Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice

[T. J. Brumfield]

There are open software stacks with various CMS tools where you can combine
wiki, blog, forum, and FAQ functionality together. A community site could
have articles on the front end to help demonstate features, provide
tutorials, expose new templates and extensions, etc.

Users can provide comments and questions on the articles as well as post in
the forums. Duplicate questions are bound to occur in forums. The problem
with that is retyping the same solutions time and time again. But if there
is an integrated wiki/knowledgebase in the site, then you can link to the
solution there.

My concern is that many users expect help to be present in the application
itself, and not everyone is willing to go and find answers in a community.
Could the application itself pull its "Help" functionality from online
resources?

-- T. J.

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Kevin Vermeer wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > On 11/23/2010 11:57 AM, plino wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I do agree that volunteer-friendly user support is the key for the
> success
> >> of
> >> any Open Source project.
> >>
> >> However, in my opinion e-mail and mailing lists are obsolete and
> >> ineffective
> >> tools.
> >>
> >> A user forum (with optional mail notification) and a wiki are much more
> >> powerful tools.
> >>
> >> A forum makes it much easier to create a hierarchy of helpers based on
> >> merit
> >> and on the other hand to handle poorly behaved users.
> >>
> >> A wiki can be an organized structure of accumulated knowledge.
> >>
> > i agree, a forum would be more efficient and easier to manage. Out of all
> > the open source forum solutions currently out, I would have to say that
> > Vanilla forums is the best. Between active development, aesthetically
> > appealing, up to date feature sets, it has it all.
> >
> > http://www.vanillaforums.org
>
>
> Forums and wikis both have their uses, but a wiki is limited by the
> keywords
> the user knows, its existing content, and its search function, and a forum
> is prone to developing long, meandering questions/discussions and lots of
> duplicate questions.  As Benjamin demonstrated (accidentally), they're not
> ideal for question-and-answer discussions.  He linked to stackoverflow.com
> ,
> which is not an open-source platform, but is a great precedent for a
> support
> system.  It integrates the concepts of a blog, wiki, forum, and Digg/Reddit
> into one system that seems to work well for asking and getting answers to
> questions.
>
> Superuser.com is actually the place to ask questions about the use of
> software rather than Stackoverflow, which is for development.
> OpenOffice.org actually has 181 questions in their own tag on this site.
> There are no questions about LibreOffice yet.  Should we start a new tag
> for
> LibreOffice and maintain a presence there?
> --
> Kevin Vermeer
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

[T. J. Brumfield]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Marc Paré  wrote:

> Le 2010-11-22 14:02, Graham Lauder a écrit :
>
> On Tuesday 23 November 2010 06:29:01 Frank Esposito wrote:
>>
>>> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
>>>
>>> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
>>> Docs<
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-mic
>>> rosoft-office-with-google-docs/>
>>>
>>>
>>> just thoughts
>>>
>>>
>>> -fe
>>>
>>
>> What it should read is:  Google helps MSOffice play catch up a little on
>> OOo.
>> OOo/LibreO/Go-ooo communities ask: "What took you so long".
>>
>> I've had this functionality for quite some time.
>> So therefore, the second question is "how did you not know this?"
>>  And the third question: "How do we let the world know?"
>>
>> Cheers
>> GL
>>
>>
> Someone could blog on this and then point it out. You could also add a
> comment to the article. There is still no mention of LibreOffice or OOo on
> the comments sections.
>
> Seing this on a LibreOffice blog would be cool, then we could advertise the
> blog on something like http://www.LinuxToday.com.
> They average 1 million hits a day.
>
> Marc


Some of the most popular extensions should be reevaluated as core features
as opposed to extensions that ship seperately. If this was a baked in
feature, more people might be exposed to it.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?

[T. J. Brumfield]

There are already OOo plugins that integrate OOo with Google Docs. They've
been around for years.

