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

Wed May 25 15:07:43 UTC 2022

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

--- Comment #128 from Pedro <vermelhusco1904 at gmail.com> ---
I don't care about engaging in pointless discussions. 
I totally approve of (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #127)
> (In reply to Pedro from comment #126)
> > Why should we seek new users? 
> 
> You're using a straw man argument there. Mike did not suggest LO shouldn't
> seek new users.
> 
> > New users ... won't stick around to find
> > those distinctive features if they feel like they're fighting against the
> > UI, as compared with other office suites.
> 
> New users do not feel they are fighting against the UI. Also, new users who
> know different kinds of UI do not need an app to only have one of these
> kinds in order to stick around.

Okay, show me the evidence that proves otherwise. I am giving my personal
experience. I don't use Impress and Calc because I feel like I am fighting
against the UI plenty of times (in features not related to the Tabbed UI).

> > This same kind of discussion happened with GIMP. It eventually adopted a
> > single-window UI similar to Inkscape because it was easier for newcomers.
> > The classic UI could still be selected.
> 
> Actually, it's closer to the _opposite_ situation: We are arguing for using
> the same basic UI as Inkscape, and now GIMP, and most other apps in the
> world, which is easy enough for newcomers. (If MSO was using a GIMP-like
> interface, it would be the exact opposite).

Most other apps in the world besides the office suites that are used by the
overhwelming majority of PC users in the world. LibO is an office suite. I
couldn't care less about the UI paradigm of a vector design app, since it is
not in the same space as LibO. You talk about strawman argument: you employ so
many fallacies in your arguments that I can't even begin to count them. If you
want to make it personal please say so.

> > I would say that some people here need to come around to the fact that it's
> > been too long since standard toolbars are not the standard anymore for
> > Office suites. 
> 
> MSO does not define "the standard". 

MSO does effectively define "the standard". MSO is the de facto standard when
it is the most used suite in the world. Your hurt feelings don't change this.

> > And some people should understand the overwhelming majority
> > of LibO users are on Windows. Guess what's the most used UI in an Office suite in Windows?
> 
> It's the UI that MSO uses, since it's the most popular office suite on
> Windows. But guess what's the most used UI in application on Windows
> overall? 

I don't care what is the most used UI in applications on Windows overall. I
care about the competitors relevant to LibO. You don't because you personally
don't like it, just as you don't like hamburguer menus and other things. You
avoid making comparisons with the REAL targets of LibO because you dislike this
fact. You make up that LibO mainly competes with other FLOSS office suites when
its clearly stated goal is:

>We seek to eliminate the digital divide and empower all as full citizens, support the preservation of mother tongues, and avoid proprietary software and format lock-in.

https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/who-are-we/

Is LibO objetive to release users from the evil clutches of KOffice or AbiWord? 
Do we want to save users from the clutches of Adobe Photoshop or Mendeley or
video editors with menubars?
Stop being intelectually dishonest in your arguments. The purpose of LibO is to
target users of proprietary software and to spread open formats. MSO is the
antithesis of LibO and the purpose of LibO is to free its users from MSO
proprietary formats.
You don't do that by not catering to the userbase of Microsoft Office. 

> > Only in release 7.4 will it have support for the taskbar jump lists. A
> > feature that exists since at least Windows 7. The LibO build instructions
> > for Windows devs are terrible, no one also bothered to write a guide for WSL
> > build instructions, and without a software that is interesting and
> > attractive for Windows users and developers the state of the situation will
> > only worsen.
> 
> Ok, now _that_ is an important grievance. I was not aware of this (as a QA
> person, not a developer) and it should be brought up in the relevant forums.
> 
> > I don't agree with the "many" shortcomings.
> 
> Well, you'll need to convince enough of us that the Tabbed UI is superior.

I'm fully aware that you won't take your head out of the sand because it's more
important to win an Internet discussion than being productive. Go back and read
the mission statement of LibO. If you are in denial and don't want to achieve
that goal because your personal preference of UI is more important to you, then
you are not the kind of person I have to convince. 

> > I released a dark theme for Zotero with that in mind, and it was my joy to
> > try to fix the issues that new users detected and pointed out in it. 
> 
> > It made
> > it into a much better theme and attracted another dev which used it as the
> > base to make an awesome dark theme extension. Why shouldn't the focus be on
> > attracting new users? Answer me that.
> 
> To continue your analogy: If fixing those issues would cause less people to
> use your theme, what then?

Lol. 

> > Also, if you guys think the Tabbed UI is so bad then it shouldn't even be
> > available outside of experimental. You guys should advocate for its removal.
> 
> 1. That's a false dichotomy. If we followed this logic, then we would think
> that the tabbed UI proponents are actually out to remove the standard UI
> altogether. You aren't, hopefully. Some people will insist on a different
> UI; I can disagree with their choice but live with it. Different strokes for
> different folks etc.
> 2. Given the RTL issues, I'm not sure the Tabbed UI should have been made
> available outside of experimental builds. Nobody consulted us (= RTL QA
> people) about this.
> 
> > If it's so terrible for you, why keep it? Where was your feedback and help
> > when it was being developed?
> 
> 1. Again, it is not terrible, it's more detrimental than beneficial. True, I
> did say it "sucks", but that's in relative terms.
> 2. This was a personal GSoC project of an intern; nobody consulted us about
> it. Although maybe you mean Mike and people more central than myself, in
> which case let them answer that...

You can clearly see the bias you have in this. You are entrenched. The Tabbed
UI was not a GSoC project. It took a year and a half to make by Andreas Kainz
and was built on top of contributions of others. I assisted him. I opened a
multitude of bugs when we were developing. You didn't assist in this. It's easy
to criticize from the outside having done nothing to make it better. Windows
users needed this. I as a Windows user that WANTED this, assisted as much as
possible to make it as good as possible. And I am glad you don't have the
weight to remove it.
And yes, I want it as default on Windows. You can keep the standard toolbar as
default for Linux. I want that after the issues I mentioned are addressed.
I will stop wasting my time replying to you. You won the discussion by
exhausting me. Bravo!

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