[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 135895] Improve documentation about numbered lists without a list style (see comment 15)

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135895

sdc.blanco at youmail.dk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |libreoffice-ux-advise at lists
                   |                            |.freedesktop.org
           Keywords|                            |needsUXEval
          Component|Documentation               |Writer

--- Comment #26 from sdc.blanco at youmail.dk ---
Moving Component from Documentation to Writer, and adding needsUXEval.

Inspired by last paragraph of bug 135871, comment 37 about making DF tools safe
to use (and taking advantage of Style Inspector).

The question here is only about the behavior of DF tools, where the intention
is to use DF tools.

Demonstration of current behavior

1. Take 6 lines, apply DF numbering (Toggle Numbered List)
2. Put cursor after third line, press Enter twice  
   (result:  still numbered 1-6, but blank line between 3 and 4 -- no problem)
3. Put cursor on item 4, restart numbering
   (actual and expected result:  last three items are now numbered 1-3)
4. With cursor in second list, select another numbering scheme (e.g, Roman
Uppercase)

Actual result:  numbering scheme for "first" list changes to Roman Uppercase
Expected result:  "first list" stays unchanged, second list changes as applied.

Additional information:
SI shows that the "second list" has the same list Id as the first list, so the
"actual result" is according to design.

"Workflow" that would create this situation:

- make a list  (step 1)
- decide (after item 6) that you want to "split" the list into two different
lists.
- put in some CR (step 2) and restart the numbering (step 3)
- decide you want to use a different numbering scheme for second list (for
whatever reason), and use dialog to change.

@kitchm -- maybe you can confirm that this was what you were doing when you
encountered the problem, or could explain what you were doing when you
encountered the problem.  

Question to UXEval

I would think -- from a DF perspective -- that there would be no reason to
expect that changing the second list would also change the first list.  

(and without the SI, it would be hard/impossible to understand what is going
on).

See comment 23 for clear expression of how OP interpreted this situation.

Meanwhile, comment 4 suggests that this behavior may not be bug -- and that one
should use "styles" if this behavior is not desired.  Comment 12 suggests it is
a desired feature, but also suggests using Styles.

But in this case, the user wants to use DF  (so the query here is motivated by
the idea of making DF safe to use). From that perspective, it does not seem to
be solution to just push this over into a documentation problem, or to tell the
user to use styles, when it seems to be a design/behavior flaw -- at least that
is what I hope can be clarified. 

Meanwhile -- an (unproblematic) DF workflow case for comparison. 

1. write 6 lines.  (decide that you want to make them into lists)
2. Select first three lines, toggle on numbered list.
3. Select last three lines, toggle on numbered list.
4. Change numbering scheme for last three lines, no effect on first 6

Actual and expected behavior are in agreement.  The point is, this case is 
similar to the problematic case, but each list gets a different list id, even
without a blank line between them, so the origin of the suggestion in comment
23 is understandable (even if it does not describe the actual situation
accurately).  This example also shows that the suggested documentation change
in comment 15 is incorrect.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-bugs/attachments/20210124/a2f1dcf1/attachment.htm>