-- T. J.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Frank Esposito wrote:

> Will this ever happen with Libre Office?
>
> Google Launches Plugin That Fuses Microsoft Office With Google
> Docs<
> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/google-launches-plugin-that-fuses-microsoft-office-with-google-docs/
> >
>
>
> just thoughts
>
>
> -fe
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[T. J. Brumfield]

Would it be useful if I made a list in the wiki of bugs with X number votes
or more? Then someone more familiar with the go-oo features and the LibO
codebase can perhaps check some off that list that are already implemented.

The remaining list might provide a nice starting point for some LibO
developers to reexamine things that might have been passed over in the OOo
community for whatever reason.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:38 PM, NoOp  wrote:

> On 11/02/2010 08:28 AM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
> > There were several old, often commented on, and often requested bug fixes
> > and features that didn't receive much attention or weren't resolved with
> OOo
> > over the years.
> >
> > For those who may not be aware of the reasons for the shift/fork, or for
> > those who don't care about politics with software, resolving some of
> these
> > old bugs might be a reason for users to switch over to LibreOffice.
> >
> > For instance, the bug/feature request with the most votes for OOo is a
> SVG
> > import filter. go-oo implemented that feature. I assume LibreOffice will
> > include that patch.
> >
> > Here is an eight year old bug/feature request with over 300 votes.
> >
> > http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959
>
> Here is one high on my list:
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=79720
> [Protect Document but allow input field entry - MS Word to OOo]
> they duped it to:
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=33737
> [Allow for in-place editing of input field (turn off pop-up)]
> but I highly recommend reading 79720 before wandering off to 33737 as
> 79720 is not a duplicate of 33737 but they are closely related. Also
> note the 'go-oo' comments...
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>


-- 
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: x86_64 Windows build

[T. J. Brumfield]

I'm agreeing with you that Windows is the dominant market and should be
treated as such.

However, in developing countries Android tablets may be the most accessible
and affordable computing platform of the future. It shouldn't be ignored.

I'd contend the priority should be on the primary platforms:

Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. Next should be platforms of the future.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

> Quoting T. J. Brumfield:
>
> In all fairness, Android tablets could become a large emerging market, but
>> Windows is still by far the predominant market.
>>
>
> But how many people will use them for heavy-duty word processing,
> spreadsheeting and presenting? LO/OO is a heavy-duty package for
> heavy-duty work, after all.
>
> I've tried typing on my stepson's iPad (on the couple of occasions
> when I've been able to prise it from his grip) and it's hopeless.
> OK for Web surfing, short e-mails, etc, but tablet ergonomics are
> completely unsuited for serious work. Even laptops are dubious
> (nasty keyboards, small screens, etc).
>
>
> P.
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>


-- 
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: x86_64 Windows build

[T. J. Brumfield]

In all fairness, Android tablets could become a large emerging market, but
Windows is still by far the predominant market.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

> Quoting e-letter:
>
> In terms of priorities, making LO the default for mobile (e.g.
>> android) is more important than windoze.
>>
>>
> That's certainly a novel approach: giving 90% of computer users lower
> priority so that 1% of users can prepare presentations on their cell
> phones. Bound to be a wild success.
>
> P.
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] x86_64 Windows build

[T. J. Brumfield]

I do understand it isn't simply just a matter of compiling a 64-bit build.
Knowing that it is on the TODO list is good enough for me!

Thanks!

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Andras Timar  wrote:

> 2010/11/4 Frank Esposito :
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:36 AM, T. J. Brumfield  >wrote:
> >
> >> There is an open OOo bug that is over 5 years old.
> >>
> >> http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
> >>
> >> It seems that OOo developers felt this was an unnecessary feature.
> However,
> >> as users have commented in that bug report, the 32-bit version doesn't
> work
> >> in 64-bit Terminal Servers, and Microsoft does not ship a 32-bit server
> >> product anymore. Furthermore, Base can not connect to a 64-bit ODBC data
> >> source.
> >>
> >> Given that Microsoft has been shipping 64-bit operating systems for 7
> years
> >> now, and that there are legitimate use cases where OOo/LibO can't fufil
> >> user
> >> needs without a 64-bit Windows build, shouldn't this be reevaluated?
> >>
> >> And from a pure perception standpoint, it looks like OOo/LibO is behind
> MS
> >> Office in this regard, given that MS Office offers a 64-bit version.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > +2 for 64-bit builds
> >
> It is on the TODO list. It needs some porting efforts, however. It is
> not as simple as recompiling the source code with a 64-bit compiler.
>
> Regards,
> Andras
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] x86_64 Windows build

[T. J. Brumfield]

There is an open OOo bug that is over 5 years old.

