[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 132864] Harmony in position settings of different objects

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132864

Telesto <telesto at surfxs.nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |---

--- Comment #3 from Telesto <telesto at surfxs.nl> ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2)
> (In reply to Telesto from comment #0)
> > And so on and so on.. not going to write down all objects and settings..
> > Point is, Benjamin gets a headache of all those different positional
> > settings.
> 
> And QA gets migraine on tickets without a clear issue :-)
> 
> We definitely cannot reduce the amount of use cases that condense in a
> complexity of the UI. And it's wrong to lump all objects together: while we
> went with To Character for images it makes not much sense for floating
> objects that are typically placed in front or behind some other. And the
> fontwork is such an object.
> 
> Happy to bring more consistency into the program but this ticket is too
> generic.

If you stick with the description yes, didn't write down much..  The STR is
report is rather specific. Or do I really need to add 20 bug reports for every
object separately ...

This is not about: Anchoring (floating); Not about wrapping, but about the
position and size settings when inserting an object

Fontwork: Position is defined on insertion
Horizontal From left Paragraph *text* area. 
Vertical from Top Paragraph *text* area.

Textbox 
Position is defined on insertion
Horizontal From left to paragraph area. 
Vertical From top Margin (expected)

Image
Position is defined on insertion
Horizontal: Center + paragraph area. 
Vertical: Top & Margin

Why needs an image.. be inserted centered on Top..
And is the position of a textbox added on From left to paragraph area. From top
Margin

This is not 'about' direct direct issue, but about something better not set
this way. With a multitude of different positional settings for objects without
having a clear functional advantage. I prefer a document with limited
positional settings of objects, instead of all sorts of vertical/horizontal
positional settings as a default

The answer to my issue should be quite easy... Ever settings on insertion
(wrap/anchoring/positional horizontal/vertical) is documented by UX for all
objects. Because it all are design decisions.. And all defaults are documented
in a specification manual (for UX and DEV) with a clear line of argumentation.
Even if they are made in StarOffice times.. And the logic is reconsidered every
(say five? years). The world changes..

So my issue can easily answer.. (a) list all the default settings for each and
every object (b) with an explanation why it chosen (And there is no effort in
it, reference to a documentation; not split over years in a multitude of
UX-sessions.. but the documentation for the current state). And the rationale
why image pasted from Impress is different from one inserted in Writer (no
there isn't, legacy story). And all those issues are documented and on the
radar of UX as well; Everything would be explainable, even if long standing
members with lots of knowledge would disappear (Note: I'm not considering
myself as a long standing member, so i'm missing out on a lot of things)

So is there an actual issue with a specific object/insertion. No. The issue is
at a higher level.. Why use some many different settings, if you can keep
simpler by default (and less prone to errors). There are already quite a number
of crashes related to type anchoring type. No crash with paragraph a crash with
to character.. Or visa versa. File saved with to character opening with to
paragraph anchor.. 
5 anchors.. 6 wraps settings (multiple with contours enabled). And
object/position settings horizontal 4 (Left/ Right/ Center/From left) and 8
(area definitions). Again the same for vertical. Not even considering rotation
& crop

So the number of possibility's add up

-- 
My bug reports surely not perfect. However there is sometimes some
unwillingness to read between the lines. There is also some kind of double
standard. I have to write a detailed report.. while people 'in charge' can go
with a simple yes/no. Without even proper explanation for the current state..

Yes, you can state current setting works; there is no issue. However, something
similar can be said for every dialog. Or you should stop redesign dialogs, as
to old ones function (and new ones can cause issues too: Printer Dialog)). Btw,
why configuration dialogs. UI configuration is only modification is only a few
clicks away in a xcu file.. so why to trouble design a gui for it ;-).

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