in joining this discussion is to raise awareness about the > problems we have in the Tabbed UI, which is possibly the second most popular > UI variant, after the Standard Toolbar. > > I don't really mind if it doesn't end up becoming the default UI. But I > would love to see it receiving more love from devs. Then - I apologize for my tone. The bug title, after all, is "change the default UI", and that's how I (mis)-interpreted your post. Perhaps it would be a good idea to split off a meta bug tracking fixes and improvements to the Tabbed UI (and perhaps other UI variants (like tabbed compact and sidebar) - away from the fire-and-brimstone of the argument about the default UI. > Those who are not involved with LO development and news simply have not heard > of it and the way to change it is not very prominent so that new users will > easily learn that it exists. Bug 137931 seems like the solution to that problem... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #131 from Rafael Lima --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #115) > If you want to make this argument, you need to address the objections of > those of us who are against it. Which you, so far, have not. TBH my main goal in joining this discussion is to raise awareness about the problems we have in the Tabbed UI, which is possibly the second most popular UI variant, after the Standard Toolbar. I don't really mind if it doesn't end up becoming the default UI. But I would love to see it receiving more love from devs. As for "addressing the objections", I feel that this discussion is too subjective for one to address the objections of other users who oppose the Tabbed UI. There's nothing I can say that will objectively prove that the Tabbed UI is superior and that is not even my goal here. What I would love to see is the Tabbed UI being improved, so that those using it have a better experience. Only after this happens we will be able to discuss if it should become the default. > Again, you're speaking as though this has somehow been agreed. On the > contrary - you should refrain from lobbying the ESC for grant money; that > would be a misrepresentation of the discussion here. My objective was never "lobbying the ESC for grant money". Regardless of the Tabbed UI becoming the default or not, these issues we currently face in the Tabbed UI need to be fixed and I see no problem in bringing this discussion to the ESC. Mind you that the discussion I would like to bring to the ESC is "the Tabbed UI needs improvements and fixes"... it's not my intention of saying that "the Tabbed UI should become the default", because as you said this decision would not represent the opinions expressed here. (In reply to Luke Kendall from comment #117) > Although my suggestion (comment 35) was largely ignored, or misunderstood, > I'll reiterate it. > > If you make the UI choice a very visible indicator that can be used to > switch to a different UI style, OR to revert to the previous UI the user had > been using, I think you can defuse this issue. Unlike commercial software > which has to go all in, you have more flexibility. I believe Luke's proposal would be the ideal solution, which would be to provide the user a more prominent way to change the UI variant. Maybe the user could choose this during installation. I'm saying this because in the university where I work, most students using LibreOffice do not know there's a Tabbed UI. Those who are not involved with LO development and news simply have not heard of it and the way to change it is not very prominent so that new users will easily learn that it exists. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #130 from PeeWee --- It has been interesting reading the comments about updating the user interface, but I believe that there have to be a few corrections first to the present user interfaces that are available. This would make LibreOffice look more professional and more acceptable to users. There are several spelling mistakes in the dialogs and menus. For example: Notebookbar should be Notebook Bar Groupedbar should be Grouped Bar Gluepoints should be Glue Points I have not gone through all the dialogs and menus, but I definite there are more spelling mistakes. In Draw, the status bar at the bottom of the main window uses Slide 1 of 2. This should be either Page 1 of 2 or Drawing 1 of 2. Page is preferred because drawings can have several pages. In Draw, the Properties deck on the Sidebar is labeled Slide. It should labeled Page or Drawing. Again, Page is preferred because drawings can have several pages. Regards PeeWee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #129 from V Stuart Foote --- I am primarily a Windows user, and I do not (except for QA and UX feedback) use the TABBED UI. Compared to fully-functional Standard UI--Menu, Toolbar & Dialog supplemented with the Sidebar--the Glade based assemblages of UNO controls remain half-baked and ill-suited to task. The most appealing and "fresh" MUFFIN UI is the Contextual Single. Refactoring needed for the TABBED UI to be functional on Windows (comment 53) would require a lot of dev effort to implement the native code necessary. With similar native code and DE adjustments needed for Linux and macOS implementation of new default Tabbed/Ribon UI. In short a lot of dev effort for what is at best a questionable ask. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #128 from Pedro --- I don't care about engaging in pointless discussions. I totally approve of (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #127) > (In reply to Pedro from comment #126) > > Why should we seek new users? > > You're using a straw man argument there. Mike did not suggest LO shouldn't > seek new users. > > > New users ... won't stick around to find > > those distinctive features if they feel like they're fighting against the > > UI, as compared with other office suites. > > New users do not feel they are fighting against the UI. Also, new users who > know different kinds of UI do not need an app to only have one of these > kinds in order to stick around. Okay, show me the evidence that proves otherwise. I am giving my personal experience. I don't use Impress and Calc because I feel like I am fighting against the UI plenty of times (in features not related to the Tabbed UI). > > This same kind of discussion happened with GIMP. It eventually adopted a > > single-window UI similar to Inkscape because it was easier for newcomers. > > The classic UI could still be selected. > > Actually, it's closer to the _opposite_ situation: We are arguing for using > the same basic UI as Inkscape, and now GIMP, and most other apps in the > world, which is easy enough for newcomers. (If MSO was using a GIMP-like > interface, it would be the exact opposite). Most other apps in the world besides the office suites that are used by the overhwelming majority of PC users in the world. LibO is an office suite. I couldn't care less about the UI paradigm of a vector design app, since it is not in the same space as LibO. You talk about strawman argument: you employ so many fallacies in your arguments that I can't even begin to count them. If you want to make it personal please say so. > > I would say that some people here need to come around to the fact that it's > > been too long since standard toolbars are not the standard anymore for > > Office suites. > > MSO does not define "the standard". MSO does effectively define "the standard". MSO is the de facto standard when it is the most used suite in the world. Your hurt feelings don't change this. > > And some people should understand the overwhelming majority > > of LibO users are on Windows. Guess what's the most used UI in an Office > > suite in Windows? > > It's the UI that MSO uses, since it's the most popular office suite on > Windows. But guess what's the most used UI in application on Windows > overall? I don't care what is the most used UI in applications on Windows overall. I care about the competitors relevant to LibO. You don't because you personally don't like it, just as you don't like hamburguer menus and other things. You avoid making comparisons with the REAL targets of LibO because you dislike this fact. You make up that LibO mainly competes with other FLOSS office suites when its clearly stated goal is: >We seek to eliminate the digital divide and empower all as full citizens, >support the preservation of mother tongues, and avoid proprietary software and >format lock-in. https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/who-are-we/ Is LibO objetive to release users from the evil clutches of KOffice or AbiWord? Do we want to save users from the clutches of Adobe Photoshop or Mendeley or video editors with menubars? Stop being intelectually dishonest in your arguments. The purpose of LibO is to target users of proprietary software and to spread open formats. MSO is the antithesis of LibO and the purpose of LibO is to free its users from MSO proprietary formats. You don't do that by not catering to the userbase of Microsoft Office. > > Only in release 7.4 will it have support for the taskbar jump lists. A > > feature that exists since at least Windows 7. The LibO build instructions > > for Windows devs are terrible, no one also bothered to write a guide for WSL > > build instructions, and without a software that is interesting and > > attractive for Windows users and developers the state of the situation will > > only worsen. > > Ok, now _that_ is an important grievance. I was not aware of this (as a QA > person, not a developer) and it should be brought up in the relevant forums. > > > I don't agree with the "many" shortcomings. > > Well, you'll need to convince enough of us that the Tabbed UI is superior. I'm fully aware that you won't take your head out of the sand because it's more important to win an Internet discussion than being productive. Go back and read the mission statement of LibO. If you are in denial and don't want to achieve that goal because your personal preference of UI is more important to you, then you are not the kind of person I have to convince. > > I released a dark theme for Zotero with that in mind, and it was my joy to > > try to fix the issues that new users detected and pointed out in it. > > > It made > > it into a much better theme
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #127 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Pedro from comment #126) > Why should we seek new users? You're using a straw man argument there. Mike did not suggest LO shouldn't seek new users. > New users ... won't stick around to find > those distinctive features if they feel like they're fighting against the > UI, as compared with other office suites. New users do not feel they are fighting against the UI. Also, new users who know different kinds of UI do not need an app to only have one of these kinds in order to stick around. > This same kind of discussion happened with GIMP. It eventually adopted a > single-window UI similar to Inkscape because it was easier for newcomers. > The classic UI could still be selected. Actually, it's closer to the _opposite_ situation: We are arguing for using the same basic UI as Inkscape, and now GIMP, and most other apps in the world, which is easy enough for newcomers. (If MSO was using a GIMP-like interface, it would be the exact opposite). > I would say that some people here need to come around to the fact that it's > been too long since standard toolbars are not the standard anymore for > Office suites. MSO does not define "the standard". > And some people should understand the overwhelming majority > of LibO users are on Windows. Guess what's the most used UI in an Office > suite in Windows? It's the UI that MSO uses, since it's the most popular office suite on Windows. But guess what's the most used UI in application on Windows overall? > Only in release 7.4 will it have support for the taskbar jump lists. A > feature that exists since at least Windows 7. The LibO build instructions > for Windows devs are terrible, no one also bothered to write a guide for WSL > build instructions, and without a software that is interesting and > attractive for Windows users and developers the state of the situation will > only worsen. Ok, now _that_ is an important grievance. I was not aware of this (as a QA person, not a developer) and it should be brought up in the relevant forums. > I don't agree with the "many" shortcomings. Well, you'll need to convince enough of us that the Tabbed UI is superior. > I released a dark theme for Zotero with that in mind, and it was my joy to > try to fix the issues that new users detected and pointed out in it. > It made > it into a much better theme and attracted another dev which used it as the > base to make an awesome dark theme extension. Why shouldn't the focus be on > attracting new users? Answer me that. To continue your analogy: If fixing those issues would cause less people to use your theme, what then? > Also, if you guys think the Tabbed UI is so bad then it shouldn't even be > available outside of experimental. You guys should advocate for its removal. 1. That's a false dichotomy. If we followed this logic, then we would think that the tabbed UI proponents are actually out to remove the standard UI altogether. You aren't, hopefully. Some people will insist on a different UI; I can disagree with their choice but live with it. Different strokes for different folks etc. 2. Given the RTL issues, I'm not sure the Tabbed UI should have been made available outside of experimental builds. Nobody consulted us (= RTL QA people) about this. > If it's so terrible for you, why keep it? Where was your feedback and help > when it was being developed? 1. Again, it is not terrible, it's more detrimental than beneficial. True, I did say it "sucks", but that's in relative terms. 