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=46594

It seems that OOo developers felt this was an unnecessary feature. However,
as users have commented in that bug report, the 32-bit version doesn't work
in 64-bit Terminal Servers, and Microsoft does not ship a 32-bit server
product anymore. Furthermore, Base can not connect to a 64-bit ODBC data
source.

Given that Microsoft has been shipping 64-bit operating systems for 7 years
now, and that there are legitimate use cases where OOo/LibO can't fufil user
needs without a 64-bit Windows build, shouldn't this be reevaluated?

And from a pure perception standpoint, it looks like OOo/LibO is behind MS
Office in this regard, given that MS Office offers a 64-bit version.

Thanks!

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..

[T. J. Brumfield]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Benjamin Horst  wrote:

> I expect the iPad and upcoming Android tablets to become the dominant
> computing platform in developing countries--they are cheaper and make a
> simple upgrade path from the mobile phones that are the primary means of
> internet access in many places already (India, China, Africa, etc). There is
> no inertia from an installed base in this category--thus we can achieve
> first-mover advantage and define expectations for the "next billion" users.
> We don't have existing UIs (and brand names) to retrain users from, and we
> don't have an entrenched document format they will need to be compatible
> with.
>
The cheapest iPad is $500, and comparable tablets are priced along the same
lines. There are "cheap" tablets more in the $99-$150 range, but they are
underpowered compared to the iPad and Galaxy Tab.

The iPad only has 512 MB of RAM, and we're talking about lesser hardware
than that. Hardware gets better and prices drop as we move forward into the
future, but if you want to be able to reach developing countries with a
tablet version within the next year, then you need a slim build.


> >From a broad view of future success, tablets merit a great deal of
> attention on our part. As I mentioned elsewhere, a "LibreOffice Touch" for
> tablets would be huge. We'd "outflank" our main opponent, capture vast new
> markets and develop great momentum, and then with that increased strength,
> address the initial marketplace (of PC desktops and laptops) with a much
> larger arsenal at our disposal.
>
That sounds great. I think it could be a strong growth market, and help push
not only OSS, LibreOffice, etc. but also the ODF format. However I think the
key to that strategy is jumping out in front quickly. GoogleDocs can already
by accessed via the web on tablets, and Microsoft has their online office
offerings.

LibreOffice would need a slim build with a tablet UI, and it would need one
quickly. Is there developer bandwidth for such a project? I think this would
be a good Google Summer of Code project that could get some funding and a
new developer that way, but I'm not sure the work could be handled by a
single developer over a summer.

-- T. J.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[T. J. Brumfield]

I think there is a difference between removing Java as a dependency needed
for out-of-the-box features, and blocking people from extending the
application with Java extensions. I think keeping the Java UNO bridge does
make sense, but users shouldn't need to fire up a JVM for basic/common
functionality out-of-the-box.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Cedric Bosdonnat <
cedric.bosdonnat@free.fr> wrote:

> 
> Removing Java completely is a No-go for me as this would prevent
> developers to write extensions and automation in Java. There are
> currently no other quick and simple way to extend OOo / LO for people
> who don't really care about the internals. Removing all Java
> dependencies from LO (and then removing the Java UNO bridge) would mean
> that we will exclude:
>  * Java extensions developers & users
>  * Java external apps using LO
> 
> --
> Cédric Bosdonnat
> LibreOffice hacker
> http://documentfoundation.org
> OOo Eclipse Integration developer
> http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[T. J. Brumfield]

Restructuring the menus isn't the massive drastic change many people have
talked about. I'm fine with restructuring the menus, and encourage it.
However, all the Renaissance mock-ups/prototypes I've seen seem to mimic the
Ribbon UI.

