Created attachment 157257 [details] mockup of an landing page The actual LibreOffice options start page (landing page) show Address stuff and Cryptography stuff. There is an long discussion about make an simple and advanced option section. As the discussion didn't result in an change I would say the result is no result and no result mean no change. Anyway I like the idea of an simple and advanced section but I don't think an complete rewrite of the UI is needed. There is an user survey which options the different user groups use and the user how we design the UI didn't use that much options, so why we want add this view options to an new landing page and that's it. So everything is available as it is now (for all our existing users) but in addition the most used options are available it the first page in addition.
Created attachment 157258 [details] Benjamin landing page This are the options Benjamin need. fyi we don't have to discuss which configuration is needed and not, cause this was already done. The question is only, do we want an landing page for Configure in addition to the existing stuff.
> we don't have to discuss which configuration is needed and not > cause this was already done. Really, where? > The question is only, do we want an landing page for Configure in addition > to the existing stuff. The "landing" page usually provides information how to use the other pages. It tells the user what she can do here. The mockup duplicates some options but gives no hint about what's possible.
Created attachment 157261 [details] Mockup Mockup for a comprehensive overview with access to the respective options. I'm aware that we cannot list everything and may easily exceed the available space meaning we have to ignore some potentially important information. There is the request to bring together all modules (bug 101609) and we should clean the hierarchy (eg. personalization could be with view).
Hm. I think additional text and pages makes it more complex for normal users than it's now. Who should read it and why not the 'real/full' page? And it will add more content for localization, discussions about what should be shown and what not, etc.
(In reply to Thomas Lendo from comment #4) > Hm. I think additional text and pages makes it more complex for normal users > than it's now. I wonder if it's even possible to pare down what's already there, given I don't currently have access to user feedback. (Survey? Interviews?) Users probably aren't using many of the options that already exist- perhaps we can figure out which ones to eliminate?
(In reply to Thomas Lendo from comment #4) > Hm. I think additional text and pages makes it more complex for normal users > than it's now. Who should read it and why not the 'real/full' page? One page to start with, including MostUsedSettings, doesn't sound as a bad plan to me, though.
*** Bug 128722 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2) > > we don't have to discuss which configuration is needed and not > > cause this was already done. > > Really, where? https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/cPGtpCTJKTLRNBF
> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/cPGtpCTJKTLRNBF Benjamin and Eve Options: ========================= LibreOffice - User Data (Address) - View (Icon style and size + antialiasing) - Path (paths) - Personalization (Firefox Themes) unmaintained so I would not have it there Language - Languages (UI, lcale, decimale separator, currency, date) Writer - General (Units, Tab stop) - View (Helpline while moving, Images, Tables, Rulers, Smooth scroll) - Formatting Aids (Paragraph end, Soft hyphen,... - Mail Merge E-Mail Calc - General (Units) - View (Formula, zero values, grid lines, color, page break, headers, scrollbars, sheet tabs, ...) - Grid Draw/Impress - General (copy when moving, cache, units) - Grid - Start with Template Section (impress) that's not to much options from my point of view for Benjamin (ordinary user) AND EVE (advanced user)
(In reply to andreas_k from comment #8) > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/cPGtpCTJKTLRNBF Ouos, did that myself ;-) (but it's a singular opinion nothing we discussed in detail)
In comment 9 you see the settings for Benjamin and Eve and it can fit on one page only admin options wasn't shown.
(In reply to jackandmixers from comment #5) > Users probably aren't using many of the options that already exist- perhaps > we can figure out which ones to eliminate? Current settings in the options dialog were carefully and well discussed implemented/rearranged/removed/added. For limited range of the options, a bug can created and discussed. Nothing is perfect and needs can change. But not for the whole thing at once which would a massive overhaul changing hundrets of details. Not all parties that have to bring in their thoughts will take part of the discussion in a bug. And it's confusing to discuss so many changes at once. But to come back to this request: I still don't understand the benefit to have a third options configuration (options dialog for average users, expert configuration for advanced users and third and new: one or several overviews for beginners). Options dialogs always are not designed for beginners. That's the inherent reason for it. A program should be designed to fulfill beginners' needs. Options are fore fine tuning extended needs. So, the request counteracts to the sense of options. IMHO.
(In reply to Thomas Lendo from comment #12) > I still don't understand the benefit to have a third options configuration > (options dialog for average users, expert configuration for advanced users > and third and new: one or several overviews for beginners). Options dialogs > always are not designed for beginners. That's the inherent reason for it. A > program should be designed to fulfill beginners' needs. Options are fore > fine tuning extended needs. So, the request counteracts to the sense of > options. IMHO. I start this request for exact that reason I don't see an benefit to have an simple/advanced options dialog (Bug 90989) AND to reinvest the wheel. There are a lot of users out there and I don't want to implement the options dialog cause it could maybe an advantage. But I also think that the User Data Options page is not the perfect first place to start with options, cause the Address blog has so much private content and the Cryptography is nothing an user can setup without an administrator. So this it the idea of use the existing system and extend it with one additional tab where you get an overview what you can configure with LibO so something like KDE did https://kde.org/announcements/plasma-5.11/system-settings.png That's the reason I like the mockup from Heiko where you can't edit stuff on the main page, but you can see the settings and jump to the settings correct page, without to know where the option is located. https://bug-attachments.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=157261 So the main goal is to use the existing system and improve it for better navigation without reinvest the wheel.
We should also take into account that root nodes don't have a content. Meaning: if you are on User Data and click Language Settings, the shown tab doesn't change. Same happens when on Languages clicking at the first node. An option could be to show the first entry below this node - or we create special tabs.
(In reply to andreas_k from comment #13) > So this it the idea of use the existing system and extend it with one > additional tab where you get an overview what you can configure with LibO so > something like KDE did > https://kde.org/announcements/plasma-5.11/system-settings.png > > That's the reason I like the mockup from Heiko where you can't edit stuff on > the main page, but you can see the settings and jump to the settings correct > page, without to know where the option is located. > https://bug-attachments.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=157261 > > So the main goal is to use the existing system and improve it for better > navigation without reinvest the wheel. If it's only to _show_ existing settings without the possibility to change it (also) here, then I have no objections.
Reading this again after a while I think it's a bottomless pit. The use case is not really clear (who need the overview and why?). Nor what exactly should be on this page. Could imagine that many users change other options than me and do not benefit at all from my fix set of "most important" options. Opinions?
This is a never ending and recurring discussion as long as there are "empty" or "starting" program option pages. Better will be to get rid of them.
> Reading this again after a while I think it's a bottomless pit. > The use case is not really clear (who need the overview and why?). Agree with Heiko here. If we do not have a good way to get usage data on this or copy a industry wide best practice, I would leave it as it is.
We discussed this topic in the design meeting. The landing page is known from Internet sites but less familiar on desktop software. Listing a few items there has no good benefit for users and wont solve issues with the dialog. So the verdict is WF.