[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501

--- Comment #126 from Pedro <vermelhusco1904 at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #123)
> Reading through the heated discussion, I see the recurring motive in the
> proponents of the change: "we must attract new users".
> 
> I see why me personally could be motivated by that: I work for a commercial
> community member (Collabora), and our business indeed would benefit from
> increased user base of LibreOffice, so that increase by itself could be a
> goal. But what is others' motivation to demand *just that*?
> 
> I always had an impression that FLOSS *projects*, unlike commercial vendors,
> should not be motivated by "get more market share! drag people from other
> software! consider every alternative a competition!" attitude. I always
> thought that FLOSS should provide something that the project feels unique
> distinctive feature(s), so that others could use *if they also share the
> vision that that is important distinctive feature*. And consider all
> alternatives as welcome diversity.
> 
> Is there something in the project (not in some its members, that may and
> should have own goals) that forces us to seek new users with passion,
> requiring doing everything just to make the increase happen? Not "make it
> distinctive and attractive", but "make it attractive by all costs, possibly
> sacrificing the distinctive pieces"?


Why should we seek new users? I can give you some reasons why.
First, as an open-source project, attracting new users means that LibO would
also potentially attract the eyes of developers that can contribute to the
codebase among them. This would bring new blood, and provide more man-power for
interesting projects. By using a dated UI paradigm for Office suites, younger
people won't even be bothered with looking at LibO. It will look dated to them.

Second, I assume the purpose of LibO is to attract users to open source
software. To provide solid alternatives to closed source, commercial software.
Not only to prevent vendor lock-in, but also to promote real open standards.
The more users are attracted to LibO, the more open standards will be used
instead of proprietary formats of MS (or fake open standards like OOXML).

I would assume that this is common knowledge to any LibO contributor, or any
open-source contributor for that matter.

> 
> To clarify: I do not see proponents of the switch saying "we have a *great*
> and polished UI that we like so much, and that makes our productivity much
> greater - why is it not default yet?". I see them saying "We have a
> half-backed UI, with many shortcomings in it that we see, too; and we only
> require to make it the default because that would resemble something else
> and *attract users* that otherwise are so uninterested by our distinctive
> features that they prefer paying money for another UI; and we don't think
> that such users who require the UI to fit them so much, would immediately
> see the problems of our similar but not polished thing. Attracting users it
> the only thing that matters!".


As per your comment of the distinctive features of LibO. New users don't want
to re-learn how to use an office suite. They won't stick around to find those
distinctive features if they feel like they're fighting against the UI, as
compared with other office suites.

This same kind of discussion happened with GIMP. It eventually adopted a
single-window UI similar to Inkscape because it was easier for newcomers. The
classic UI could still be selected.

I would say that some people here need to come around to the fact that it's
been too long since standard toolbars are not the standard anymore for Office
suites. And some people should understand the overwhelming majority of LibO
users are on Windows. Guess what's the most used UI in an Office suite in
Windows?
But yes, Windows users are second class users for LibO, I'm aware of that. Only
in release 7.4 will it have support for the taskbar jump lists. A feature that
exists since at least Windows 7. The LibO build instructions for Windows devs
are terrible, no one also bothered to write a guide for WSL build instructions,
and without a software that is interesting and attractive for Windows users and
developers the state of the situation will only worsen.

I am a proponent of the switch WHEN two blockers are solved:
1 - Extension support,
2 - Get a dev dedicated to work on the UI for proper support.

I think the UI is already good as it is, and do not accept that you put words
in my mouth like these:

>"We have a half-backed UI, with many shortcomings in it that we see, too; and we only
> require to make it the default because that would resemble something else
> and *attract users* that otherwise are so uninterested by our distinctive
> features that they prefer paying money for another UI; and we don't think
> that such users who require the UI to fit them so much, would immediately
> see the problems of our similar but not polished thing. Attracting users it
> the only thing that matters!"

I don't agree with the "many" shortcomings. I don't want solely to "attract
users", I want something that makes me want to use LibO without pulling my hair
out, and that's the Tabbed UI. I don't agree that the Tabbed UI is not
polished. It is as polished as it could be made with the constraints of Glade
and many of the decisions taken when making it had a rationale behind it. I
know it because I helped organize that UI and the Groupedbar.
And yes, to me attracting users is the only thing that matters. That's the
whole point of this. If I release something to public I want the most people to
use it.
I released a dark theme for Zotero with that in mind, and it was my joy to try
to fix the issues that new users detected and pointed out in it. It made it
into a much better theme and attracted another dev which used it as the base to
make an awesome dark theme extension. Why shouldn't the focus be on attracting
new users? Answer me that.

Also, if you guys think the Tabbed UI is so bad then it shouldn't even be
available outside of experimental. You guys should advocate for its removal. If
it's so terrible for you, why keep it? Where was your feedback and help when it
was being developed?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.