As someone who uses both MS Office and OOo on a daily basis, I find the OOo
FAR MORE USABLE for an advanced user. Every day there are tasks I want to
accomplish in MS Office, but I can't find the appropriate option in the
Ribbon interface. It drives me nuts.

The menus may be poorly organized now, but my point is that we shouldn't
abandon the model of toolbars and menus to chase something new like Ribbon.
It isn't simply a matter of a brief learning curve. 3 years after the Ribbon
first came out, I still loathe it. I know I'm not the only one.

And while I haven't seen a clear indication that the Renaissance has
committed completely to a specific direction, every presentation I've seen
suggests you are moving to a Ribbon clone. I want absolutely nothing to do
with that, nor do I feel it is in any way better for usability to hide 95%
of your functionality. While I understand the claims of signal to noise,
eventually you need something other than the basic icons on the Ribbon and
you simply can't find those options. The trade-off is terrible.

-- T. J.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Christoph Noack <
christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi T.J.!
>
> Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 13:05 -0500 schrieb T. J. Brumfield:
> >
> > I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained,
> > but
> > improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are
> > organized.
> > Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be
> > shined up
> > with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.
>
> Many people asked itself whether some tweaks might make the current UI
> more usable in the long-run. To make a long story short: no.
>
> To address some of your points:
>  * Visual Design: New icons / gradients / gloss doesn't improve the
>interaction quality, people rely on. We might only get a short
>positive effect, but no improvement. People will notice that :-)
>
>  * Cleaning: When designing functionality for the UI, one will
>notice that the menus itself are the problem. We have far too
>many small "atomic" features combined with "workflow related"
>topics. Here, our UI doesn't scale (The "where to put" problem
>comes up quite regularly). Thus, in the meantime (e.g. the
>Renaissance Team) improves selected workflows that will finally
>lead to a better menu structure (because you won't need some of
>the options any more). But after all, too many features and the
>(for this kind of application) "wrong" interaction concept.
>
>  * Defaults: There is work done on that - the Renaissance team
>works on "Better Defaults" already and RGB ES did also propose
>to work on better defaults (as he also mentioned). This is a
>very good start - defaults and templates are two dark
>chapters ;-)
>
>  * Step-by-step improvements: I hope that we'll be able to improve
>many things - besides the menus. For example, Mirek put in some
>nice ideas ...
>
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

[T. J. Brumfield]

Can we get a list of all the components that require Java that would need to
be reimplemented?

With a list it would be easier to determine if it is feasible to replace
those components.

-- T. J.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Mirek M.  wrote:

> 2010/11/2 Marc Paré 
>
> > Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :
> >
> >  +1 for getting rid of java.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> +2 for getting rid of java.
> >>
> >>  Me too.
>
>
> Me three.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> 
> >
> > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es
>
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[T. J. Brumfield]

Can we compile a list of suggestions on how to improve the defaults?

Is there a wiki where we could compile the list?

-- T. J.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM, RGB ES  wrote:

