On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 11:12 -0600, Rod Engelsman wrote: > G. Roderick Singleton wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:34 -0600, Rod Engelsman wrote: > >> G. Roderick Singleton wrote: > >> > >>> > > > > [snipped] > > > >> I'll agree with you that once you understand how it works, it's fairly > >> easy to deal with. I just don't think that a style is where folks tend > >> to look for that property. > >> > > > > I think you have hit the point. Our users have _NOT_ grasped that OOo is > > different and expect MSO behaviour without bothering to check the > > differences. I do know that the people on both the doc project and > > OOoAuthors try to compensate for that but there is a limit especially > > when these are not even read by those needing the information. > > > > As I said before, you can only idiot proof stuff so far before you > > whatever you produce is so big it is useless. Nonetheless we try to > > consider all levels of expertise especially with styles. > > Hmmm... I think the phrase "idiot proof" in the context of this > particular issue is a bit condescending.
How else would you describe it? Or are you one of these for whom political correctness is absolute? Let me rephrase that from idiot proof to dummy proof. > It doesn't seem *logical* to me > to expect a Language setting to be associated with a Style. Styles are > about formatting and appearance. Language is an orthogonal concept, > perhaps more closely aligned with content than format. Hmm, could be. In this case, isn't an RFE the option to exercise? Post the number and/or link, please. > > I think the problem is that the present setup is unintuitive enough that > a lot of people never even think to ask the question that could be > answered in the docs or help. > > > > > > With answering on users, I have been taking the approach that OPs only > > need some direction so they learn a bit rather than the spoon feeding > > approach. Others do what they do and the mix is that the list is a good > > resource. So the question is how to improve communication with our user > > base so that we are not repeating ourselves over and over? I have no > > answer. Do you? > > > > I've been hanging out here for a couple of years and there have always > been questions that generate a lot of traffic. But they're not > necessarily the same questions anymore. For example, installing on WinXP > used to be a real train-wreck; every step of the process was unusual > from the experience of an average user of Windows. Hell, I'm pretty > smart about computers but it screwed me up the first time. Now that > we've moved to native installers the process is pretty normal and we see > a lot less traffic on that subject. But we still get the how do I network install and why has OOo taken over my MSO files et cetera. > > There's only so much you can do on the Support and Documentation end of > things. Sometimes the product just needs to be improved and the User's > list is a good source of information in that respect. I think I said that. > > So my answer would be: There is no answer. OOo is a great product but > it's certainly not perfect. And some things are just screwy enough that > until they get changed they are going to generate a lot of repetitive > questions. > That is why we have the RFE process. It is also why sources are available to those with the chops and time to implement what is important to them. For us non-developers, using RFEs seems the best option. -- PLEASE KEEP MESSAGES ON THE LIST. OpenOffice.org Documentation Co-Lead http://documentation.openoffice.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