2. This was a personal GSoC project of an intern; nobody consulted us about it. Although maybe you mean Mike and people more central than myself, in which case let them answer that... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #126 from Pedro --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #123) > Reading through the heated discussion, I see the recurring motive in the > proponents of the change: "we must attract new users". > > I see why me personally could be motivated by that: I work for a commercial > community member (Collabora), and our business indeed would benefit from > increased user base of LibreOffice, so that increase by itself could be a > goal. But what is others' motivation to demand *just that*? > > I always had an impression that FLOSS *projects*, unlike commercial vendors, > should not be motivated by "get more market share! drag people from other > software! consider every alternative a competition!" attitude. I always > thought that FLOSS should provide something that the project feels unique > distinctive feature(s), so that others could use *if they also share the > vision that that is important distinctive feature*. And consider all > alternatives as welcome diversity. > > Is there something in the project (not in some its members, that may and > should have own goals) that forces us to seek new users with passion, > requiring doing everything just to make the increase happen? Not "make it > distinctive and attractive", but "make it attractive by all costs, possibly > sacrificing the distinctive pieces"? Why should we seek new users? I can give you some reasons why. First, as an open-source project, attracting new users means that LibO would also potentially attract the eyes of developers that can contribute to the codebase among them. This would bring new blood, and provide more man-power for interesting projects. By using a dated UI paradigm for Office suites, younger people won't even be bothered with looking at LibO. It will look dated to them. Second, I assume the purpose of LibO is to attract users to open source software. To provide solid alternatives to closed source, commercial software. Not only to prevent vendor lock-in, but also to promote real open standards. The more users are attracted to LibO, the more open standards will be used instead of proprietary formats of MS (or fake open standards like OOXML). I would assume that this is common knowledge to any LibO contributor, or any open-source contributor for that matter. > > To clarify: I do not see proponents of the switch saying "we have a *great* > and polished UI that we like so much, and that makes our productivity much > greater - why is it not default yet?". I see them saying "We have a > half-backed UI, with many shortcomings in it that we see, too; and we only > require to make it the default because that would resemble something else > and *attract users* that otherwise are so uninterested by our distinctive > features that they prefer paying money for another UI; and we don't think > that such users who require the UI to fit them so much, would immediately > see the problems of our similar but not polished thing. Attracting users it > the only thing that matters!". As per your comment of the distinctive features of LibO. New users don't want to re-learn how to use an office suite. They won't stick around to find those distinctive features if they feel like they're fighting against the UI, as compared with other office suites. This same kind of discussion happened with GIMP. It eventually adopted a single-window UI similar to Inkscape because it was easier for newcomers. The classic UI could still be selected. I would say that some people here need to come around to the fact that it's been too long since standard toolbars are not the standard anymore for Office suites. And some people should understand the overwhelming majority of LibO users are on Windows. Guess what's the most used UI in an Office suite in Windows? But yes, Windows users are second class users for LibO, I'm aware of that. Only in release 7.4 will it have support for the taskbar jump lists. A feature that exists since at least Windows 7. The LibO build instructions for Windows devs are terrible, no one also bothered to write a guide for WSL build instructions, and without a software that is interesting and attractive for Windows users and developers the state of the situation will only worsen. I am a proponent of the switch WHEN two blockers are solved: 1 - Extension support, 2 - Get a dev dedicated to work on the UI for proper support. I think the UI is already good as it is, and do not accept that you put words in my mouth like these: >"We have a half-backed UI, with many shortcomings in it that we see, too; and >we only > require to make it the default because that would resemble something else > and *attract users* that otherwise are so uninterested by our distinctive > features that they prefer paying money for another UI; and we don't think > that such users who require the UI to fit them so much, would immediately > see the problems of our similar but not polished thing.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #125 from Telesto --- (In reply to Pedro from comment #121) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #110) > You are just inflating the list of required resources to suit your view of > the discussion. > Because quite frankly most of those are not required for a user. You are > spouting what an ideally developed version of a Tabbed UI should look like > from a dev perspective if it was developed from scratch, which would clearly > NOT be the case here. There are lots of different question/aspects to the Tabbed UI bar topic :-). >From is a Tabbed UI needed, to being default, to implementation and budget. Obviously the all topics are entangled. For example: seeing the Tabbed UI as extra, means no resources need to allocated (time, budget). And those resources can be used somewhere else. So related to competition with other issues and the prioritization of those. Also the amount of resources required depends on the complexity of the changes to make the Tabbed UI work. Which again depends on what you want to archive (What should the Tabbed UI be like?) Ideally some proposal should be written regarding to requirements which the Tabbed UI so meet (to be competitive), and translated into technical specifications, making for making a CostEstimate for the framework part. So having something concrete to discuses about. Warning: there is a risk the proposal get rejected and a all for nothing feeling for the ones involved.. The current implementation (framework) has limitations (but I'm only have some notion, not exact details). Say positioning of buttons, theming. The design decisions of the current Tabbed UI are - in my perception - governed by limitations. Those limitations start to bite more and more when adding functionality. At least that's my understanding (but Andreas/Caolan/V Stuart are better informed, I guess). There is pretty big risk that the Tabbed UI will outgrow the current framework. Which means a total refactor of framework might be required. Which means lots of stuff needs to be redone. And with the new framework new possibility's arise, so old design decisions based on limitation need all to be reworked again :-( So I tend to prefer to use the "right" framework from the start; at some point every framework will 'fail'. Instead of using some pre-existing framework which already known for it's limitations. And the framework should ideally support complex stuff seen in other Ribbons. Put in other words, the framework should support to possibility to introduce more advanced actions. If those aren't there from the start is pretty obviously. You start with the fundamentals.. But at some point the end-user (or designers) you want to do more.. and are stuck at death end of the framework is to limited. So before optimizing the Tabbed UI, it's necessary to be sure the frame-working underpinning the Tabbed UI (the engine') can do what it expected to do long-term. If something totally new it's looking into a crystal ball, in this it's more comparing with others. I dislike investing in something which isn't future proof. Which means listing the issues designers/developers ran into already. And comparing Ribbons from other products with the Tabbed UI. To grasp what the framework should capable of doing. Next few approaches should be investigated to the options.. How the "proper" framework would look. Every framework has drawbacks by design (if its costs to build , maintainability, functional limitations). Obviously the choice can be to try to improve current Tabbed UI as far as possible, because the other framework revision taking to long/being to expensive. But this really should be a concisions decision :-). It will come back at you at some point Engineers can often build everything you want, within a reasonable time frame. Budget is one of the biggest constrains if you want to outsource the work. -- I personally less into the Tabbed UI and I don't think it's 'better'. Its simply different. But well I admit that lack of Ribbon/Tabbed UI doesn't help the transition from MSO. Especially if you're accustomed to the Tabbed UI. LibreOffice looks kind of outdated if are using MSO 2007 or later. So the Community might be not growing as fast as it could. And commercially (eco-system partners) might be not the best UI to ship with either. On the other hand, if there where major demand it would have been changed long ago :-). At the point people start to need paying for something the back-off.. The Toolbar UI being good enough. But well the Tabbed UI obviously better for touch screen usage (tablets and such). But unsure where the technology is going. Touchscreens still a thing in 5 or 10 years? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #124 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #123) I think you're being somewhat unfair to the proponents of tabbed UI by default. They seem to be coalescing towards an "invest in the tabbed UI to make it usable as the default", IIUC. That said, I definitely agree with your rejection of the motivation of "we must attract new users at all costs". I also believe that offering UI alternatives at installation time is a sufficient (if not excessive) gesture towards enticing those MSO users who absolutely must have it. (In reply to Luke Kendall from comment #117) > If you make the UI choice a very visible indicator that can be used to > switch to a different UI style, Isn't it enough to make it visible during installation? > I'll make another suggestion which I expect to be ignored: be (the first?) > open source project to run an actual user trial to see what users prefer. The questions of what try, how and for how long will be contentious. Remember that it's pretty easy to cook surveys/polls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSKwf4AIlI (In reply to Pedro from comment #119) > I am counting commercial office suites, with more users or a similar > userbase to LibO. I was counting FOSS (and then also commercial) office suites listed on Wikipedia. > KOffice is discontinued. AbiWord is a word processing software. Yes, but the point was made about the past 15 years; and I did mention AbiWord is only an LO Writer equivalent, not a full suite. > I can tell your bias just from this list you enumerated: Linux user and uses > exclusively open source software. I explicitly said that my interpretation of "alternative to LO" is, fundamentally, FOSS. So, yes, I have that bias. > If you think so then why are you so resistant to adapting to the newer more > efficient UI paradigm? You have it wrong... I meant adaptation from ribbons to a menubar and toolbars. And ribbons is an _inferior_ UI paradigm (and certainly not more efficient). > As much of a biased sample as your own selection of "alternatives" top LibO. No, that is not comparable, as I've explained. > > > The Standard UI is a fossil from a different computing era. > > > > Well, it seems that statistically, that's not actually the case; and you've > > only based this statement on the statistical claim. > > > Statistically, we know that MSO is the most widely used Office suite in the > world. So, you're now going to make several points which do not contradict the fact that the standard UI is not "a fossil". Anyway, about this first one: Indeed, MSO is the most widely used office suite; but it's only a single (suite of) applications. Almost no other applications use ribbons, both on Windows and on Linux. And most FOSS office suites don't use ribbons. Also, Windows is the most widely-used operating system on PC's; but we would not entertain an argument that a UNIX-like OS such as GNU/Linux or *BSD is a "fossil from a different computing era". > Statistically, the probability that any person you would pick > randomly of the street nowadays would be more confortable with the Ribbon UI > is much higher than being comfortable with a Standard toolbar. Well, most people in the world don't have PCs/laptops at all; it's more likely such a person would be uncomfortable with any PC app. But regardless - I'm not sure what you mean by "comfortable". If you mean that MSO users are used to the ribbon UI - then yes, but that's not the point. > I know that most LibO devs prefer Linux, and would prefer if time had > stopped in 2006 before the Ribbon UI became the de facto UI standard for an > office suite when Microsoft Office launched it in 2007. Again, common != standard. After all, commercial closed-source is also the "de-facto standard" of how to write office suites by this definition. Also, I work regularly on both Windows and Linux PCs. Ribbons suck IMHO on Windows just like they do on Linux. GNOME-style UI which hides all the functionality sucks on Linux - where it's quite popular unfortunately - and on Mac. Hamburger menubutton rather than a full-fledged menu bar sucks on Linux and on Windows. > If you want to satisfy users I do want to satisfy users, and we should satisfy users with the better UI - the UI which makes it easier for them to be aware and remember how to use more LO functionality, and be more effective document authors: A menu-bar and toolbars rather than Ribbons/Tabbed UI. