[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #19 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #18) > My current proposal is to follow your *original* idea, and use OLE everywhere > where we need to disambiguate such objects from images or the like. Got it. Thanks. So, starting small... For Insert menu: Object -> OLE Object For Properties dialog title (for embedded objects, e.g, Formula, chart, OLE Object) Object -> OLE Object No other immediate changes afaict -- but I think there may be some additional small adjustments buried in some small/rare dialog boxes -- Any opinions about following side effect from such a change? Insert menu OLE Object Formula Object QR and Barcode OLE Object a little inelegant with Insert > OLE Object > OLE Object -- but that is counterbalanced with better consistency across whole UI (e.g., between Navigator, toolbar and Property dialog titles). Will wait for further comment/opinions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #18 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #17) > As I understand, the ”E” in OLE stands for ”Embedded” – so contradictions > abound before we even get started. I do not understand the "so contradictions abound before we even get started" - please describe what you mean. OLE means exactly Object Linking and Embedding; regardless of the copyright on the term, it says explicitly that the object that would use that name may be *either* linked *or* embedded, so both cases are possible. It does not contradict anything, it just does not prescribe which option is used in a specific case. > You write as though you have some insight into this small (?) group of users > who link OLE objects, as opposed to simply embedding OLE objects, which > seems to be the "default" (most common case?) in the Insert > Ole Object > dialog I used that much when I worked in a previous job. I have no numbers, so I am in no position to discuss how small the group is (my gut feeling is that it's quite large, but I will not insist - but note that data loss potential - even if it's just because of a term that is misleading - is not something that we may deem OK just because the number of affected is small); the search for "embed link" on Ask [1] suggest that there are real uses of that. > Do you really think such users would be ”tricked” by the word ”Embedded”, > when they had to explicitly click ”link to file” to get this kind of > embedding, and where there is documentation about this option (which I am > happy to improve if you think it is inadequate). The feature is rather advanced. And you need to consider different scenarios. You may forget how you created the file a year ago, when you need more space today; you may use a file created by your colleague in a shared environment... > Would it be better to leave OLE-Object as a ”separate” (special) case, just > as Image and Frame, where each gets their own dialog and toolbar title, and > appears at the top level of the menu (i.e., not in a category, such as > "Object" or Embedded Object")? (either way is fine with me) No. And as said, I can't suggest the better name. My current proposal is to follow your *original* idea, and use OLE everywhere where we need to disambiguate such objects from images or the like, and keep the "MS OLE vs our wrongly-named OLE" for a future. [1] https://ask.libreoffice.org/search?q=embed%20link -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #17 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #16) > Say, you are a user who (a) does not know what OLE means, and (b) needs to > know if the files used to insert something into a main document may be > safely deleted. RTFM. (-: (or make a test using documents that can be lost without distress) Mike, please help us to find a way forward. As I understand, the ”E” in OLE stands for ”Embedded” – so contradictions abound before we even get started. You write as though you have some insight into this small (?) group of users who link OLE objects, as opposed to simply embedding OLE objects, which seems to be the "default" (most common case?) in the Insert > Ole Object dialog Do you really think such users would be ”tricked” by the word ”Embedded”, when they had to explicitly click ”link to file” to get this kind of embedding, and where there is documentation about this option (which I am happy to improve if you think it is inadequate). Would it be better to leave OLE-Object as a ”separate” (special) case, just as Image and Frame, where each gets their own dialog and toolbar title, and appears at the top level of the menu (i.e., not in a category, such as "Object" or Embedded Object")? (either way is fine with me) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #16 from Mike Kaganski --- To clarify a bit: Say, you are a user who (a) does not know what OLE means, and (b) needs to know if the files used to insert something into a main document may be safely deleted. In the current state, when the OLE term is used, *both* knowing what it means, and *not* knowing what it means forces you to do some additional steps to check if the files are safe to delete (when you know, you realize that OLE may be both linked and embedded, so you need to check *somehow* which one is this; and when you don't know, you simply have no information). In the proposed change, the user sees the recognized "embedded" term, which tells exactly what they need to know (and which lies, but the user would learn that after the fact). