[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 #127 from Eyal Rozenberg <eyalroz1 at gmx.com> ---
(In reply to Pedro from comment #126)
> Why should we seek new users? 

You're using a straw man argument there. Mike did not suggest LO shouldn't seek
new users.

> New users ... 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.

New users do not feel they are fighting against the UI. Also, new users who
know different kinds of UI do not need an app to only have one of these kinds
in order to stick around.

> 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.

Actually, it's closer to the _opposite_ situation: We are arguing for using the
same basic UI as Inkscape, and now GIMP, and most other apps in the world,
which is easy enough for newcomers. (If MSO was using a GIMP-like interface, it
would be the exact opposite).

> 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. 

MSO does not define "the standard". 

> 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?

It's the UI that MSO uses, since it's the most popular office suite on Windows.
But guess what's the most used UI in application on Windows overall? 

> 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.

Ok, now _that_ is an important grievance. I was not aware of this (as a QA
person, not a developer) and it should be brought up in the relevant forums.

> I don't agree with the "many" shortcomings.

Well, you'll need to convince enough of us that the Tabbed UI is superior.

> 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.

To continue your analogy: If fixing those issues would cause less people to use
your theme, what then?

> 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.

1. That's a false dichotomy. If we followed this logic, then we would think
that the tabbed UI proponents are actually out to remove the standard UI
altogether. You aren't, hopefully. Some people will insist on a different UI; I
can disagree with their choice but live with it. Different strokes for
different folks etc.
2. Given the RTL issues, I'm not sure the Tabbed UI should have been made
available outside of experimental builds. Nobody consulted us (= RTL QA people)
about this.

> If it's so terrible for you, why keep it? Where was your feedback and help
> when it was being developed?

1. Again, it is not terrible, it's more detrimental than beneficial. True, I
did say it "sucks", but that's in relative terms.
2. This was a personal GSoC project of an intern; nobody consulted us about it.
Although maybe you mean Mike and people more central than myself, in which case
let them answer that...

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