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #123 from Mike Kaganski --- Reading through the heated discussion, I see the recurring motive in the proponents of the change: "we must attract new users". I see why me personally could be motivated by that: I work for a commercial community member (Collabora), and our business indeed would benefit from increased user base of LibreOffice, so that increase by itself could be a goal. But what is others' motivation to demand *just that*? I always had an impression that FLOSS *projects*, unlike commercial vendors, should not be motivated by "get more market share! drag people from other software! consider every alternative a competition!" attitude. I always thought that FLOSS should provide something that the project feels unique distinctive feature(s), so that others could use *if they also share the vision that that is important distinctive feature*. And consider all alternatives as welcome diversity. Is there something in the project (not in some its members, that may and should have own goals) that forces us to seek new users with passion, requiring doing everything just to make the increase happen? Not "make it distinctive and attractive", but "make it attractive by all costs, possibly sacrificing the distinctive pieces"? To clarify: I do not see proponents of the switch saying "we have a *great* and polished UI that we like so much, and that makes our productivity much greater - why is it not default yet?". I see them saying "We have a half-backed UI, with many shortcomings in it that we see, too; and we only require to make it the default because that would resemble something else and *attract users* that otherwise are so uninterested by our distinctive features that they prefer paying money for another UI; and we don't think that such users who require the UI to fit them so much, would immediately see the problems of our similar but not polished thing. Attracting users it the only thing that matters!". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #122 from Pedro --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #106) > HOWEVER, being a very frequent user of the Tabbed UI I have to recognize it > has some serious limitations that make it unfit to be the default option. > I'll list some of them: > > 1) The set of available commands in each Tab needs to be better thought out, > since some commands are missing and some popular commands should be more > prominent. This needs more UX research to improve the final layout. If we > make the Tabbed UI the default (and it gets documented) we won't be able to > keep changing it. Microsoft changes the commands available in MSO all the time. If the general layout is the same, people don't mind. If new .UNO commands are introduced and they are deemed too important then the UI/UX developers must find a way to make it visible (ex. see discussion to make the HUD more easily discoverable). Otherwise don't change the layout more than what it is. Plenty of people use it like this nowadays and the complaints have been minor. > 2) The Tabbed UI does not respond well to window resizing because of the way > the widgets are grouped. Sometimes, reducing the window by a small amount > will hide half of the available commands. This is a limitation of Glade but I would call it a blocker. It keeps each group of related commands in the same spatial positions relative to each other meaning that spatial memory of the user can still be used to quickly locate the command he is looking for. > 3) Some commands have disproportionally long names that use to much of the > available width in the Tab, specially in translated versions of LO. This one > is hard to fix, but it's a limitation of the Tabbed UI. This is a translation problem that should not be a blocker as it can be quickly refined. > 4) The Tabbed UI does not support much customization as the Standard UI does > (see Tools - Customize - Notebookbar). Here the question is: do we want to > support customization of the Tabbed UI? Maybe not, since it would introduce > a whole lot of complexity. This would not block the adoption of the Tabbed UI. There's partial costumization already and more could be implemented later. I don't believe there's plenty of bugs demanding this (although there may exist a few) > 5) The Tabbed UI does not integrate well with extensions. The "Extension" > tab is really hard to work with from the standpoint of extension developers > and the merge commands do not work as expected. All I ever was able to do is > add icons without labels. If the Tabbed UI is to become the standard, we > need to improve the way extension developers will integrate their extensions > into LO. This for me is the big show-stopper. Extensions HAVE to be supported > 6) AFAIK the Tabbed UI does not integrate well with dark mode in Windows, so > it would be a bad experience for Windows users. This was fixed by Caolan McNamara and you can check it out in LibO 7.4 dev if you enable experimental features. I already asked in relevant bug discussion to be moved out of experimental so if you want to +1 that please do so. > 7) We need to agree on what we'll call this interface. Some people say > "Notebookbar", "Notebook bar", "Tabbed UI"... IMO we need to settle with > "Tabbed UI" to avoid confusion, because only experienced users will > understand that Notebook bar and Tabbed UI is the same thing. The UI we are referring to is the TABBED UI. Always has been. The Notebookbar is a generic name for UIs developed using Glade and is only used in development terms. > 8) All documentation (guides and help) assume the user is using the Standard > UI, so we need to give time for the documentation team to provide the > necessary changes. Considering the example of members of the documentation team here, I don't think that this is a hard requirement. The Standard toolbar won't go away. Linux distro packagers can still costumize LibO as they want (ex. Mint or Ubuntu) and select Standard Toolbar as the default UI. Would be lovely to see the documentation team expanding the manual with the Tabbed UI though. > 9) We should stick only with the Standard and Tabbed UI only, since the > other UIs are not as well maintained. This would help us focus on the two > most important options. Other variants could be provided as extensions for > users. The other Notebookbar UIs are maintained as much as the Tabbed UI. Andreas Kainz made them and I assisted him with UX research to make the layout as functional as possible for the Tabbed UIs and Groupedbar UIs. But I agree with you. > In summary, I don't think we're near the point to make the Tabbed UI the > default option. We need first to define a roadmap and improve it before > considering a definitive switch. Replying to you, I would say that from your list we have only a couple of HARD blockers: 1 - Extension support. When a user installs an extension it should appear in the
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #121 from Pedro --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #110) > (In reply to Telesto from comment #109) > > (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) > > > So question is about committing to the Tabbed UI as the way to go. And > > allocating resources to it. > > "... allocating resources to it." > > So, let's ask what dev resources this would commit: > > 1. Replacing the GLADE based MUFFIN assemblage used for the 'Tabbed UI' with > os native code (qt, kf5, gtk4, WDM, Aqua/Cocoa) > > 2. give up MUFFIN (and all its dynamic UI goodness for users), because we > would have to focus dev efforts on the native os code the refactored 'Tabbed > UI' and integration for each DE would need > > 3. Client Side Decoration (the os/DE native code that places program > features into an application frame's title bar) > > 4. assuring correct focus events cross platform for assistive technology for > all that new native code > > And I'm sure a bunch of facets I've missed. > > Which makes for a simple (and continuing pragmatic) -1 as this contributors > perspective. There are other functional areas of UX support for ODF > documents that need the attention more than implementing a tabbed UI. You are just inflating the list of required resources to suit your view of the discussion. Because quite frankly most of those are not required for a user. You are spouting what an ideally developed version of a Tabbed UI should look like from a dev perspective if it was developed from scratch, which would clearly NOT be the case here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #120 from Pedro --- (In reply to Luke Kendall from comment #117) > Although my suggestion (comment 35) was largely ignored, or misunderstood, > I'll reiterate it. > > If you make the UI choice a very visible indicator that can be used to > switch to a different UI style, OR to revert to the previous UI the user had > been using, I think you can defuse this issue. Unlike commercial software > which has to go all in, you have more flexibility. > > I'll make another suggestion which I expect to be ignored: be (the first?) > open source project to run an actual user trial to see what users prefer. > > [ > If you built in a facility for the documentation writers (to snapshot > 'screens' from multiple UI styles), you'd also make their job orders of > magnitude easier. > ] It's not a matter of your suggestion being ignored. Open a new bug and clearly outline what you are proposing. Andreas developed the Notebookbar UIs that we use today. At the time we considered making a more visible option, but there was no space available with all the commands you want to make visible, the minimum resolution supported by LiBO means there are important constraints. If you can think of a way to make it fit open a bug with that suggestion and a mock-up please. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #119 from Pedro --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #103) > (In reply to Pedro from comment #102) > > I assume you haven't used other office suites in the past 15 years, because > > since then every LibreOffice alternative uses a tabbed UI similar to the > > Ribbon UI from MS Office. > > Actually, most LO alternatives (as listed on Wikipedia) _don't_ use a > tabbed interface: > > * KOffice - menus & toolbars (abandoned in 2015 but you said past 15 years) > * AbiWord - menus & toolbars (although it's just a Writer alternative) > * Calligra - toolbar and vertical-tabbed sidebar > * NeoOffice - menus & toolbars > > and the only one on that list with tabs seems to be OnlyOffice. If you count > commercial office suites, you do find more ribbons (SoftMaker, OfficeSuite, > WPS), but then there's also iWork with its minimalist interface (I believe > they're not hiding tabs but feel free to correct me). So, with the > commercial ones, you still only get to, say, around half. Not "every" > alternative". I am counting commercial office suites, with more users or a similar userbase to LibO. KOffice is discontinued. AbiWord is a word processing software. Calligra is a niche office suite, exclusive to Linux and Plasma distros at that (even there most pick LibO over it anyway). NeoOffice is a fork of LibO. It's not an alternative, unless you use Mac and it wouldn't survive if there was anyone actually supporting MacOS in the LibO dev community. I can tell your bias just from this list you enumerated: Linux user and uses exclusively open source software. > > Furthermore, the users whose experience you want > > to defend actually do have problems in adapting from a Ribbon UI to the > > Standard Toolbar. > > There is some adaptation, granted; but as discussed above - the adaptation > is important and beneficial. If you think so then why are you so resistant to adapting to the newer more efficient UI paradigm? > > Just go to any comment section of a LibO release to notice that. > > That, of course, would be a biased sample. Users do not post "I just thought > you should know I don't have a problem with menus". As much of a biased sample as your own selection of "alternatives" top LibO. > > The Standard UI is a fossil from a different computing era. > > Well, it seems that statistically, that's not actually the case; and you've > only based this statement on the statistical claim. Statistically, we know that MSO is the most widely used Office suite in the world. Statistically, the probability that any person you would pick randomly of the street nowadays would be more confortable with the Ribbon UI is much higher than being confortable with a Standard toolbar. I know that most LibO devs prefer Linux, and would prefer if time had stopped in 2006 before the Ribbon UI became the de facto UI standard for an office suite when Microsoft Office launched it in 2007. If you want to satisfy users and attract new users to open source office suites to spread the use of open standards you need to ease the learning curve of using LibO. That means changing the default UI to a Tabbed UI. