[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 90374] SIDEBAR: Having the sidebar with a fixed minimum width across all tabs

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90374

--- Comment #29 from Thomas Lendo <thomas.lendo at gmail.com> ---
Created attachment 139329
  --> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=139329&action=edit
Minimum width of navigation/search sidebar and styles floating window in
MSOW2013

(In reply to Luke from comment #27)
> This report is about a fixed MINIMUM
> width. What we want is the sidebar to behave like Calligra, iWorks, WPS
> Office, and yes, like Word too. All of them prevent you from resizing the
> sidebar/panel to a point where controls get hidden. 
Ok, but not a single value for all sidebar decks at once.

The Properties, Page, Navigator (in Writer + Calc), Functions, Manage Changes
(experimental in Writer) and Design (experimental in Writer) decks of the
sidebar already have a minimum width. But Styles (formerly Styles and
Formatting), Slide Transition, Animation, Master Slide, Gallery and Navigator
(in Impress + Draw) decks and the Elements pane in Math are resizable to a
width where most controls, texts and graphics are unusable.

The minimum width seems to be very wide for some decks (also in comparison to
what MSO Word 2013 allows, see my attached screenshot) now. That's because the
sidebar is very unflexible in general.

Properties deck has a wide min. width, Functions deck has a smaller, nicer min.
width (the reason for the difference doesn't matter, I only speak from UX'
standpoint).

(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #7)
> So NO, would not agree to a single minimum width applied to Decks of "all"
> content panels--but that said, there is room to improve how each decks
> minimum width (prior to collapse) is determined.
I support this.

(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #8)
> (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #7)
> > The Navigator and Manage Changes content panels seem to incorrectly not
> > allow resize of the deck to point of colapse, but they do honor the "minimum
> > width" if set from another content panel active in the Deck.
> I was able to resize Navigator to the point of collapse. I find the resize
> of the deck to point of collapse to be quite useless.
I can't resize Navigator and Manage Changes in 6.0.0.2 for example to a point
where it collapses. If you reach the minimum width nothing more happens when
moving the mouse towards the sidebar's tab bar.

I want avoid that generally and suggest the following: I like fluent design
without a strong fixed point -- I mean that when reaching the minimum width
point the sidebar width should snap to it. If the user drags it further towards
the tab bar then the sidebar should visibly collapse so that the user has a
visual feedback. That happens already today for sidebar decks without a minimum
width at about 1 cm before tab bar.

Locking:
Maybe also a setting to lock the width given from the user can be introduced to
prevent unwanted changes of the width afterwards, similar to the "Lock Toolbar
Position" setting for toolbars. (This shouldn't prevent closing the sidebar
deck with a click on the tab icon.)

(In reply to Bastián Díaz from comment #18)
> (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #17)
> > Absolutely! And that is the granularity of Sidebar customization that we
> > need to provide users. We closed this issue as described in its summary
> > because fixed widths (min/max) are not a route to customization and a full
> > implementation of the Sidebar. See bug 33223 and the various issues in the
> > meta bug 65138.
> How strange it would be that each tab on the sidebar, had its own width
> min/max.
This isn't an issue today because all decks/tabs of the sidebar in a LO
component have the same width. Current given sidebar width doesn't differ
between the decks of this sidebar. 

(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #28)
> if there is a different minimum for each deck, don't do it. It
> might interact when I have the side bar set smallish and click on another
> deck, that it closes.
A good default sidebar width per locale (as said in comment 26) would avoid
cropped UI elements and strings in any of its decks. If the user only uses the
Styles sidebar, why should he/she be urged to use a wide sidebar only because
the Properties deck needs that width?

With a minimum sidebar width of all sidebar decks at once I see a plenty of
follow-up bug reports coming. Better to enhance the current handling here and
there.

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