On 21/04/2008 05:55, NoOp wrote:
On 04/20/2008 03:54 PM, Harold Fuchs wrote:
On 20/04/2008 18:07, James Knott wrote:
ISTR, there was some mention a while ago, about improving
interoperability between OOo and Thunderbird. It already works well.
So, just include a link to mozilla.org, with a recommendation for
Thunderbird. Nothing else is required nor desirable.
It barely works at all:
- double updating of spell check dictionaries
Does this not work for you?
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/dictionaries.html
[don't know as I've not used it & use SeaMonkey instead of TB]
This link clearly explains that you need to **copy** the OOo
dictionaries into your TB dictionary folder. This is exactly what I
meant - double updating of the dictionaries.
Perhaps you can try using OOo and Outlook/OE dictionaries?
You'd fail.
- separate and different text entry interfaces
I suppose that it would be nice to enable OOo to compose a text only
document and have it inserted as text in TB rather than using copy &
paste. I can't imagine why you'd want to go the other way though
(compose and use TB as the editor for OOo).
Neither is what I meant nor is either similar to what Outlook users
expect. Those users expect that when they click "Create Mail" (or
whatever it's called), they get a window with boxes for To:, cc:,
Subject etc. etc. but the text editing is donw using the same
*interface* - all the keyboard shortcuts, formatting options etc. - as
they use in Word. It does *not* involve "creating a text only document
and having it inserted". It involves using the interface they are used
to in Word to compose e-mails - or, if you prefer, it involves using in
Word the interface they are used to from Outlook. And no, it's *not* a
Word template. It's Outlook & Word being *designed* so users only have
to learn one set of keystrokes, one set of menu options/layouts, etc. etc.
<rant>
Please, before discussing this further, go and take a look at someone's
Word/Outlook system where that person is *not* a computer geek but,
instead, is perhaps a microbiology geek or a palaeontology geek or ....
People who don't know how to use computers are not necessarily either
stupid or ignorant. Its that they can't be bothered [don't see the
necessity] to have to become experts in what should not require that
level of expertise. Same applies to someone who is a lot less clever or
well educated; such a person wants to be able to use an electronic
typewriter. S/he doesn't want *any* complexity. Having to learn two
separate interfaces for creating text is far too complex.
</rant>
- no way easily to grab an e-mail address from a TB address book and
include it in a Writer/Calc document
I think that there is (a way) as you can grab the address book from
TB/Netscape/SeaMonkey) and use it as a datasource. Certainly the data is
available; perhaps it is just a matter of: 1) knowing how to use it, or
2) creating an added gizmo/button to paste from the datasource into the
document.
Why should one have to learn about "datasources"? See rant above.
- no way easily to grab a snail mail address from a TB address book and
include it in a Writer/Calc document
See above.
yes, see above.
- no way easily to build a list of names or other details from a TB
address book into a Writer/Calc document
>From TB you can export the address book as a csv which can easily be
opened in Calc.
I don't think this is a reasonable definition of good interoperability.
I suspect that it is as good, or better, than that of OE.
That doesn't make it good.
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to [email protected]