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #118 from PeeWee --- (In reply to Luke Kendall from comment #117) > Although my suggestion (comment 35) was largely ignored, or misunderstood, > I'll reiterate it. > > If you make the UI choice a very visible indicator that can be used to > switch to a different UI style, OR to revert to the previous UI the user had > been using, I think you can defuse this issue. Unlike commercial software > which has to go all in, you have more flexibility. > > I'll make another suggestion which I expect to be ignored: be (the first?) > open source project to run an actual user trial to see what users prefer. > > [ > If you built in a facility for the documentation writers (to snapshot > 'screens' from multiple UI styles), you'd also make their job orders of > magnitude easier. > ] Hello As one of the LO writers, I can create screenshots of the multiple UIs that are available in LO. All you have to do is go to View > User Interface on the Menu bar and select a UI from the options in the dialog that opens. Restart LO and there is the new UI to take screenshots of. Regtards PeeWee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #117 from Luke Kendall --- Although my suggestion (comment 35) was largely ignored, or misunderstood, I'll reiterate it. If you make the UI choice a very visible indicator that can be used to switch to a different UI style, OR to revert to the previous UI the user had been using, I think you can defuse this issue. Unlike commercial software which has to go all in, you have more flexibility. I'll make another suggestion which I expect to be ignored: be (the first?) open source project to run an actual user trial to see what users prefer. [ If you built in a facility for the documentation writers (to snapshot 'screens' from multiple UI styles), you'd also make their job orders of magnitude easier. ] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #116 from John Mills --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #115) > (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > > I agree with this point of view. Making the Tabbed UI should be a goal for > > to be achieved within 1 or 2 years. If we start prioritizing it today, maybe > > within 2 or 3 main releases we'll be able to make it the default. > > If you want to make this argument, you need to address the objections of > those of us who are against it. Which you, so far, have not. > > > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. What precisely is wrong taking this proposal to the ESC? Currently is your suggestion to delay because you have a better proposal for modernisation in the UI? Or rather you believe that the current status quo is adequate? > > Again, you're speaking as though this has somehow been agreed. On the > contrary - you should refrain from lobbying the ESC for grant money; that > would be a misrepresentation of the discussion here. This is an open discussion that has been open for near 2 years now, with both sides making their point. Unless there is any overstepping of statutes for TDF that has been made it is entirely within a member's rights to make a proposal or is this incorrect? > > (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) > John, I think in this latest reply you've provided the crux of your > perspective: > > > The standard lets say is MSO > > Excuse the capital letters, but: THE STANDARD IS NOT MSO, nor should it be. > "Do like MSO does" may be a reasonable fallback when we have no other > alternative. But we also know MSO gets some things wrong, UI-wise; and one > of these things is the switch to ribbons, which is more detrimental than > beneficial to users. For businesses and governments worldwide MSO is by far and way above any other office suite by usage statistics. No other office suite is remotely close to MSO. I would hazard a guess that pirated usage of MSO is significantly greater than LibreOffice unfortunately. Your argument about switching to a ribbon being detrimental is purely subjective. It certainly hasn't hampered their adoption if you compare usage in 2007 compared to 2022. If MSO was not a de facto standard then no suites would seek compatibility of UI paradigms or file formats. Clearly this is not the case. > > > This is the critical part, the Tabbed UI provides an attractive (certainly > > on Linux) and familiar interface to users coming from other office suites > > The menus + toolbars provide an attractive and familiar interface to such > users - as most desktop application software use menus and toolbars, and in > fact so do half or more of other office suites. I would concede that tabs > "look more attractive" - you get a larger canvas on which to represent your > ideas - but they make users fail to notice and find a lot of functionality. > And a shiny ribbon is not a good enough reason to make this interface the > default. Again a subjective opinion, please provide some rational evidence that users 'fail to notice and find a lot of functionality.' > > > such as MSO, OnlyOffice, Kingsoft, Softmaker to name a few. > > You're naming the ones with tabs, and ignoring the others. Which are the others you speak of that default to a 'classic' like interface? Word Perfect, possibly Google docs if you are broadly reaching? > > > if you were looking 50 to 10 years in to the future where do you > > think the desktop and online office space is going to be? Will there be > > consolidation? Will the desktop market shrink compared to online? Will MSO > > still be number one, will new competitors enter the market? The fact is we > > don't know for certain, > > We know that, 30 years ago, desktop applications were using menu bars and > toolbars, and 30 years later, they still use menu bars and toolbars, mostly. > Ribbons are relatively unpopular. Another direction has been "smartphonish" > interface - no menu bar and a hamburger menu. That's nice for a phone, but > sucks for the desktop. Chrome, Firefox and Thunderbird have gone in this > direction (along with using web-page-like dialog replacements - and it has > been a degradation. Well I hope we don't see significant hamburger menu like interfaces by default but they certainly supplement applications now, however I am not talking specifically about non-office applications. I do not see the relevance of the menu structure for photoshop or Auto CAD to the applicability of a Ribbon interface for LibreOffice. > > > but if trends continue then i think there will be an > > increased online presence and MSO will still be the most popular desktop > > client. > > if trends continue, then and most applications would still use menu bars and > toolbars, while Microsoft will try out some more UI which may or may not be > a good idea. I am not
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #115 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > I agree with this point of view. Making the Tabbed UI should be a goal for > to be achieved within 1 or 2 years. If we start prioritizing it today, maybe > within 2 or 3 main releases we'll be able to make it the default. If you want to make this argument, you need to address the objections of those of us who are against it. Which you, so far, have not. > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. Again, you're speaking as though this has somehow been agreed. On the contrary - you should refrain from lobbying the ESC for grant money; that would be a misrepresentation of the discussion here. (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) John, I think in this latest reply you've provided the crux of your perspective: > The standard lets say is MSO Excuse the capital letters, but: THE STANDARD IS NOT MSO, nor should it be. "Do like MSO does" may be a reasonable fallback when we have no other alternative. But we also know MSO gets some things wrong, UI-wise; and one of these things is the switch to ribbons, which is more detrimental than beneficial to users. > This is the critical part, the Tabbed UI provides an attractive (certainly > on Linux) and familiar interface to users coming from other office suites The menus + toolbars provide an attractive and familiar interface to such users - as most desktop application software use menus and toolbars, and in fact so do half or more of other office suites. I would concede that tabs "look more attractive" - you get a larger canvas on which to represent your ideas - but they make users fail to notice and find a lot of functionality. And a shiny ribbon is not a good enough reason to make this interface the default. > such as MSO, OnlyOffice, Kingsoft, Softmaker to name a few. You're naming the ones with tabs, and ignoring the others. > if you were looking 50 to 10 years in to the future where do you > think the desktop and online office space is going to be? Will there be > consolidation? Will the desktop market shrink compared to online? Will MSO > still be number one, will new competitors enter the market? The fact is we > don't know for certain, We know that, 30 years ago, desktop applications were using menu bars and toolbars, and 30 years later, they still use menu bars and toolbars, mostly. Ribbons are relatively unpopular. Another direction has been "smartphonish" interface - no menu bar and a hamburger menu. That's nice for a phone, but sucks for the desktop. Chrome, Firefox and Thunderbird have gone in this direction (along with using web-page-like dialog replacements - and it has been a degradation. > but if trends continue then i think there will be an > increased online presence and MSO will still be the most popular desktop > client. if trends continue, then and most applications would still use menu bars and toolbars, while Microsoft will try out some more UI which may or may not be a good idea. > If they don't radically change their UI then the 'ribbon' will be 20 > + years old at that point and the type of UI used by LO 30 years old. Even older. But also note that if trends continue, there will still be few ribbon apps and most free office suites will have menu bars and toolbars, not ribbons. > Just going by those numbers the current default UI paradigm used by LO will > be hopelessly out of date On the contrary. Going by those numbers LO will continue to be in vogue as it is today. Of course, things may turn out differently: It may be the case that in a decade or two, most apps are dumbed-down to smartphone-style interfaces. If that happens, we should still not go down the same path. > [u]nless there is > emphasis and resources made available to correct these then nothing will > happen and that stagnation is not healthy for the LO application and > community in the longer term. I hope you're not insinuating that not adopting your UI design preference implies stagnation... > There needs to be some strategic vision for where the UI needs to be There is such a strategic vision: menu bar and toolbars. True, it's the by-default vision, but to change it, proponents need to make a better argument than "people who use MSO are used to it". Which is what I've also told Rafael, above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #114 from John Mills --- (In reply to Buovjaga from comment #113) > (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. > > We could hire an in-house developer to focus on UI. See the discussion at > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/maillist. > html I think this would be long overdue, the guys in the design team could do with some support with all the hard work that they do. You could get a real product vision to follow from a design perspective. And I would wholeheartedly encourage this to be taken to the ESC for consideration. The UI is the gateway to the functionality of the office suite, what should LibreOffice be doing as a project to facilitate this, gain new users and ultimately aim for in the coming years? It might be pride for some to state that no changes are needed in the current UI, but in all honesty what is in the best interests of LibreOffice users now and attracting new users in the future? My opinion is a familiar functioning UI by default (with an option to revert back easily to 'classic UI') robust open file formats and best in class Microsoft Office compatibility is the best way to accomplish this objective. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #113 from Buovjaga --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #112) > Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be > proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. We could hire an in-house developer to focus on UI. See the discussion at https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/maillist.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #112 from Rafael Lima --- (In reply to Telesto from comment #109) > (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) > So at this point there is a difference between bug title and the actual > desire. > It's not about the Tabbed UI being the default today or tomorrow, but about > some day in the future I agree with this point of view. Making the Tabbed UI should be a goal for to be achieved within 1 or 2 years. If we start prioritizing it today, maybe within 2 or 3 main releases we'll be able to make it the default. Maybe we could bring this issue to the ESC so that future grants can be proposed to address Tabbed UI-related bugs and enhancements. To that end we already have the Meta bug 107237. I'll check which of the issues I raised in Comment 106 are not yet reported and I'll create bug reports for them and associate with this meta bug. If we are to make the Tabbed UI the default LibreOffice experience in the future, it has to be near perfect. (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #110) > 1. Replacing the GLADE based MUFFIN assemblage used for the 'Tabbed UI' with > os native code (qt, kf5, gtk4, WDM, Aqua/Cocoa) I have already made a few minor patches to the Tabbed UI and one thing that gets in the way is that the .ui files for the Tabbed UI are not compatible with Glade 3.38, which is a hurdle when developing for it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #111 from V Stuart Foote --- > ... implementing a tabbed UI. Beyond what we have now with the GLADE based MUFFIN 'Tabbed UI', which clearly is not sufficient to being made the default UI. