[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 135501] Change the default UI (see comment 67)

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135501

--- Comment #104 from John Mills <jmills59 at yahoo.com> ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #103)
> (In reply to Pedro from comment #102)

> 
> * KOffice - menus & toolbars (abandoned in 2015 but you said past 15 years)
DEAD
> * AbiWord - menus & toolbars (although it's just a Writer alternative)
Basically on life support and not an office suite, just a word processor
> * Calligra - toolbar and vertical-tabbed sidebar
Linux Only
> * NeoOffice - menus & toolbars
Mac Only
> 
> and the only one on that list with tabs seems to be OnlyOffice. If you count
> commercial office suites, you do find more ribbons (SoftMaker, OfficeSuite,
> WPS), but then there's also iWork with its minimalist interface (I believe
> they're not hiding tabs but feel free to correct me). So, with the
> commercial ones, you still only get to, say, around half. Not "every"
> alternative".

This is factually not correct, iWorks is not commercial in the sense I can not
purchase a copy, it is Mac only and comes for free with your system if you need
it. How is that half of commercial office suites on your list? Every other
defaults to a tabbed interface and there are certainly others you have not
added in your list such as the excellent Korean Hancom office.

> > Furthermore, the users whose experience you want
> > to defend actually do have problems in adapting from a Ribbon UI to the
> > Standard Toolbar.
> 
> There is some adaptation, granted; but as discussed above - the adaptation
> is important and beneficial.

What is the essential part? That you force a user to 'unlearn' everything they
know about an office suite interface? Where is the benefit, could you expound
upon this assertion? 

> > Just go to any comment section of a LibO release to notice that.

> > The Standard UI is a fossil from a different computing era.
> 
> Well, it seems that statistically, that's not actually the case; and you've
> only based this statement on the statistical claim.


I would say based upon your previous statement it is your statistical claim in
error and not that from Pedro.

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