Every entry in the animations list contains: * The shape/object name * The shape/object text * The effect category * The effect name * Indication of whether it's on-click or not ... and this takes up two lines. Sometimes, you only care about some of these items. It would be convenient to be able to not-show some of them, limit the area or squeeze some of them (e.g. effect category into a single character or an icon) and then finally maybe fit the remaining ones into a single line, doubling the number of visible elements at a time. A prefs UI somewhere for controlling this would be nice. Can be document-level, or app-level.
Same feeling here. I mentioned something similar at bug 151377 comment 9. However, I was looking at font spacing. This might be a better solution.
I would also like to be able not to see: Shape "Foo" for a shape named "Foo", but rather just: Foo But I'm not sure whether I want this to be user-controlled, or just the second option always.
This topic has been reported multiple times now. And I still disagree with less information (happy to help on bug 151377 with a collapsible section). Thing is that you save the second line by adding the effect on the first. If you drop the object type you rely on the naming (or get just numbers) and putting the effect info behind makes the list hard to read and likely overflow. I also doubt that many users have very small screens and uses more than 10 animations per slide so often. In the end I suggest to make this ticket a duplicate of one of Telesto's requests.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) > This topic has been reported multiple times now. And I still disagree with > less information (happy to help on bug 151377 with a collapsible section). That bug is about a different part of the animation side-bar, not the list of animation effects. > I also doubt that many users have very small screens and uses more than 10 > animations per slide so often. Users using animation effects have over 10 effects per slide quite often. Just a gradual entrance and a single transformation for, say, 4 objects gets you to 8. If you have a couple of paragraphs of text as well you're at 10 for just the appearance. But many many people's laptops aren't 1920-pixels tall. On my laptop, it's 768 pixels. > Thing is that you save the second line by adding the effect on the first. If > you drop the object type you rely on the naming (or get just numbers) and > putting the effect info behind makes the list hard to read and likely > overflow. You are right, in the sense that certain changes might be a disservice to some users, while for others, the compact lines are an absolute must. And that's exactly why the user should be able to _control_ what they see in the animation list. A one-size-fits-all solution is not the right choice here.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) > I also doubt that many users have very small screens There where quite some changes to adapt dialogs to small/low resolution screens :-). And what do you call a small screen. I find the animation list already 'small' using a 23 inch, 1920x1080 screen. Presentations are often run from notebooks: even smaller screen dimensions, say: 15,6 inch > I also doubt that many users uses more than 10 animations per slide so often. * With fresh profile, default UI design, I can have 8 animations in a list without scrollbar. * We really need to establish some baseline how many animations a slide being to expected, and to be accounted for while design the UI. A example illustrating animations adding up: attachment 183294 [details]. And I have surely encountered more of these in the bugtracker in the past.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #4) > Users using animation effects have over 10 effects per slide quite often. That's a wild guess (mine is <5 animations based on what I've seen over the years). With user metrics you could support either your or my position. (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #4) > That bug is about a different part of the animation side-bar... If you think this part is worth a separate ticket you should keep it. However, the dialog is one ui file and if you change one control it will affect the other too.
"Options > LibreOffice Impress > View" is currently pretty light in options, I could imagine a setting like "Compact listing of animations", if it's something that has been requested by various users. It could toggle a one-line display of animations with only icons for Category and Start settings, and ellipsed strings for the rest (making sure that screen readers are not affected by the change). The sidebar deck is already quite busy so I wouldn't want to see such a setting clutter it further.
(In reply to Stéphane Guillou (stragu) from comment #7) > if it's something that has been requested by various users. Do remember that we have a massive, and non-uniform, under-reporting phenomenon with bugs and feature requests. I've filed several RTL bugs for example which I had noted _years_ before, but they were so fundamental and straightforward that it just didn't occur to me to file them, since it was just "how things are". It's the same with the UI: Most people don't file "scrap the way things are now and do something else" issues, but at most "improve the way things are now" issues. And even those are under-reported. > It could toggle a > one-line display of animations with only icons for Category and Start > settings, and ellipsed strings for the rest (making sure that screen readers > are not affected by the change). A binary option of one-line vs two-line would be an improvement, but I have the feeling that different people would want different bits of information on the single line. > The sidebar deck is already quite busy so I wouldn't want to see such a > setting clutter it further. Well... this should actually make it less cluttered: A one-line-per-item mode seems less cluttered, and in one can remove unnecessary information from the display that helps further.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #8) > A binary option of one-line vs two-line would be an improvement, but I have > the feeling that different people would want different bits of information > on the single line. I would be against such an extreme level of customisation of this part of the UI - unless someone is willing to set that up in expert configuration. > Well... this should actually make it less cluttered: A one-line-per-item > mode seems less cluttered, and in one can remove unnecessary information > from the display that helps further. I guess other sidebars have view settings in the sidebar, like Styles. But I would certainly be against having the level of granularity you are asking for inside this sidebar. As to a single "compact view" toggle, I could be convinced.
(In reply to Stéphane Guillou (stragu) from comment #9) > I would be against such an extreme level of customisation of this part of > the UI - unless someone is willing to set that up in expert configuration. So, let's start with the binary option and see whether people complain :-) I don't think it's that outlandish, considering our Toolbar and Menu customizability. Plus, there's another in-between possibility, which is having a number of fixed layouts that's higher than two.