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #110 from V Stuart Foote --- (In reply to Telesto from comment #109) > (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) > So question is about committing to the Tabbed UI as the way to go. And > allocating resources to it. "... allocating resources to it." So, let's ask what dev resources this would commit: 1. Replacing the GLADE based MUFFIN assemblage used for the 'Tabbed UI' with os native code (qt, kf5, gtk4, WDM, Aqua/Cocoa) 2. give up MUFFIN (and all its dynamic UI goodness for users), because we would have to focus dev efforts on the native os code the refactored 'Tabbed UI' and integration for each DE would need 3. Client Side Decoration (the os/DE native code that places program features into an application frame's title bar) 4. assuring correct focus events cross platform for assistive technology for all that new native code And I'm sure a bunch of facets I've missed. Which makes for a simple (and continuing pragmatic) -1 as this contributors perspective. There are other functional areas of UX support for ODF documents that need the attention more than implementing a tabbed UI. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #109 from Telesto --- (In reply to John Mills from comment #107) So at this point there is a difference between bug title and the actual desire. It's not about the Tabbed UI being the default today or tomorrow, but about some day in the future It's about prioritizing efforts to get a fully functionally tabbed UI (with documentation) with the intention to replace the current toolbar UI as default. The Tabbed UI is a second class citizen at this point. And attracts not much developer attention because it being the non-default. So still stuck at the status quo. So question is about committing to the Tabbed UI as the way to go. And allocating resources to it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #108 from John Mills --- This part should have read : 'This is important, if you were looking 5 to 10 years in to the future' Not 50 to 10. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #107 from John Mills --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #106) Hi Rafael, thanks for taking the time to write such a reasoned response from your perspective, this is entirely the type of feedback that we need, examining the positives and negatives in a very important topic. I think your personal experience is likely not too far from a lot of other people. > Hi all! I have been using LibreOffice every day for a couple of years to do > all my work and I would like to provide some insights on this issue. > > At first glance, I would be totally in favor of switching to the Tabbed UI > as the default option. On my computer I always switch to the Tabbed > interface, because I really think it is more pleasing to my eyes. My > preferred setup is LO using kf5 and dark mode with Tabbed UI. > > With this setup, other people who are not LO users and see me using it with > the Tabbed UI tend to compliment how good it looks. Since I often give > lectures via online meeting services (Zoom, Google Meet, etc) and I share my > screen, I had some people asking "What is this office suite you're using... > it looks nice!". Most people don't even recognize it's LibreOffice, because > they do not know we already support a ribbon-like interface. > > I also agree with those who claim that, in order to attract new users we > should provide them with something they're more familiar with, which is the > ribbon interface. I have met people who migrated from LibreOffice to WPS / > OnlyOffice / FreeOffice just because of the way they look and feel, as well > as for the superior ribbon interface support (despite LibreOffice providing > a much more feature rich application). This is the critical part, the Tabbed UI provides an attractive (certainly on Linux) and familiar interface to users coming from other office suites such as MSO, OnlyOffice, Kingsoft, Softmaker to name a few. This is important, if you were looking 50 to 10 years in to the future where do you think the desktop and online office space is going to be? Will there be consolidation? Will the desktop market shrink compared to online? Will MSO still be number one, will new competitors enter the market? The fact is we don't know for certain, but if trends continue then i think there will be an increased online presence and MSO will still be the most popular desktop client. If they don't radically change their UI then the 'ribbon' will be 20 + years old at that point and the type of UI used by LO 30 years old. Just going by those numbers the current default UI paradigm used by LO will be hopelessly out of date compared to the competition, we can see the movement from traditional menu-based UIs now for a number of years in the office suites mentioned.The very real concern is that this will cause users to migrate away from from LO, free as in 'gratis' is the predominant concern for most users I suspect and all of these other suites offer a product that is generally non cost based to consumers, save for MSO however they offer mobile and web based solutions without cost. I can sit a student down with LibreOffice using the tabbed UI or Softmaker, Only Office and WPS and have them being productive in around 30 minutes once some of the differences are explained compared to using MSO. If you do the same with the current UI then it is a lot longer and the resistance factor is increased. The 'libre' in Libreoffice is critical of course, but is that the primary factor that will increase or sustain the number of users over the next decade? > > HOWEVER, being a very frequent user of the Tabbed UI I have to recognize it > has some serious limitations that make it unfit to be the default option. > I'll list some of them: Thank you for these criticisms, it is very important to hear the issues that users have. And I agree with most of what you say here, but inless there is emphasis and resources made available to correct these then nothing will happen and that stagnation is not healthy for the LO application and community in the longer term. > > 1) The set of available commands in each Tab needs to be better thought out, > since some commands are missing and some popular commands should be more > prominent. This needs more UX research to improve the final layout. If we > make the Tabbed UI the default (and it gets documented) we won't be able to > keep changing it. >From what I understand the structure of the tabs can be changed relatively easily. There should be an emphasis for as little change as possible then over the coming years. The standard lets say is MSO, but others like Kingsoft, OnlyOffice and WPS use a similar layout so there is some learnings that can be taken there. I would support in that matter if it was thought to be an exercise to undertake. > > 2) The Tabbed UI does not respond well to window resizing because of the way > the widgets are grouped. Sometimes, reducing the
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #106 from Rafael Lima --- Hi all! I have been using LibreOffice every day for a couple of years to do all my work and I would like to provide some insights on this issue. At first glance, I would be totally in favor of switching to the Tabbed UI as the default option. On my computer I always switch to the Tabbed interface, because I really think it is more pleasing to my eyes. My preferred setup is LO using kf5 and dark mode with Tabbed UI. With this setup, other people who are not LO users and see me using it with the Tabbed UI tend to compliment how good it looks. Since I often give lectures via online meeting services (Zoom, Google Meet, etc) and I share my screen, I had some people asking "What is this office suite you're using... it looks nice!". Most people don't even recognize it's LibreOffice, because they do not know we already support a ribbon-like interface. I also agree with those who claim that, in order to attract new users we should provide them with something they're more familiar with, which is the ribbon interface. I have met people who migrated from LibreOffice to WPS / OnlyOffice / FreeOffice just because of the way they look and feel, as well as for the superior ribbon interface support (despite LibreOffice providing a much more feature rich application). HOWEVER, being a very frequent user of the Tabbed UI I have to recognize it has some serious limitations that make it unfit to be the default option. I'll list some of them: 1) The set of available commands in each Tab needs to be better thought out, since some commands are missing and some popular commands should be more prominent. This needs more UX research to improve the final layout. If we make the Tabbed UI the default (and it gets documented) we won't be able to keep changing it. 2) The Tabbed UI does not respond well to window resizing because of the way the widgets are grouped. Sometimes, reducing the window by a small amount will hide half of the available commands. 3) Some commands have disproportionally long names that use to much of the available width in the Tab, specially in translated versions of LO. This one is hard to fix, but it's a limitation of the Tabbed UI. 4) The Tabbed UI does not support much customization as the Standard UI does (see Tools - Customize - Notebookbar). Here the question is: do we want to support customization of the Tabbed UI? Maybe not, since it would introduce a whole lot of complexity. 5) The Tabbed UI does not integrate well with extensions. The "Extension" tab is really hard to work with from the standpoint of extension developers and the merge commands do not work as expected. All I ever was able to do is add icons without labels. If the Tabbed UI is to become the standard, we need to improve the way extension developers will integrate their extensions into LO. 6) AFAIK the Tabbed UI does not integrate well with dark mode in Windows, so it would be a bad experience for Windows users. 7) We need to agree on what we'll call this interface. Some people say "Notebookbar", "Notebook bar", "Tabbed UI"... IMO we need to settle with "Tabbed UI" to avoid confusion, because only experienced users will understand that Notebook bar and Tabbed UI is the same thing. 8) All documentation (guides and help) assume the user is using the Standard UI, so we need to give time for the documentation team to provide the necessary changes. 9) We should stick only with the Standard and Tabbed UI only, since the other UIs are not as well maintained. This would help us focus on the two most important options. Other variants could be provided as extensions for users. In summary, I don't think we're near the point to make the Tabbed UI the default option. We need first to define a roadmap and improve it before considering a definitive switch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #105 from PeeWee --- (In reply to John Mills from comment #104) iWorks on a Mac no longer exists. The three main components, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, are now individual software packages. Depending on where you live in the World, these three packages may be included with the macOS or you may have to download them separately from the App Store. The software is minimal with a lot of features and it does take time to learn them. IMO, the Standard UI is a reasonably efficient way of navigating in LibreOffice and does make it different from other office software packages. It also offers several ways of using all the tools that LibreOffice provides. I am used to the Tabbed UI from my MS Office days and if this UI is used as a basis for the Notebook Bar it would be a backward step. There will be users who prefer a Notebook Bar UI, but give those users the option of changing the UI and the Standard as default. To close, Notebook Bar should be used in LibreOffice and not Notebookbar, which is incorrect. There are several incorrect spellings in LibreOffice dialogs and menu items. These errors should be corrected to make LibreOffice look more professional. Regards PeeWee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #104 from John Mills --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #103) > (In reply to Pedro from comment #102) > > * KOffice - menus & toolbars (abandoned in 2015 but you said past 15 years) DEAD > * AbiWord - menus & toolbars (although it's just a Writer alternative) Basically on life support and not an office suite, just a word processor > * Calligra - toolbar and vertical-tabbed sidebar Linux Only > * NeoOffice - menus & toolbars Mac Only > > and the only one on that list with tabs seems to be OnlyOffice. If you count > commercial office suites, you do find more ribbons (SoftMaker, OfficeSuite, > WPS), but then there's also iWork with its minimalist interface (I believe > they're not hiding tabs but feel free to correct me). So, with the > commercial ones, you still only get to, say, around half. Not "every" > alternative". This is factually not correct, iWorks is not commercial in the sense I can not purchase a copy, it is Mac only and comes for free with your system if you need it. How is that half of commercial office suites on your list? Every other defaults to a tabbed interface and there are certainly others you have not added in your list such as the excellent Korean Hancom office. > > Furthermore, the users whose experience you want > > to defend actually do have problems in adapting from a Ribbon UI to the > > Standard Toolbar. > > There is some adaptation, granted; but as discussed above - the adaptation > is important and beneficial. What is the essential part? That you force a user to 'unlearn' everything they know about an office suite interface? Where is the benefit, could you expound upon this assertion? > > Just go to any comment section of a LibO release to notice that. > > The Standard UI is a fossil from a different computing era. > > Well, it seems that statistically, that's not actually the case; and you've > only based this statement on the statistical claim. I would say based upon your previous statement it is your statistical claim in error and not that from Pedro. