FW: Smart-Art in Writer - Correct 'Import' approach ?
vmiklos at suse.cz
Tue Sep 3 06:48:38 PDT 2013
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:26:31PM +0300, Adam Fyne <adam.fyne at cloudon.com> wrote:
> > > we would like to change this and show the user a *locked* bitmap of the
> > > smart-art, that the user cannot manipulate (so that he can at least
> > > preserve the original Smart-Art).
> > What is the benefit of this, from a user's point of view?
> Because at this phase, we are not going to add logic to 'manipulate' the
> Smart-Art object,
> so if a user is allowed to changed the location of the shapes, and then
> saves back the file - and opens it in Word -
> he won't understand why his 'changes' to the shapes weren't persisted.
> That's why we believe it is best to simply not allow any changes, because
> they won't be persisted anyway.
Hmm, when we discussed the InteropGrabBag idea in the ESC call, AIUI the
proposed solution for the "attached unhandled meatada vs user editing"
problem was to empty the InteropGrabBag in case the user edits the
object in question:
"invalidate on copy/mutate"
This way, in case of no editing, the metadata is kept, in case of
editing, the edited object is exported as a normal groupshape and the
user's modifications win over the unhandled metadata.
> The idea was to show a single pop-up for 'all Smart-Art' objects in the
> file - asking
> "do you want to convert the Smart-Art in this file to simple shapes (and
> lose functionallity) or preserve the original Smart-Art objects ?"
Ah, that sounds better. And then would you do this for all filters that
may contain smartart: PPTX, DOCX, XLSX? (Not sure if we support smartart
inside XLSX ATM.) If so, opinion from someone hacking Impress would be
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the LibreOffice