[Libreoffice-ux-advise] Template manager - the menu entries

[Cedric Bosdonnat]

Hi Cor,

On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 20:32 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
> > The idea of a new template manager was to bring the content of that old
> > menu to the users. At least now they don't have to discover that item
> > (too far down in the File Menu) that triggers a sub-menu.
> 
> Is there a certain position in the menu's below which items are so far 
> that they could be considered as not useful?
> If so, the older menu sh/could have moved above that line ? ;-)

IIRC we consider that below 7th item approx. the menu items are less
considered by the users. And moving the old menu upper would have moved
some other (potentially more important item) down.

> There is some positive perspective in this thought indeed.
> But first users need to discover that.
> And I still see File > New .. for editing or managing not as a natural 
> route.

Then may be we should find a new Wording for the File > New ... menu
item. In a not so far future (but not for 4.0.x) I'ld love to see the
whole sub-menu merged into the new Template Dialog, which may bring the
consistency you're missing.

> Besides that: the old dialog also offerd Organise and Edit options (of 
> course in a indirect and not so good and pretty way as now, but it was 
> there.)

Organise and Edit options are also in the new Template manager dialog.

> But in the old situation the users also find Edit and Organise in the 
> menu File > New > Templates and documents.
> 
> > The old menu's features are either in the new dialog or in other places
> > of the UI: that's why the whole submenu and it's content was dropped.
> 
> See previous remark. Old features already where there.
> In this, I still fail to see a good argument why the old sub-menu is 
> dropped.

Being this way for years doesn't mean it needs to stay for ever and that
it was a good thing.

> > but pretty not welcomed now for 4.0.x as we passed
> > string freeze (or our localizers friends won't be happy).
> 
> I'm not sure if it is helpful to start arguing about what is in time and 
> not (I have multiple arguments that make it reasonable for me to bring 
> in my arguments now). And apart from that, it does not have to be (close 
> to) perfect from the first release, is it?

Sure it doesn't need to be perfect from the first release. But even if
we can do things, we are now post RC and need to be careful what we
change: release is in 2-3 weeks.

> I'm still seriously looking for what is good here.

Sorry for my hesitant understanding of english, but do you mean you are
working toward a good design or that you couldn't find anything good
yet?

Regards,
--
Cedric