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #103 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Pedro from comment #102) > I assume you haven't used other office suites in the past 15 years, because > since then every LibreOffice alternative uses a tabbed UI similar to the > Ribbon UI from MS Office. Actually, most LO alternatives (as listed on Wikipedia) _don't_ use a tabbed interface: * KOffice - menus & toolbars (abandoned in 2015 but you said past 15 years) * AbiWord - menus & toolbars (although it's just a Writer alternative) * Calligra - toolbar and vertical-tabbed sidebar * NeoOffice - menus & toolbars and the only one on that list with tabs seems to be OnlyOffice. If you count commercial office suites, you do find more ribbons (SoftMaker, OfficeSuite, WPS), but then there's also iWork with its minimalist interface (I believe they're not hiding tabs but feel free to correct me). So, with the commercial ones, you still only get to, say, around half. Not "every" alternative". > Furthermore, the users whose experience you want > to defend actually do have problems in adapting from a Ribbon UI to the > Standard Toolbar. There is some adaptation, granted; but as discussed above - the adaptation is important and beneficial. > Just go to any comment section of a LibO release to notice that. That, of course, would be a biased sample. Users do not post "I just thought you should know I don't have a problem with menus". > The Standard UI is a fossil from a different computing era. Well, it seems that statistically, that's not actually the case; and you've only based this statement on the statistical claim. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #102 from Pedro --- (In reply to PeeWee from comment #95) > Being a serious user of LibreOffice, I believe that changing the default UI > from Standard to Notebookbar would be detrimental to users’ experience of a > very good office software package. The Standard UI is very similar to other > office software packages, so a new user to LibreOffice would have no problem > in getting to grips with LibreOffice. I assume you haven't used other office suites in the past 15 years, because since then every LibreOffice alternative uses a tabbed UI similar to the Ribbon UI from MS Office. Furthermore, the users whose experience you want to defend actually do have problems in adapting from a Ribbon UI to the Standard Toolbar. Just go to any comment section of a LibO release to notice that. The Standard UI is a fossil from a different computing era. > I find that ALL the UI variants that are available for LibreOffice are not > as good as the Standard UI. With writing the user guides for Impress and > Draw, I had to check the UI variants for one of the chapters. Not impressed. > > Standard UI is the best. Could you please provide input and feedback on how to improve the Tabbed UI then? I would assume that someone from the documentation team wouldn't want to change from the Standard UI because then you would have increased work to re-write the documentation. Thus I do understand why you would consider it best. Not best for the users of office suites though. And I write this, knowing full well that the Tabbed UI still isn't ready to be the default while it does not support extensions among other blockers. Also, the Notebookbar is the framework to develop different UI variants. The Tabbed UI is the one we are talking about here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #101 from Buovjaga --- Design task created for making the style story better: bug 149230. From now on I will point all new designers to that task until we hit gold. (In reply to PeeWee from comment #100) > Another problem I have found as I do want to test this UI. > > The Notebook Bar UI is already available as a UI in LibreOffice, BUT it is > called Tabbed UI. > > Can this be corrected so that users can easily identify the correct UI to > use? The Notebook Bar comes in 8 variants. https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/shared/01/notebook_bar.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 Buovjaga changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||9230 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #100 from PeeWee --- Another problem I have found as I do want to test this UI. The Notebook Bar UI is already available as a UI in LibreOffice, BUT it is called Tabbed UI. Can this be corrected so that users can easily identify the correct UI to use? Regards PeeWee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #99 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to Buovjaga from comment #97) Definitely. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #98 from PeeWee --- If the default UI is going to be changed, th4en could the spelling be correct. Notebookbar is definitely incorrect. Please change to Notebook Bar to make the UI look more professional. Regards PeeWee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 Buovjaga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ilmari.lauhakangas@libreoff ||ice.org --- Comment #97 from Buovjaga --- Should we spin off a design task "Create sketches for ajlittoz's vision of a UI promoting the use of styles"? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #96 from John Mills --- (In reply to PeeWee from comment #95) > The Standard UI is very similar to other > office software packages, so a new user to LibreOffice would have no problem > in getting to grips with LibreOffice. Which modern office suites are similar to the Standard LibreOffice UI by default? > I find that ALL the UI variants that are available for LibreOffice are not > as good as the Standard UI. With writing the user guides for Impress and > Draw, I had to check the UI variants for one of the chapters. Not impressed. > If you are involved with creating documentation for LibreOffice I am not surprised that your preference and experience would be for the 'standard' UI, completely understandable. But I don't think that is representative of the type of people that you need to attract as new users to LibreOffice. This exercise is something for the next 5 --> 10 years a longer vision as you wouldn't consider changing the default UI on a regular basis. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #95 from PeeWee --- Being a serious user of LibreOffice, I believe that changing the default UI from Standard to Notebookbar would be detrimental to users’ experience of a very good office software package. The Standard UI is very similar to other office software packages, so a new user to LibreOffice would have no problem in getting to grips with LibreOffice. I find that ALL the UI variants that are available for LibreOffice are not as good as the Standard UI. With writing the user guides for Impress and Draw, I had to check the UI variants for one of the chapters. Not impressed. Standard UI is the best. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 Heiko Tietze changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14 ||2653 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #94 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to John Mills from comment #93) > There is very little doubt that having a 'ribbon' is a strategic benefit for > LibreOffice. John, why are you trying to present your position as the objective truth? Many do not believe that having a ribbon is "strategically beneficial" for LibreOffice. And many, or most, believe that having it as the default UI is simply detrimental. > I often think that some people here are so blinkered that they > have no experience of supporting users that have only ever really used MSO > as a desktop office client. This irrational 'hatred' for all things > Microsoft is nonsensical. These claims have already been rebutted on this very bug page, if not fully refuted. Why do you insist on retreading this? > In almost every review you find for Libreoffice you read a variation on the > same theme, that it is a very powerful Office Suite, with good features but > it looks ancient and people just generally don't really like the UI. That's not true. Here's the first set of user reviews one finds on a search for LibreOffice review (on DDG): https://www.trustradius.com/products/libreoffice/reviews#reviews Most reviewers there don't complain about the UI at all. Some do, but those complaints are typically not "why isn't it like MSO". They include "UI not tablet friendly" and "menus are outdated ... full featured [but] some tools are buried within dialogs that you'd have to find under sub-sub-menus". I'm not saying there are no reviews with the complaint you mention. The first result on that search phrase is a PCMag review, which decries how LO's interface isn't "modern and elegant" like MSO or Google Docs (which get much higher review scores): https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/libreoffice But that's more the exception to the rule. Other reviews mention how you can choose the UI type, and others simply don't bring this matter up at all. Some more of the top search results for LO reviews: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/libreoffice https://www.lifewire.com/libreoffice-review-1356322 > Someone with some insight in TDF needs to seriously look at this issue and > commit resources to resolve any perceived missing functionality with the > notebook bar interface. Disagree. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #93 from John Mills --- (In reply to Justin L from comment #91) > Created attachment 180077 [details] > defaultToRibbonUI.oxt: extension that sets the default UI to notebookbar > > Like all of my extension configurations, this was based on trial and error, > not on intimate knowledge of the correct way to do things. It works - that's > all I can say. Any feedback is welcome. Thank you, I think that is a useful tool to be available! > If TDF considers the ribbon UI to be a strategic benefit they should: > 1.) Have a meta bug that is collecting issues about it. (I assume one doesn't > >exist since it isn't attached to this issue) > 2.) Then keep putting out tenders to fix these issues > 3.) Then strongly encourage all the beta testers for the next release to > switch > to notebook bar and do their testing that way. It should also be a > focus of a >year of internal QA testing. > This isn't an issue that you want to rely on volunteers to handle. It is way > too > important. The user experience must be excellent as soon as it becomes > the default, and issues related to it must be fixed quickly. > After notebook bar is deemed ready, it should also wait until an X.0 release > to >debut as default. You make some very interesting points here Justin, although I don't agree with your last one about a X.0 release as that would mean any migration would now be over two years away. There is very little doubt that having a 'ribbon' is a strategic benefit for LibreOffice. I often think that some people here are so blinkered that they have no experience of supporting users that have only ever really used MSO as a desktop office client. This irrational 'hatred' for all things Microsoft is nonsensical. I can understand that there are currently some deficiencies with the Notebook bar implementation, however it appears there is no concern to really improve these as it is much easier to stick with the status quo and pretend everyone wants to stick with the Circa 25-year-old MSO 1997 like interface that LibreOffice currently uses. It's just so blinkered, even Collabora Office has shifted to the 'notebook bar' as default as they understand the benefit for their product and user adoption and the strong draw it has for users coming from something like MSO365. I think with a non commercial project like LibreOffice there isn't the strong emphasis for providing your users what they want, there is no financial benefit to chase, you don't really 'compete' in any real sense. So if a few people really like the old ways then so be it, hey it's free after all isn't it? Well wake up to the reality, MSO is for millions and millions of students worldwide, and I dare say there are more pirated copies of MSO being used than LibreOffice users. It's the ostrich burying the head in sand situation and you guys don't see it. LibreOffice will become less relevant over time. I think you see this already with less coverage in the FLOSS media for new releases. In almost every review you find for Libreoffice you read a variation on the same theme, that it is a very powerful Office Suite, with good features but it looks ancient and people just generally don't really like the UI. This will accelerate over time, it has already and it will continue to, the competition like Only Office are building much better mind share now. Why are WPS/Kingsoft Office, Softmaker/Free Office, Polaris Office, Thinkfree and other desktop office clients defaulting to a 'ribbon'like interface? Is this possible because they understand that this is for the benefit of their users? And for the commercial companies with financial constraints that perhaps they see this as a benefit to sell more of their software? Someone with some insight in TDF needs to seriously look at this issue and commit resources to resolve any perceived missing functionality with the notebook bar interface. The guys in the design team work hard and it appears to me they are always battling to get resources like developer support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #92 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Justin L from comment #90) > If TDF considers the ribbon UI to be a strategic benefit I would actually be interested in links to minutes of such discussions in the past (in the ESC? Design team?) ; and if one is coming up, a notification here or at whatever meta-bug is opened about this issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #91 from Justin L --- Created attachment 180077 --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=180077=edit defaultToRibbonUI.oxt: extension that sets the default UI to notebookbar Like all of my extension configurations, this was based on trial and error, not on intimate knowledge of the correct way to do things. It works - that's all I can say. Any feedback is welcome. