I would like to sort a User-Defined Index. This Index is built from paragraph style. Currently, I can't specify how to order it and I think the default sort is by apparition order in document. Create an alphabetical user-defined would be a good feature. This sort could be selected in index option : by apparition in document or by alphabetic text entries.
Asking for a bit of design team input.
How would you like to sort the index? We would need to find a solution that fits also "normal" types. So perhaps "Sort by" (o) Document sequence ( ) Reverse order ( ) Alphabetically Doesn't convince me. TOCs are typically sorted by the page number (which is the document sequence) and your particular use case may be solved rather by Endnotes or other references. Setting NEW to get more opinions, mine is WONTFIX. PS: Apparition is a nice substitute for appearance :-).
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2) > Doesn't convince me. TOCs are typically sorted by the page number (which is > the document sequence) and your particular use case may be solved rather by > Endnotes or other references. Setting NEW to get more opinions, mine is > WONTFIX. Indeed, User-Defined Index, built from paragraph style, is a way to get a TOC.
@lafeuil: (In reply to lafeuil from comment #0) > Create an alphabetical user-defined would be a good feature. Can you please convince us why this would be the case :) ?
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #4) > Can you please convince us why this would be the case :) ? In my document, I have a lot of technical words. I explain each word in the footer. And, at the end of the document, I would like to create a glossary with all definitions. So, I apply a special paragraph style to definition in footers and I create a user-defined index with this style. But I can't order it by alphabetical order. I have found a workaround : I had to set my index as editable and order manually with tools 'Sort' (Menu Tools > Sort). But, after each update entries of my index, I had to sort it again. For Example : Ubuntu [1] is a Debian[2]-based Linux[3] operating system for personal computers [...] ------------ (Footer) -------- [1] Ubuntu : Linux distribution based on Debian [2] Debian : Linux distribution [3] Linux : Operating System ------ (End of document) ------ Glossary Debian : Linux distribution Linux : Operating System Ubuntu : Linux distribution based on Debian Thomas
Created attachment 128404 [details] User-defined vs. Alphabetical index Why don't you use an alphabetical index?
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #6) > Created attachment 128404 [details] > User-defined vs. Alphabetical index > > Why don't you use an alphabetical index? With an alphabetical index, I can't easily add the definition of the word in the footer. In the document, I can't refer to the index entry defined in the alphabetical index. So, I have to maintain the same definition in the index entries and in the document. With the User-defined index, I can maintain one reference of the definition. The definition is created in the document (in the footer) with a custom style. With this custom style, I can refer it in my index. I have to maintain a single list of definition in my document. Maybe, if the user experience was better with alphabetical index and index entries, I think I would use it. But there are some limitations : * you can't view all index entries or you have to maintain it in a text file. * you can't refer to an index entry in the document. The alphabetical index is more complicated to manage than a user-defined index and I proposed this improvement because I thought it is not very complicated to implement it.
(In reply to lafeuil from comment #7) > ... I thought it is not very complicated to implement it. That might be true. But an alphabetical index and an user-defined index that can be sorted alphabetically adds confusion. In the long term we should come up with a better/easier solution. I have to admit that your workflow is still not entirely clear to me. The usual operation for footnotes is straightforward, so why do you add a ToC there (shouldn't it be restricted to the current page)? Anyway, the change is pretty simple and makes sense for the user-defined index, which has to be as flexible as possible. So I remove the needsUXEval and suggest to reuse what is there in the alphabetical index. Easyhack?
This is a quite complicated task, that might even call for a change in the odf format (to identify the new index type as "sorted User-Defined Index".
Usefulness of the requested feature is that the reader of the document learns description of the term on the page from the footer when reading that page, but the term might be used in other parts of the document so knowing there is something at the end (glossary) to refer to helps else they have to try to locate the (usually) first apparition. BTW I think LO is good for novice to intermediate users. It lacks the under the hood map for skilled users to do these types of plumbings. The problem is lack of documentation on these areas and sometimes functionality is buggy since few encounter such heights.
Please add keyword 'needsUXEval' and CC 'libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org' if input from UX is needed.