Reply at bottom. On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 17:40, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 20:40:05 PM +0000, Andrew Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > "M. Fioretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:20050206094804.GC12273 > > @mclink.it: > > > > > Me, I can confirm that whenever I write an article it does have an > > > assigned word count, and that checking its value whenever I move/ > > > rearrange/edit/delete paragraphs is the one thing that slows me > > > down the MOST in OO.o. > > > > So download and use my macro -- put it on a button, and it's pretty > > easy. > > Andrew, > > I _am_ using your macro and am grateful for it. It is excellent, like > the others you make, but I stand by what I said, because: > > 1) w.r.t. the fuel level analogy, having to push a button to check it > is better than parking, but still much more awkward than what it > should be, that is have it always available in the status bar > > 2) the *real* problem is not the quality of your macro. Is the fact > that OO.o proper does NOT have a usable (=constantly updated in > the status bar) word count. The fact that you must discover that a > separate macro exists, find it and install it. All to have (not > your fault of course) a sub-optimal functionality: a patch, not a > solution. > > The prove is the fact that the reviewer I mentioned in this thread > immediately went for the word count and couldn't care less to check > if, with *his* own effort, the program could reach that level of (for > him) minimal functionality. Because, being (ok, for him) a really > basic function it should have come in the status bar with the > package. It simply wasn't his responsibility to do it. > > The net result is, like it or not, that OO.o ended up looking > suboptimal for casual readers because it doesn't have the first > function that *all* its first time reviewers need in order to deliver > earlier. Maybe this is one of the areas with the greatest ratio between > marketing/PR benefit and coding effort, but it keeps being ignored. > > I know of the issue for placing the word count in the status bar, but > (as far as I remember) I gave up voting back then because discussions > here gave me the impression that there was really no feeling or > acknowledgment of this particular problem. > > Ciao, > Marco F.
Most of my macros are experiments with the UI to see what works and what doesn't for people - with the eventual aim of getting changes to the source code (a step I haven't got to yet). I have just been playing with having a selection change listener combined with Andrew's word count macro (slightly modified). If nothing is selected (or more than one selection is made) the normal status bar is displayed, but if a single selection is made the status bar shows similar information to that displayed in Andrew's original dialog. Would this approach meet the perceived need? If people are interested I could tidy it up and post it on my site. Or Andrew if you are interested I could post what I have done to you. . (In that article there were quite a number of mistakes, one example: the article states that toolbars in OOo can't be moved.) Thanks, Ian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
