[Libreoffice-ux-advise] Analysis of OOo 3.1 tracking data

[Heiko Tietze]

Recently we had a discussion in design section [1] about standard toolbar.
Question is whether or not functions should get removed or rather promoted.
Since those discussion needs always be based on real user data, Astron was
so kind to make old OO tracking data [2,3] available.

At a first glance it seems to be rather easy to get insights from the data.
The row "Count" holds aggregated dependent value, i.e. how often that
particular function in the context was accessed, and "Widget" the
independent values (in relation to the current question). Grouping should be
done by ".uno:<function>". 

The question to me is which function in "Widget" is related to what real
world action. 

I have the following items:
* AcceleratorExecute (short-cut like Ctrl+C for copy aka .uno:Copy)
* SfxAsyncExec (internally executed when copy/paste is done via mouse, I
guess)
* SfxToolBoxControl (probably as well some kind of internally function call)
* GenericToolbarController
* MenuBarManager
* ToolbarsMenuController

Is MenuBarManager the main and/or some popup menu? What is the difference
between the other toolbar controls?
I add the preliminary, pivoted data ( OOo-Results_Writer.ods
<http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/file/n4036652/OOo-Results_Writer.ods> 
) to illustrate the questions. About 5% of Copy is done by GenericToolbar
but only 8 times Paste with this widget (3 x 10E-6%). 

[1]
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LO-Writer-UI-Analysis-td4032977.html
[2]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/User_Experience/OpenOffice.org_User_Feedback_Program
[3] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Tracking_results



--
View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Analysis-of-OOo-3-1-tracking-data-tp4036652.html
Sent from the UX-Advise mailing list archive at Nabble.com.