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
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
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:
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
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
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149050
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rayk...@gmail.com
Ever
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149052
Regina Henschel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rb.hensc...@t-online.de
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?
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149052
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||libreoffice-ux-advise@lists
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149010
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |heiko.tietze@documentfounda
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
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
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149013
--- Comment #5 from Heiko Tietze ---
So I misinterpreted your "the long description is available through a
disclosure widgets" with my reply "we do the required minimum"?
Ultimately not a topic for UX since exporting the description is
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149013
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Strobbe ---
@Heiko If LibreOffice is not an HTML editor, the proper response is to remove
its HTML editing capabilities, not to declare this issue "not a bug". An
accessible authoring tool is required to
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
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149050
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vstuart.fo...@utsa.edu
---
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149047
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needsDevAdvice
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149047
--- Comment #2 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1)
> If you want to customize the menu this command is relevant, isn't it?
Is it?
Insert | Object is already provided as a submenu.
Adding this
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84973
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needsUXEval
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
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
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
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141452
--- Comment #29 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #27)
> OMG. Are you trying to make just anything that *you personally* touch in the
> bug tracker to become completely unmanageable?
Thank you for that
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149050
sdc.bla...@youmail.dk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||103459, 99671
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).
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149047
--- Comment #1 from Heiko Tietze ---
If you want to customize the menu this command is relevant, isn't it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149010
--- Comment #6 from Heiko Tietze ---
(In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #5)
> But original question remains... where the "main" content is more about
> accessibility
Description is exported in case of PDF. Accessibility sounds good
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149047
sdc.bla...@youmail.dk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||103238
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149010
--- Comment #5 from sdc.bla...@youmail.dk ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4)
> could separate these two controls from the Names frame and have an extra
> Sequence frame.
+1
But original question remainsthe current dialog
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143693
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |heiko.tietze@documentfounda
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143197
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmik...@collabora.com
---
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143693
Buovjaga changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||libreoffice-ux-advise@lists
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149010
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmik...@collabora.com
---
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149013
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.wegh...@posteo.de
--- Comment
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124649
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149037
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
CC|
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149000
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needsUXEval |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148712
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |er...@redhat.com
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146445
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148967
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |heiko.tietze@documentfounda
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143158
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||114039, 108018
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148967
--- Comment #39 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #38)
AFAICT the OP opened a bug report *about that*, asking to have a *text field*
tor the HUD instead of the button *that is only possible now* (mentioned
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
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148967
--- Comment #38 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #11)
> Because the UNO for it adds the button to the toolbar, but I would prefer
> the text field
Ok, well - why not open a bug about that? i.e. having a
44 matches
Mail list logo