> A big +1
> That's why I started the thread about better defaults: this will help
> a lot more than a new, shiny but unknown interface.
> OOo/LibO interface IS modern and flexible (contextual toolbars,
> dockers... everything customizable), but it have horrible defaults
> values.
> A couple of fixes here and there (some toolbars do not work well when
> vertical) at it will be just perfect.
>
> 2010/11/2 T. J. Brumfield :
>  > The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And
> there is
> > a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype.
> While
> > that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion
> on
> > radically altering the UI is unnecessary.
> >
> > One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
> > interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface
> has
> > improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
> > ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most common features sounds
> good
> > on paper, but occassionally you need the lesser used features and you
> can't
> > find them. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of
> > organizing a large number of features.
> >
> > Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one
> > needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small
> > number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully
> Lo/OOo
> > handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. And
> the
> > laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus.
> >
> > Most radical refactorings I've seen try to "clean" up the interface, but
> > then hide most of the features. We're asking users to relearn a familiar
> > interface, but why?
> >
> > The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of
> color,
> > gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a
> flat
> > pallete. But the "ribbon" itself is an odd mish-mash of different sized
> > icons that look like they were assembled at random.
> >
> > Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus,
> > wouldn't most of our users be happy? If they had to re-learn a new
> system,
> > might it just drive users to Microsoft's office suite (if you have to
> > re-learn, you might as well learn the system used by the masses)?
> >
> > I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
> > improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are
> organized.
> > Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined
> up
> > with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.
> >
> > If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead
> of
> > chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
> > Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
> > mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves,
> allowing
> > an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
> > specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we
> know
> > most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't
> we
> > do our best to ease that transition?
> >
> > It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the
> UI
> > from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
> > project in other ways.
> >
> > -- T. J. Brumfield
> > "I'm questioning my education
> > Rewind and what does it show?
> > Could be, the truth it becomes you
> > I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
> > -- Pearl Jam, Education
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
> >
> >
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[T. J. Brumfield]

True. However, the good news is that the 2007 and 2010 formats are largely
similar and are XML based. The old formats were binary and kept changing.
Since the format isn't changing as much, and the new format is easier to
reverse-engineer, now is a good opportunity for OOo/LibO to "catch up" and
improve their compatibiltiy filters.

In some ways, OOo/LibO is better at opening old MSO documents than MSO
itself. Why not continue to improve that?
The difficult argument for many people has been to switch to a new document
format that most users can't open. But if you convince people that your
product is easily the best solution for opening the millions of
2003-and-before documents, then that is a clear advantage for your product.
It could be the killer feature that helps convince people to migrate.

Are the areas of poor compatibilty enumerated somewhere? Are these unknown?
Should users continue to report speciifc documents and features they have
trouble importing?

-- T. J.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:

> On 2010-11-02 12:05 PM, Frank Esposito wrote:
> > File compatibility should be a priority, in the very least opening and
> > saving MSO files with full compatibility
>
> There will *never* be 100% compatibility... like I said earlier, even
> Microsoft doesn't achieve that between different versions of its own
> programs.
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Charles
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs

[T. J. Brumfield]

The discussion of why companies should or can't migrate away from MS Office
or proprietary document formats is a bit off-topic. I'm also assuming most
of us have had this discussion at length before as well. I'm assuming if
you're on this list that you are in favor of open software and open
standards and have been frustrated at why others aren't as apt to adopt
them.

More on topic however, I think if we can focus efforts on improving LibO to
be the best product, then more people would be willing to switch to it.

Here is a query that will show 198 open issues/bugs/feature requests that
have at least 25 votes:

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?Submit+query=Submit+query&issue_type=DEFECT&issue_type=ENHANCEMENT&issue_type=FEATURE&issue_type=PATCH&issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&issue_status=VERIFIED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=25&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=&short_desc_type=allwords&long_desc=&long_desc_type=allwords&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=fulltext&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=fulltext&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time

I believe some of these are addressed in the go-oo patches, and thusly LibO
today. Looking at that list, which popular existing issues/bugs/feature
requests that people have voted for repeatedly do you think that LibO should
focus on?

Does LibO have its own wiki or bug tracker? I'm not a developer, but I could
compose a list in a wiki, or open matching bugs in a LibO bug tracker. I
imagine that tackling some popular but unresolved issues, and some of the
easy hacks (low hanging fruit) mentioned earlier in this thread might serve
two purposes.

It could attract new developers and also create some clear visible
advantages to the LibO codebase over the OOo codebase.

-- T. J.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Peter Rodwell  wrote:

> Quoting Ernst W. Winter:
>
> Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?
>>
>
> Since I'm in Spain and not in Munich, I have no idea.
>
> I do think where there is a willing there will be a way. If Govermnet
>> Authorities can change, why can't a corporation change.
>>
>
> Public authorities don't have to make a profit. Corporations do. The
> changes we are discussing here cost money.
>
> Is it what
>> people decide or the company?
>>
>
> The company, of course.
>
> besides I don't believe that all employees are stupid or lazy when it
>> comes to learningt something new.
>>
>
> Nobody is saying they are. But re-training still takes time.
>
> P.
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)

[T. J. Brumfield]

I'm moving this into another thread. Jonathon suggested that LibO fails at
accesibility requirements. Doing a few quick Google searches, it seems that
OOo and thusly LibO uses the Java Accessibility API to enable the use of
screen readers and braille devices. This is primarily used for Windows.