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #90 from Justin L --- If TDF considers the ribbon UI to be a strategic benefit they should: 1.) Have a meta bug that is collecting issues about it. (I assume one doesn't exist since it isn't attached to this issue) 2.) Then keep putting out tenders to fix these issues 3.) Then strongly encourage all the beta testers for the next release to switch to notebook bar and do their testing that way. It should also be a focus of a year of internal QA testing. This isn't an issue that you want to rely on volunteers to handle. It is way too important. The user experience must be excellent as soon as it becomes the default, and issues related to it must be fixed quickly. After notebookbar is deemed ready, it should also wait until an X.0 release to debut as default. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #89 from Heiko Tietze --- Tagged the clear opinions about making the Tabbed UI the default with minus (9, would include myself here but didn't do so as OP) and plus (4). Considering also some plus from Twitter, comment 72). The experts arguments weight a lot, meaning bad accessibility, customizability, and missing maintenance. OTOH, without bringing this to attention we don't get volunteers to fix the issues. So this remains on hold. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #88 from V Stuart Foote --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #85) Comment 3, OK--but I'd think my concers in comment 33 (regards bug 109425 and bug 107343) or in comment 53 (illusion of any similarity between NB Glade assemblages and the full API of the MS Ribbon Class) were more substantive in any decision of moving to a MUFFIN NB default UI. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #87 from Justin L --- Before defaulting to the notebookbar as a default (which I am NOT in favour of), it would be rather wise to clean up things like https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/NotebookBar which state "NOTE: the Notebookbar is an experimental and optional feature, and NOT recommended for production use!". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #86 from Mike Kaganski --- I want to support the really crucial point raised by ajlittoz in comment #81. Regardless of the UI *technology* that would be the default, the discussion here drives us in a completely wrong direction, and actually should *not* happen until that point is clarified and resolved. The *current* UI (menu + toolbars + sidebar) might not be perfect; however, *current* form of other UIs makes it *much* harder to use styles, which are the core of LibreOffice. Most advanced features of the suite are based on styles; so making dealing with styles harder, you make all advanced features even less accessible and usable by anyone. And note, that advanced features are not only used by advanced users: any user may receive a document with arbitrary set of features, including those used by the software to emulate features in a foreign format. And when your UI makes these features even more awkward to use than necessary, the conceptual complexity is multiplied, making it a nightmare to comprehend what is going on. Any UI, be it tabbed or whatever, must be analyzed from the point of view of usability with advanced scenarios, keeping in mind that different parts of the UI must work together to help user understand such features, not fragment them. So where are the results of such analysis? In the current form, it looks like we rely on the opinion of users who don't really use the product, but could as well use WordPad for their needs, to decide if current tabbed UI is ready for the primetime. Basic users should not be "second class citizens", but power users should not be just as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #85 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from bug 148967 comment #35) > the team facilitates the work around LibreOffice. The > ESC usually gives favorable consideration to my recommendations, which I > take from user input, done at bug 135501. So I plan to change it (affects > new installation only). Hmm. I read the discussion here, and find that the "user input, done at bug 135501" shows the prevail of negative feedback to the idea of making notebookbar the default (in its current condition, or at all) (V Stuart Foote in comment 3; ajlittoz in comment 81; andreas_k in comment 78; Eyal Rozenberg in comment 73, Telesto in comment 69, Samuel Mehrbrodt in comment 62, ... stopped scrolling up), which is voluntarily ignored because of a few vocal users tend to answer every post, creating massive amount of "feedback" (look at the responses to the mentioned comments). I don't claim that this reflects the whole user base opinion; just that we should not consider the feedback received *here* as justification of a "do change" decision (which seems to be the case based on the quote above). Repeating myself from that bug: Note that such a decision should at least depend on the availability on mnemonics (keyboard access) working with such a UI; e.g., when a menu is used (which is active with toolbar UI), you may use F10 (Alt) to access menu without mouse. Competition had never offered a UI without keyboard access to its commands. Also note that keyboard shortcuts (Customization) is unrelated here: what is required is keyboard-based navigation through the visible UI. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #84 from John Mills --- Since it's been a year since any substantial comment to this request do we have any further feedback for this design decision? Is Collabora Office defaulting to the notebook bar tabbed interface by default an indication of the future direction for LibreOffice and any future LibreOffice online version? Is sticking with the 'classic' default UI aiding or hindering the adoption of LibreOffice currently or is the project UI well defined and in 'maintenance' and just coasting at this time? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 Heiko Tietze changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psaut...@gmail.com --- Comment #83 from Heiko Tietze --- *** Bug 142057 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #82 from John Mills --- (In reply to ajlittoz from comment #81) > Very long, didn't read the whole thread. My opinion may then be biased. > > I'm afraid that all this discussion about the "ideal" UI to be elected as > the default one misses the real point. > > UI is not the target in an application. The target is the usefulness of > application purpose and UI is only a tool to serve this usefulness. > > What is the chore of LO and its distinctive power feature? Styles. > > Styles are present in Writer, Calc, Impress and Draw at different level of > abstraction and power. > > Style usage should be encouraged by all means because they are the key to > full LO power. When you must review and reformat a sophisticated document, > the task is overwhelming if direct formatting was the base of the workflow. > > IMHO, M$ Office-like UIs are wrong because: > > 1 - they lead to the "intuitive application control" syndrome making users > falsely think they master the application > > 2 - they encourage direct formatting because the alternative style control > is not that obvious (and styles are far less developed in the competition) > > 3 - being immediately accessible, they postpone the need to read the Guides > > The net result is a tremendous number of angry questions on AskLO from users > ranting that LO is not M$ Office. > > In my point of view, LO doesn't offer yet a full original style-oriented UI. > In Writer, the paragraph styles sit in the toolbar with their own menu but > character, frame, page and list are not there. You must display the side > style pane and selecting one non-paragraph style requires first to click on > an icon to change the displayed list. > > As a long-time advocate of styles, I find this is not the correct way to > push users towards styling. > > The present status (with a menu View>User Interface>…choices… seems to me a > good trade-off. It is hidden just the correct level so that a curious user > discovers the trick and the lazy user is doomed to learn new ways of doing > its job. We need to be more mature that calling Microsoft, M$ it just demeans the whole conversation and shows an obvious bias. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #81 from ajlittoz --- Very long, didn't read the whole thread. My opinion may then be biased. I'm afraid that all this discussion about the "ideal" UI to be elected as the default one misses the real point. UI is not the target in an application. The target is the usefulness of application purpose and UI is only a tool to serve this usefulness. What is the chore of LO and its distinctive power feature? Styles. Styles are present in Writer, Calc, Impress and Draw at different level of abstraction and power. Style usage should be encouraged by all means because they are the key to full LO power. When you must review and reformat a sophisticated document, the task is overwhelming if direct formatting was the base of the workflow. IMHO, M$ Office-like UIs are wrong because: 1 - they lead to the "intuitive application control" syndrome making users falsely think they master the application 2 - they encourage direct formatting because the alternative style control is not that obvious (and styles are far less developed in the competition) 3 - being immediately accessible, they postpone the need to read the Guides The net result is a tremendous number of angry questions on AskLO from users ranting that LO is not M$ Office. In my point of view, LO doesn't offer yet a full original style-oriented UI. In Writer, the paragraph styles sit in the toolbar with their own menu but character, frame, page and list are not there. You must display the side style pane and selecting one non-paragraph style requires first to click on an icon to change the displayed list. As a long-time advocate of styles, I find this is not the correct way to push users towards styling. The present status (with a menu View>User Interface>…choices… seems to me a good trade-off. It is hidden just the correct level so that a curious user discovers the trick and the lazy user is doomed to learn new ways of doing its job. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #80 from John Mills --- (In reply to Telesto from comment #77) > I think this bug can be closed as fixed. We have opted for a dialog > presented at first launch. So comment 73 doesn't add much value, IMHO. > > Bug 137931 and bug 137925 remain around to continue the discussion. As they > compromise at bug 137931 kind of silly. I assume JohnMills is agreeing with > me ;-) > > However comment 73 obvious makes clear the communication issues. It > discussed in so corner of the bug tracker :-) Not the right/ideal place. > However no clue how to it differently. Hey Telesto, I think you correct with your analysis and I do agree on the points you raise regarding the notification/dialog on first start. However, I think it is better not closing this Bug as this issue will be raised again in the future as it is a topic many are passionate about and there is a lot of valuable discussion found here. I find myself agreeing with @andreas_k also on the criticality of all stakeholders being involved with these discussions and having some long term strategy direction from the TDF board on the direction they wish to see LibreOffice UI progress in the future. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #79 from andreas_k --- goals has to be defined by special online-meetings where all the stakeholders (develop, design, documentation, help, translation, trainees, ...) can give there feedback. I already wrote meetings you need more than one. And at the end you need a decision where all stakeholders are willing to work on. Plasma define goals for the next years they are working on, that doesn't mean that there can't be other goals, but they define 3 goals and this 3 goals have the focus. For me notebookbar as it is now is more a waste of (my) time. It's not cause notebookbar is a bad idea or bad implemented, it's cause there are two complete different options Standard toolbar with .xml files and Notebookbar with .ui files. Which mean any change need to be added on different places. For Collabora Online (LOOL) I already open an issue cause of exact that reason. It's to expansive, to have two complete different UI's. https://github.com/CollaboraOnline/online/issues/55. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #78 from andreas_k --- For me the decission is realy simple. There is NO developer (since forever) how do/will support Notebookbar, so how could we change to it by default? The Notebookbar was a very good GSOC project and I did play around a lot with the UI, but in the End it's not usefull to have something as default, which isn't well maintained. However I'm very happy that with 7.1 the Layout dialog is more prominent so user can switch if wanted and maybe in the future we get new contributors for Notebookbar. LibreOffice is no single person project and Notebookbar was hacked around from Szymon (while two GSOC projects) a second GSOC project and me (a non developer). In the end Notebookbar show that it would be better to have first an goal and than reach it. Now we have a playground without a decission. Change the default UI mean also update documentation, wiki's, tutorials, help, ... It doesn't work as it is now, that nobody make a goal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 Telesto changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13 ||7931, ||https://bugs.documentfounda ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13 ||7925 --- Comment #77 from Telesto --- I think this bug can be closed as fixed. We have opted for a dialog presented at first launch. So comment 73 doesn't add much value, IMHO. Bug 137931 and bug 137925 remain around to continue the discussion. As they compromise at bug 137931 kind of silly. I assume JohnMills is agreeing with me ;-) However comment 73 obvious makes clear the communication issues. It discussed in so corner of the bug tracker :-) Not the right/ideal place. However no clue how to it differently. