Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 06:08:07PM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: > The dropdown box will become cluttered if suddently its width will almost > doubled due to (Numbered) or (Unnumbered) being appended to header styles. I must agree. Get rid of the old "*" TeX-ism; it's certainly too cryptic. However, don't get too wordy. Dropdown menus that have unexpectedly huge widths are also not very user-friendly. -- John Weiss
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Probably only have one version, and the possibility to choose if the > unnumbered version should be used. Or switch after the numbered one > has been applied. So the marker in the drop-down should only tell if > the layout exists in both numbered and unnumbered versions. I see... the marker could be a '*', just to confuse everybody ;-) and a keyboard shortcut to toggle numbered/unnumbered could be M-p * Hmm... the dropdown need to indicate what kind this is, maybe like this: # Section => numbered section * Section => unnumbered section where the existance of either a '#' or a '*' indicates that this environment exists as both numbered and unnumbered. > C-u M-p 2 -> unnumbered section f.ex. > M-p 2 -> numbered section > > C-u in here is the "universal-argument" Ok, Emacs style, fine by me, it might be difficult to explain to someone who don't use Emacs though. Oops.. you must be using the Emacs shortcuts, because C-u gives me underline (cua.bind). > (Also it would be nice to make the drop-down a bit shorter) Definitely... the n:o environments in Koma Letter v.2 is huge now... Hmm, could it be an idea to have two drop-downs? One for standard environments, and one for environments that are more class specific? Alternatively, don't put all environments in the drop-down, and add a button for showing a dialog with a list of all environments. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > >> I would never make it look like that. > | besides the fact that (Numbered)/(Unnumbered) isn't aligned to the right, | how would you make it look? Probably only have one version, and the possibility to choose if the unnumbered version should be used. Or switch after the numbered one has been applied. So the marker in the drop-down should only tell if the layout exists in both numbered and unnumbered versions. C-u M-p 2 -> unnumbered section f.ex. M-p 2 -> numbered section C-u in here is the "universal-argument" (I know that this speaks against what I originally said, but the important part is to have only one def. in hte .layout files.) (Also it would be nice to make the drop-down a bit shorter) -- Lgb
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > I would never make it look like that. besides the fact that (Numbered)/(Unnumbered) isn't aligned to the right, how would you make it look? > And the (Numbered) (Unnumbered) should certainly _not_ be part of any > layout file. (but I understand you do this to show how it would look only) yup... just a quick'n'dirty mock-up /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | Personally I'm used to the '*' now... I think of it as a footnote marker > | that indicates that it's the unnumbered version of the environment. > | Additionally, it makes remembering the keyboard shortcuts pretty easy. > > So... is "Standard" numbered or not? No idea... based on 'M-p s' I'd say it's not numbered ;-) But I have a feeling I'm missing your point... /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Kuba Ober wrote: > >> The dropdown box will become cluttered if suddently its width will almost >> doubled due to (Numbered) or (Unnumbered) being appended to header styles. > | Have a look at the attached screenshot or try the attached layout-file. I would never make it look like that. And the (Numbered) (Unnumbered) should certainly _not_ be part of any layout file. (but I understand you do this to show how it would look only) -- Lgb
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Kuba Ober wrote: > >> The dropdown box will become cluttered if suddently its width will almost >> doubled due to (Numbered) or (Unnumbered) being appended to header styles. > | Have a look at the attached screenshot or try the attached layout-file. > | Personally I'm used to the '*' now... I think of it as a footnote marker | that indicates that it's the unnumbered version of the environment. | Additionally, it makes remembering the keyboard shortcuts pretty easy. So... is "Standard" numbered or not? -- Lgb
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Kuba Ober wrote: > The dropdown box will become cluttered if suddently its width will almost > doubled due to (Numbered) or (Unnumbered) being appended to header styles. Have a look at the attached screenshot or try the attached layout-file. Personally I'm used to the '*' now... I think of it as a footnote marker that indicates that it's the unnumbered version of the environment. Additionally, it makes remembering the keyboard shortcuts pretty easy. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr unnumbered.png Description: Binary data # Standard textclass definition file. Taken from initial LyX source code # Author : Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> # Transposed by Pascal André <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> # Heavily modifed and enhanced by several developers. # This include files contains all non numbered versions of the # sectionning-related commands that are useful for article-like # document classes, but not for letters. It should be Input after # modying the style of the regular sectionning layouts. # Part* style definition Style "Part (no n:o)" CopyStyle Part MarginStatic LatexName part* LabelType No_Label End # Chapter* style definition Style "Chapter (no n:o)" CopyStyle Chapter MarginStatic LatexName chapter* LabelType No_Label OptionalArgs 0 End # Section* style definition Style "Section (no n:o)" CopyStyle Section MarginStatic LatexName section* LabelType No_Label OptionalArgs 0 End # Subsection* style definition Style "Subsection(no n:o)" CopyStyle Subsection MarginStatic LatexName subsection* LabelType No_Label OptionalArgs 0 End # Subsubsection* style definition Style "Subsubsection (no n:o)" CopyStyle Subsubsection MarginStatic LatexName subsubsection* LabelType No_Label OptionalArgs 0 End # Paragraph* style definition Style "Paragraph (no n:o)" CopyStyle Paragraph MarginStatic LatexName paragraph* LabelType No_Label OptionalArgs 0 End # Subparagraph* style definition Style "Subparagraph (no n:o)" CopyStyle Subparagraph MarginStatic LatexName subparagraph* LabelType No_Label OptionalArgs 0 End
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
> | This would be too verbose. We're not writing in Ada here :) > > What has our gui visible strings to do with any programming language? I used Ada as an example. I.e. unless the drop down list's contents were meant to be read by mostly by Ada programmers, they would methinks be considered too verbose. Ada people are used to verbosity OTOH. > I don't find it too verbose. But is find what we have now way to > terse. What about middle ground, like either (123) or an icon with small "123" on it? I think that (123) is understandable in every language, right? The dropdown box will become cluttered if suddently its width will almost doubled due to (Numbered) or (Unnumbered) being appended to header styles. Cheers, Kuba
Re: Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > I think we should change the layout format to not need separate > definitions for numbered/unnumbered layouts, but rather have a > "flag": Numbered/Unnumbered and default to having both. > > We'll then automatically generate both versions when reading the > .layout in. > > Also in the layout drop-down box we should then not use the "*" star > anymore, but have "(Numbered)" and/or "(Unnumbered)" instead. > > '*' is a texism. Sounds good. -- Angus
Naming of layouts - numbered/unnumbered
I think we should change the layout format to not need separate definitions for numbered/unnumbered layouts, but rather have a "flag": Numbered/Unnumbered and default to having both. We'll then automatically generate both versions when reading the .layout in. Also in the layout drop-down box we should then not use the "*" star anymore, but have "(Numbered)" and/or "(Unnumbered)" instead. '*' is a texism. -- Lgb