On Mac OSX, the built-in screen reader in the OS is used. On Linux, the
Gnome Accessiblity tools are used.

Yet the OOo wiki suggests the reason you must use the Java Accessiblity API
is that it is multi-platform, yet OOo doesn't appear to be using it on two
of their platforms.

Is there a better alternative for Windows users?

And how can LibO be made more accessible in general for all users?

jonathon wrote:
>For those that have accessibility requirements, the Java is mandatory.
>OTOH, even with Java, LibO is not an accessible program. On the gripping
>hand, all office suites fail accessibility requirements.

-- 
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented

[T. J. Brumfield]

The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there is
a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype. While
that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
radically altering the UI is unnecessary.

One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface has
improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most common features sounds good
on paper, but occassionally you need the lesser used features and you can't
find them. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of
organizing a large number of features.

Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one
needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small
number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully Lo/OOo
handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. And the
laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus.

Most radical refactorings I've seen try to "clean" up the interface, but
then hide most of the features. We're asking users to relearn a familiar
interface, but why?

The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of color,
gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a flat
pallete. But the "ribbon" itself is an odd mish-mash of different sized
icons that look like they were assembled at random.

Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus,
wouldn't most of our users be happy? If they had to re-learn a new system,
might it just drive users to Microsoft's office suite (if you have to
re-learn, you might as well learn the system used by the masses)?

I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but
improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are organized.
Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined up
with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc.

If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead of
chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned
Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option to all but completely
mimic it. People forget, but Microsoft used this tactic themselves, allowing
an option for Word users to use Wordperfect key-mappings, and provided
specific help for Wordperfect Users trying to migrate to Word. Since we know
most users coming to Lo/OOo are coming from Microsoft Office, shouldn't we
do our best to ease that transition?

It would also be considerably less work than completely redesigning the UI
from scratch. That is more time that could be dedicated to improving the
project in other ways.

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Java dependency

[T. J. Brumfield]

I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly question.

>From a user's perspective, it always seemed like the Java portions of OOo
were shoehorned in. Starting a JVM eats up unneccessary memory and takes
time. One of the most common complaints of OOo is that it is a bloated app
that is slow and takes up too many resources.

I assumed that Sun kept the Java portions of OOo in since they liked to push
Java. In the age of netbooks, tablets and mobile computing, trimming the fat
becomes more important.

Would it be possible to remove the Java portions of LibreOffice and
reimplement them without the need to fire up a JVM?

Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that
I'm not aware of?

Thanks!

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

[tdf-discuss] Old Bugs

[T. J. Brumfield]

There were several old, often commented on, and often requested bug fixes
and features that didn't receive much attention or weren't resolved with OOo
over the years.

For those who may not be aware of the reasons for the shift/fork, or for
those who don't care about politics with software, resolving some of these
old bugs might be a reason for users to switch over to LibreOffice.

For instance, the bug/feature request with the most votes for OOo is a SVG
import filter. go-oo implemented that feature. I assume LibreOffice will
include that patch.

Here is an eight year old bug/feature request with over 300 votes.

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3959

And while it seems like that bug involves quite a bit of work, it also reads
like necessary refactoring that has been started, but not finished.

In the end, I suppose my question is this. Is it a worthwhile goal for
LibreOffice to pursue some of these lingering issues with tons of votes?
Should they try to create the features that the community obviously wants
that OOo is not providing?

-- T. J. Brumfield
"I'm questioning my education
Rewind and what does it show?
Could be, the truth it becomes you
I'm a seed, wondering why it grows"
-- Pearl Jam, Education

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***