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #15 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #14) > You can insert an image as link only. Meaning the distinction whether an > "embedded object" occupies space in the document or is a link to some other > place is taken later and not when you start to embed. I fail to see how that is true or is relevant to the discussion. > I like the proposed term and doubt many users including me know what OLE > means (beyond embedding objects somehow). I fail to see how "doubt many users including me know what OLE means" contradicts the "some" I used in comment 8, or change the fact that for those who *care* if that is linked or embedded (which is crucial e.g. when you decide if you may delete the file which you used as the source for insertion of the object) or which files you need to transfer to another place (move to a different directory or email to someone), seeing "embedded" would mean "embedded", so they would indeed expect that removal of the source is OK. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #14 from Heiko Tietze --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #8) > ...but in this specific case, the distinction > between linking and embedding will be really crucial to the usage for some > people You can insert an image as link only. Meaning the distinction whether an "embedded object" occupies space in the document or is a link to some other place is taken later and not when you start to embed. I like the proposed term and doubt many users including me know what OLE means (beyond embedding objects somehow). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #13 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk --- (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #12) > no way to see if an OLE object is linked or not. At least for linked images, it is possible to see in Navigator. But presumably there has not been any confusion (bug reports) about the Image Properties dialog being the same for both embedded and linked images (i.e., no need to change Image title, e.g., to "Linked or Embedded Image"). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018
--- Comment #12 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #8)
> the distinction between linking and embedding will be really crucial to the
> usage for some people; and when they will be confused, unsure if the term
> means that what they thing "linked" is termed "embedded", they would be
> really lost
Ok -- will assume that this hypothesis is valid for now
---but a few questions and comments to clarify the situation.
1. Afaict, only one small corner of Insert -> OLE Object involves an external
link, where all other uses of Insert > OLE Object result in what we are
presently calling an "embedded object". Right?
Even when an external file is chosen ("Create from file"), it is only "linked"
if "Link to file" is chosen.
The proposal in comment 11 to make a "Linked Object" dialog was motivated by my
misunderstanding that all OLE objects were a "Linked Object".
It seems inappropriate to make a special dialog for OLE Objects, when most of
the uses are embedding.
2. This (potential) confusion or uncertainty about linked/embedded is already
addressed in the documentation. See "Link to file"
https://help.libreoffice.org/7.4/en-US/text/shared/01/04150100.html
If there are other places where it would be appropriate to mention, then I can
add them.
3. Meanwhile, as a different issue, there is no way afaict (e.g, in Properties
dialog or Navigator) to see if an OLE object is linked or not. (and Edit >
External Links does not identify the object name). (not a complaint, just an
observation, and a thought that this might be a bigger problem for users than
the "embedded" label in the Properties dialog.)
4. The proposal in comment 11 might still be usable (if it seems an
improvement), but now with "OLE Object" included in the Embedded Objects
submenu, otherwise, comment 5 still seems valid.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #11 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #10) Thanks. Got it. if "Embedded" label with OLE Objects is expected to be problematic... then -- first speculation about possible response: Make a "Linked Object" label dialog (just as Frame and Image have their own), modify toolbar to show Ole Object or Embedded Object as title, and reconfigure Insert Menu as follows: Image Chart Embedded Object Formula Object QR and Barcode Scan > Audio or Video Gallery Shape OLE Object Main changes: (a) Rename "Object" to "Embedded Object" (b) move entries in "Media" to "Embedded Object" submenu, (c) Ole Object at top level. Additional Comments 1. Have (almost) followed existing menu ordering -- other orderings are fine with me. 2. Initial ordering/organization is a modifiable default, because users can reconfigure in Customize. 3. Embedded objects submenu now includes commands that can be understood from user POV as "embedded" (even though QR and Audio do not get Properties dialog, and Gallery is actually Image). Another possible response: decide that Eve users who link files are familiar with the chaotic labelling in LO and will just ignore the fact that it is now called embedded. (-: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #10 from Mike Kaganski --- Insert->Object->OLE Object; use (*) Create from file, check [x] Link to file, and select e.g. an ODS or an ODT or an ODG (or whatever). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #9 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #8) > distinction between linking and embedding will be really crucial Skipping over the general point of linking v. embedding -- -- the focus here is on "objects" (in whatever sense) that use sw/uiconfig/swriter/ui/objectdialog.ui Could not find examples of "links" in Writer that use this Properties dialog. Is this in Calc? Are you referring to sections with links to external files? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #8 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #7) > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #6) > > is it consistent to call a linked object "embedded"? > Naive user POV. Sure! > > As a naive user, I would just accept that some objects (including "external > links") are called "embedded" in LO, and not think further about it. ... > > To some extent these distinctions are arbitrary* from UI pov (even if not > arbitrary from technical implementation pov). Oh, I would love to quote you to Eyal in tdf#141452, who insists that "What we should do is *simultaneously* become consistent with "dictionary meaning" _and_ self-consistent", and "dictionary meaning is not a "personal preference", it is the preference of essentially everyone". They insist that the terms used in the program have no right to mean something specific, defined in the program: they require that every word used in the term be exact to the *dictionary* meaning. === rant end === I would say, I agree with you; but in this specific case, the distinction between linking and embedding will be really crucial to the usage for some people; and when they will be confused, unsure if the term means that what they thing "linked" is termed "embedded", they would be really lost, and will have all the reasons to complain (unlike Eyal's case mentioned above). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #7 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #6) > is it consistent to call a linked object "embedded"? Naive user POV. Sure! As a naive user, I would just accept that some objects (including "external links") are called "embedded" in LO, and not think further about it. (And from an everyday pov, "external links" sound "embedded") To some extent these distinctions are arbitrary* from UI pov (even if not arbitrary from technical implementation pov). Given that "frame" and "image" get their own labels in the Properties dialog, then it appears that the word "Object" was used as the leftover "Other" category for other objects that have a properties dialog. => any chosen adjective before "object" (even if not a perfect fit) would at least limit the scope of that group of "objects" and allow differentiation from Shape and Textbox, which are also called "objects" (in the generic meaning). * To elaborate this point about a certain amount of arbitrariness, from a user/UI POV -- as noted "frame" and "image" get their own labels in the properties dialog, but in principle, they could be considered as "embedded objects" as well, no? Understandably, "frame" and "image" are used more frequently (and in different ways), so they get their own individual labels, which makes it easier to refer to them in help, etc. No problem (imo). But why (as a rhetorical question) are QR code and media files treated as "Drawing objects" (in Navigator, and do not have an Object Properties dialog), even though, in everyday meaning, they are embedded? And why shouldn't textboxes and shapes also (from user pov) be considered "embedded objects"? As user, it is easy to accept that QR code is listed under Insert > Object (even if technically in LO, it is not), and I accept that QR codes and media files are treated as "drawing objects" -- which primes expectations about which dialogs to use for positioning, formatting these objects. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 --- Comment #6 from Mike Kaganski --- (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #5) I like the direction very much! However, the OLE wrong term has one advantage. The "embedded objects" (using the proposal terminology) may be both linked or embedded. So while distinguishing the embedded objects from MS OLE technology, it introduces another confusion: is it consistent to call a linked object "embedded"? I realize that I myself raised the topic of "OLE is not OLE", but I must confess that I myself don't have a specific proposal how to solve that. Likely the OLE term was chosen by ex-SUN back then because of the same terminology difficulties ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 149018] "Object" property dialog (and Navigator and UI elements) should be titled "Embedded Object"
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149018 sdc.bla...@youmail.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|"Object" dialog should be |"Object" property dialog |titled "OLE Object" |(and Navigator and UI ||elements) should be titled ||"Embedded Object" CC||libreoffice-ux-advise@lists ||.freedesktop.org Keywords||needsUXEval --- Comment #5 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #4) > use of generic term in case of embedded objects is inconsistent. For Insert menu: Object -> Embedded Object For Properties dialog title (for embedded objects, e.g, Formula, chart, OLE Object) Object -> Embedded Object In Navigator OLE objects -> Embedded Objects For Title of "OLE-Object" toolbar "OLE-Object" --> Embedded Object Would make it easier in online help to use "object" as generic term and "embedded object" for QR code, formula, chart, OLE object, etc. Better consistency across UI elements. Reduce ambiguity about scope of "Align Objects" (for users who do not read documentation or understand technical differences between Images, Shapes, Formula...) Remove ambiguity that OLE-Object (in Navigator and Toolbar) is not just for OLE Objects. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
