[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 128180] allow each deck to keep its own width in the sidebar

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=128180

--- Comment #4 from sdc.blanco at youmail.dk ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3)

I think there is a misunderstanding here.  Please let me try again to explain.
The main point is that there can be functional reasons to want to keep
different deck widths.  (examples given below)

> In bug 90374 we discussed a fixed width idea. We didn't come to an agreement
> how the existing min and max value should be changed and resolved the ticket
> as WF.

I understand (and agree). 

> And we talked about this topic yesterday again. The issue is only regarding
> the page sidebar that needs a few pixels more depending on the content and
> thereby localization. So the solution for this request that I'd rename to
> "size the sidebar tabs equally" is to increase the default size for all
> other tabs. 

I am not requesting a change in default size.

> It's also not a big deal to resize the sidebar, which is kept then over all tabs.

But this is exactly the problem.  Why can't the sidebar keep different values
for each deck?

Here are some points.

1.   No point in having different minimums because at present, every deck will
be forced back to the largest minimum. 

Examples:

a.  Styles can be made very "thin" (down to zero)  -- but it will be forced
back to the width of other decks (e.g., Properties, or Navigator)  -- so one
would have to keep resetting it thinner, if that was desired.

b.  Similarly, making Properties a minimum has no advantage, if Navigator is
also used, because Navigator seems to have a larger minimum than Properties, so
switching from (minimum) Properties to Navigator and back will increase the
width of Properties to the Navigator minimum.

2. In term of "functionality", the decks have different practical functions,
and there can be good reasons to prefer different widths for different decks. 

a. As one practical example, I sometimes make Navigator very wide (because of
long bookmark names), where I don't mind that the sidebar is covering some of
the document text while navigating.  But in switching to other decks (e.g.,
Properties) then these other decks are also forced to that the broad Navigator
width (where now it is a problem that it is covering some of the document
text.)

b. Furthermore,  if I make one of these decks (e.g., Properties) more narrow
(so that I can work on the document text), then when I switch back to the
Navigator deck, then I have to make it broad again (because its width has been
changed to the value of the Property deck).

In short, if there are practical reasons (such as described here) to want
different width decks, then these settings are constantly lost in changing
decks (i.e., this suggestion comes from practical experience/frustration with
using the Sidebar, not hypothetical "what if" thinking).


Therefore the suggestion to allow users to set (and keep) widths that fit their
needs.    

3. (Would it be hard to add this flexibility as a "customization" option?)

Thanks for consideration.

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