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #76 from John Mills --- @ Eyal Rozenberg Thank you furthering the discussion, you bring a valid perspective and it is important that all sides in the 'debate' are highlighted. The discussion around changing the default User Interface is potentially one of the most disruptive (for good or bad)changes proposed for the user experience in LibreOffice in the 10 years the project has been around. The question for me is, where does LibreOffice(The Document Foundation)see itself in 3 years, 5 years? For commodity software such as LibreOffice there is considerable competition in a market that is relatively stagnant with growth likely being focused towards online offerengs (Office 365, ZOHO office, G Suite)and mobile. https://www.ciodive.com/news/Google-Microsoft-Office-collaboration/571740/ I read the Board discussion mailing list and there isn't even agreement with the online strategy and LOOL might not even continue, but anyway that is a different issue. My hope is that any change would facilitate the growth of the user base for LibreOffice and introduce more people to FLOSS software. >* I don't buy the implicit dichotomy between "enterprise" users who want >>menus+toolbars and "community" users who want ribbons. Can you explain this implicit dichotomy some more? I suspect that enterprise users are also personal users when they are not at work. >My experience is that most or all users (including less-computer-literate >>ones) fare better with a menu+toolbars interface. And no less importantly - >>with an interface that is static rather than dynamic. What is your experience? This sounds anecdotal, granted mine does also, is the static part you refer to the act of not switching to a different tab as opposed to using a menu item? I'll explain my experience, I am massive advocate of FLOSS software. I have worked with Schools, charities and some computer labs at universities. As I am based in the UK my views are likely clouded by this. Almost in all cases those people under the age of 25 given a choice between using an office suite with a 'ribbon' or a menu / toolbar paradigm choose the ribbon as it is familiar to them. I get much better feedback when I default their UI to use the tabbed option. In the UK almost exclusively for desktop office suites(non cloud) Microsoft will be used across primary, secondary and tertiary education. I do not have the numbers to hand but I would expect this to be well in to the 90% range as Microsoft either make the software available for free or provide substantial financial incentives to the institutions to not move away from Microsoft products. The Office 365 strategy feeds in to this. The reason I highlight this is because all of these students will one day be out in the market place, and human nature is such that they will tend to go with what they have used before, and that is the 'ribbon' and that is Microsoft Office. Inertia is a very real thing and Microsoft know this very well. The menu/toolbar may be measurably better by your standards or studies, however the current UI of LibreOffice is more difficult to operate for this class of user. And this will increase year after year. The tide started in 2006 when Microsoft introduced Office 2007 and it will not dissipate anytime soon. >Additionally, people in our "community" are not so >enamoured with MS Office >as >to expect us to copy it. And finally, like Dieter >said - MS Office UI is >a >moving target anyway. I think this is the critical point of your argument, "our community." The millions of end users of LibreOffice do not generally care for internal mailing lists or bug tracking, they want a tool that works, that is familiar to them.I think that there a large disconnect between 'typical' end users many here that it would appear to me have an irrational dislike for Microsoft and hence their applications that are considered the 'gold standard' out in the real world. If you look at the majority of desktop Office suites such as Kingsoft Office (WPS), FreeOffice, Softmaker and OnlyOffice they have all moved to a 'tabbed' like interface first. My opinion is they have done this for the reasons I have outlined above. The online version of Collabora office has moved to this UI paradigm by default in version 6.4 of their productivity suite. https://www.collaboraoffice.com/press-releases/collabora-online-6-4-0-released/ This is not about slavishly copying Microsoft, this is about fulfilling the expectations of the majority of your users and seeking to grow LibreOffice market share. And I do not think having a mostly stagnant UI that resembles Microsoft Office 2003 by default serves the long term objectives of sustaining LibreOffice and growing the user base in a crowded and fragmented market. I am happy to continue but I do not want to make this post overly long for now. Kind regards, John -- You are receiving this mail
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #75 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (Collection of comments resulting from catching up on the discussion; my main point is in comment #73 above.) * I've just read the Reddit thread mentioned earlier. There was about one person who said a ribbon interface is superior / more useful than menubar+toolbar. Others were either against ribbons (some with a passion), or supporting it because that's what people would want/need since they're used to them from MS Office. So it doesn't seem users are themselves clamoring for a ribbon, but rather that some users _assume_ this is necessary/important for MS Office transition. * I don't buy the implicit dichotomy between "enterprise" users who want menus+toolbars and "community" users who want ribbons. My experience is that most or all users (including less-computer-literate ones) fare better with a menu+toolbars interface. And no less importantly - with an interface that is static rather than dynamic. Additionally, people in our "community" are not so enamoured with MS Office as to expect us to copy it. And finally, like Dieter said - MS Office UI is a moving target anyway. * Telesto makes a good point in comment #69: With multiple UI modes, every one needs to see a bunch of work put into it, initially and for ongoing maintenance. This hasn't been completed. As it stands, Some buttons are missing (bug 138440 just filed) , small-vs-large button choices are weird, some placement is confusing (like the formatting marks next to LTR-RTL) etc. @JohnMills: > The... logical UI choice would be the tabbed interface... as this is the UI > that the vast majority of users would be most familiar with. Users are familiar with toolbars, with menus and with buttons. Ribbons are less common than all of those. Also, if it were logical to offer users what they are used to, then - it is logical for them to just stay with Microsoft Office. That _is_ what they're most used to, after all. > Microsoft spent a huge amount of time, money and effort when designing this > interface It also spent a lot of time, money and effort on UI changes in Windows Vista, and that was a flop. Or - remember clippy? ... MS Office has its better and worse features - we pick and choose, and offer something else. > pragmatism is fulfilling the wishes of what users want. Pragmatism is "a practical approach to problems and affairs" (Merriam-Webster dictionary). That's really not the same as striving to fullfil people's wishes. However, in our case - we're not even talking about people's wishes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we have empirical evidence to suggest that our users want ribbons over toolbars and menubars. Your statement in comment #2 suggests you are _deducing_ this is the case; but you've not justified this deduction AFAICT. > Does changing the default UI benefit LibreOffice in the longer term by > bringing new users to the software and hopefully contributors to the project? Well, I would say "no", but - you're making several assumptions here. I would say that encouraging users to drop ribbons benefits LO in the long term; that a uniform (non-ribbon) interface has support benefits; that it benefits our _users_ in the medium and long term; and that ribbons would have a neutral or detrimental effect w.r.t. attracting contributors. @VStuartFoote: Agree with (almost) all your comments :-) @RizalMuttaqin: > [to] some extent we should look at what familiar with majority of users If menus and toolbars were unfamiliar to most users, I would agree. But they are no less familiar than ribbons. Just - not in MS-Office. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #74 from andreas_k --- I think we can close this bug report. There will be an information at the Tip of the day dialog where you can go to the dialog picker (or not whatever user prefer) This isn't that much in your face, but will give users feedback what was done within the LibO community. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #73 from Eyal Rozenberg --- This is the first time I've been made aware of this issue page; too bad more QA/power users haven't been in on the discussion. I would like to strongly disagree with the suggestion of making a ribbon interface the default. This change will be _harmful_ to our users. Why? The ribbon is an anti-productive UI choice in Microsoft Office: * It presents less features at once to the user * It forces more clicks to reach many features (and never less). * It discourages using the keyboard to locate features (as it either displaces the menus or confuses us by constituting a secondary menu system). * It forces arbitrary breaking up of natural categories of features, to correspond to the ribbons. * Whatever positive effect it may have in making some buttons bigger - can be achieved by making button shapes visible again, instead of an entirely flush toolbar. Clearly-shaped buttons are more "accessible" to be pressed. No less importantly than this general analysis: Over the years since its introduction, and as a person who supports MS Office users (not professionally, but very often) - I have noticed users have a weaker grasp of Office features, less capacity for adopting the use of additional. features, and more difficulty in locating features/buttons. Thus, ribbons are something we need to wean users off of, to help them become more proficient and more productive. It will certainly _not_ help if they get another broken UI, just because they're used to it. So please, Heiko and others - reconsider and don't make this change. As you have said in your opening comment: > a surprisingly large number of users is not aware of the UI variants Great! That means people easily get used to the menu + toolbars and don't go looking for how to set up a ribbon. Let's keep it that way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #72 from Mike Saunders --- Just noting that I tweeted about the NotebookBar here: https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/1322497314095833089 Check out the replies - some feedback and requests to make it the default. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 andreas_k changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kain...@gmail.com --- Comment #71 from andreas_k --- Im against remove tabbed compact and contextual layout and the reason is, it's simple to develop and can maybe in the future transfer from .UI to xml files. Tabbed layout is important, but the most complex UI. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 Bug 135501 depends on bug 117463, which changed state. Bug 117463 Summary: Create a Dialog that shows up on first boot of Writer/Calc/Impress for the user to pick its default UI https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117463 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #70 from John Mills --- Hello all, I don't know if this has any bearing on the desktop client for LibreOffice but it appears that Collabora will be moving their online edition to use the tabbed interface by default starting at version 6.4. https://9to5linux.com/collabora-online-development-edition-6-4-office-suite-gets-a-fresh-look-many-improvements https://www.collaboraoffice.com/press-releases/code-6-4-0-release/ I'm not sure if the desktop client will also move in this direction? However I wouldn't be surprised for consistency between the two products. Perhaps someone who is a recipient to this Bug report could comment on this? Kind regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 --- Comment #69 from Telesto --- I agree with the summary. Only want to add that if Tabbed variant gets more prominent (or default, or picker), it should be made sure they quality matches toolbar settings more or less (so including accessibility and such). Which a see as pre-requirement. Dislike pushing something which doesn't meet (user) expectations. It's a rather prominent dialog. Yes, there will always be some remaining lose ends (unknown/unexpected bugs). However should pass the basic testing protocol. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501 V Stuart Foote changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Change the default UI |Change the default UI (see ||comment 67) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise
