[Libreoffice] LO status bar annoyances

[Friedrich Strohmaier]

Hi Sebastian, *,

Sebastian Spaeth schrieb:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:59:37 +0100, Friedrich Strohmaier 
<damokles4-listen at bits-fritz.de> wrote:

>> What You as an individual do use or don't *must not* be a criterium
>> for UI and feature changes. Even and especially not because You are
>> a software developer!

> Hi Friedrich,

> this thread already became bigger than I ever intended, and I heard
> that the state of the statusbar is a regular flamefest. I don't want
> to awake any flames or add more fuel.

I guess this is not limited on the status bar but on UI/feature
questions in general.. And I'm glad to see this topic beeing one of
high interest and not going down in a flame.

>> over users shoulders. And be assured: *Every* bloddy feature you hid
>> anywhere in the UI has a user(base) using it. That's more valid for
>> the "one click available" as in the status bar.

My following statements are not intended to express bad estimation of
your good ideas.. :o))

> All I am going to add is: "which user prefers single-clicks for some
> status bar items and double-clicks on others, while some are not
> clickable at all?".

One who has been told / has learned to do so and doesn't bother on any
theory of userfriendly UI :o))..

> "Which user wants to launch dialogs when clicking
> on apparently empty areas in the statusbar?"

see above..

> and finally "which user wants 2 separators between icon areas that are
> really empty?"

One who has learned to (double-)click the fourth area will be confused
what to do now.

> "which user wants exclamation marks for default situations rather than
> suitably subtle icons that show modified doc status?" :-)

Again: see above. ("You told me to click the exclamation mark - where
should I click now?").

> Some things can be universally be improved, other should remain
> customizable. I do know that there is a reason and a proponent behind
> all those items.

The reason and proponent is the less important thing. The more important
is to change/disturb a step by step learned workflow. Changes of this
kind need very good reasons - valid for the user - and many things
accompanying to support the change.

You laugh about the examples above? I don't. That's bitter truth out
there.

>> The only proper way to have a "Sebastian Spaeth" UI of LibreOffice I
>> see:
>> Convince your developer collegues to build an UI framework which
>> allows such changes without affecting other users. :o))

> Ohh, but there is much of that possible already. I was able to make
> myself much happier with a few lines of editing of the statusbar.xml
> definition.

That are good news! Is it a big deal to make all that already possible
available in a framework to be fed from outside? Thinking of skins and
configuration sets?

> I am not sure what the right approach to finding good UI is. I
> therefore defer those designs to others. I only know when something
> bothers me so much that I really want it changed :).

I'm in very favor of that - as long as I have the possibility to stick
with the old behaviour for my clients - and for myself. :o))
For this reason I'm advocating a separate UI-feature framework over and
over again.

In short words: Changing UI has wide reaching consequences and this has
to be reflected by the features of the Software. How to oversee this?
Very simple: trust people who are nearby and tell You. :o))

What I want to say: All from the software developer on the one side to
the user at the other and all between should get happy with our product!
As shown in the past, UI/feature changes released without participation
of the affected (users|supporters) don't fit that need.
LibreOffice will grow best, if we achive it. And yes: we can! (tm) :o))

Stopping now spreading enthusiastic wordloads. :o))
-- 
Friedrich
Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/
LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images
(german version already started)