Reproducible in:

Version: 7.6.0.0.alpha0+ (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community
Build ID: 4e4a31ac7d920c71e26ca4acd18c11ec2bd015bb
CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 5.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3
Locale: en-AU (en_AU.UTF-8); UI: en-US
Calc: threaded

I think it may require evaluation from the UX team

Intentionally done for bug 79312. Imagine when you click Ignore or Correct and the dialog closes.

The so-called "fix" appears to be short-sighted.  The proposal assumes that a programmer cannot think of another way to do the job.

As one example, there are already flaws in the existing dialog box, such as a pop-up that asks if one wished to start at the beginning of the document.  When that closes, the focus of the dialog box is lost.  Oops.

No, the whole thing deserves a re-think and re-program.  The basic assumption is that the buttons all work the same.  That is incorrect.

I was selecting the Spelling Check button; not a Grammar Check button.  These are two separate and distinct functions.

I could go on, but there is no point.  If the idea of separate functions is not understood, then the whole issue cannot be corrected.

No question that this dialog offers plenty of room for improvements. But requesting to automatically close when done would be a mistake in most scenarios. And was rejected therefore in the past.

As I already pointed out, that is just short-sighted, and actually sort of sad.  After starting a project, to just stop improving it is a waste and indicates it should never have been started in the first place.

(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4)
> requesting to automatically close when done would be a mistake in most
> scenarios. And was rejected therefore in the past.
That is not really the scenario presented here. OP is talking about a popup confirmation dialog (either "spell check is complete (OK)" or "Continue checking at beginning of document (NO)").

Especially "spell check is complete" ought to just close the dialog, since the dialog at that point can do nothing more.

Granted, with "Continue...", the user would be able to "resume" by choosing "ignore once", so perhaps it could be justified to keep the dialog open in this case, but that seems somewhat far-fetched. After all, the user DID say they didn't want the spell check to continue..., and it isn't hard for the user to restart the spell check if they closed in error. (The only downside I can see is that Correct-All would be cleared.)

Yes, thank you for that clarification.  In all my experience with spell checking, one does the process and then the dialog should close if no more errors are found.

There are a couple competing concepts here.  First, the idea is that the selected or highlighted word is the one needing checking, and then nothing else.  The dialog box should close after that word alone is checked.

Second is that the user may wish to check other areas, and is given the opportunity to start at the beginning of the document.

But the compounding error is to lose the focus of the pop-up window after selecting not to continue.  So there it sets, just in the way of continuing one's work.  This requires the user to select it and then close it, or just select Close (which is not active); so either two or one additional steps for no reason.  That's just bad, non-intuitive programming.

The user can always select the icon again, as stated, if one wishes to check more.

In summary, the user highlights the word in question with a double-click and then selects the spell check icon.  If it is correctly spelled, the highlight simply goes away.  If it is not, then the dialog pops up with the suggestions.  Once the selection is made, the dialog must close.

If the user is wishing to check the whole document, then the selection of the icon should start the spell check dialog from where the cursor is, and continue forward and around to loop back to the cursor position at the end of the process.  Once all errors have been addressed, it should automatically close the dialog.

This seems intuitive.

(We must remember that we are doing spell check and not grammar check.  Though they can work in much the same way, they are separate and distinct functions.)

The code is in sw/source/uibase/dialog/SwSpellDialogChildWindow.cxx SwSpellDialogChildWindow::GetNextWrongSentence.

Sadly, there is no obvious way in here to trigger SpellDialog::Close (and my attempts to do so failed due to focus or some other low-level reason).
So, this does not work for example:
  SfxViewFrame::Current()->ToggleChildWindow(GetType());


(In reply to kitchm from comment #7)
> There are a couple competing concepts here.  First, the idea is that the
> selected or highlighted word is the one needing checking, and then nothing
> else.  The dialog box should close after that word alone is checked.
Why would you run the spell dialog for just one word? Just right-click (without selecting) on the word and chose a replacement.

I guess because I want to get it spelled correctly and not substituted?!?!?  Kinda what spell check is for.

(In reply to kitchm from comment #9)
The right-click context menu for a misspelled word is SpellPopup which is essentially the same as spell dialog - giving the same replacement suggestions. Basically everything you can do in the spell dialog is available in the context menu - including "Spell Dialog" itself.

(In reply to Justin L from comment #6)
> Especially "spell check is complete" ought to just close the dialog, since
> the dialog at that point can do nothing more.
Not entirely true. The "Options" button is a discoverable way to access the spelling options - including links to download a dictionary extension etc.

For example, on a blank document, the "finished" prompt shows up right away. So if the entire dialog closed automatically, then the user would no longer have access to that Options button. I imagine a similar situation would occur in a document written in a language without a matching dictionary. (Granted - these settings are also available via Tools - Options, so not an absolute blocker.)

Right, and the point of Options is that they should likely go somewhere else.  The spell check is for spell check.  Muddying it up with other things is not helpful, and is not what is normally done IMHO.

When I want spell check, that's all I want to do.  I believe that other users are like me in expecting to click on other menu items or use shortcut keys or an icon on a bar to do other things.  For instance, if I want to check the grammar, I select something else at the outset.

The options are settings which obviously should go somewhere else.  It is unlikely that I would ever change them while checking the spelling.  I would likely have the best choice of dictionary loaded at the outset and have no need to change it.  Further, I would not engage grammar tools and other somewhat associated items either.

What I have found is that the programmers of Writer have been reinventing the wheel and have no experience in other programs which went before.  Learning from the more mature programs is important here, and we are able to learn why things are the way they are.

I remember when the WordPerfect rep came to my store years ago and demonstrated the new version at that time.  He mentioned that they used the services and input from secretaries at the nearby multinational corporation to help design how things should work.  Asking how the pros needed things to work served us all very well, and created a legendary product.  There was a reason that secretaries, lawyers and English professors used that product.

We learned, for instance, that the best way to create a document was to type as fast as one could as the thoughts flowed.  After that, the spell check was selected.  Then some basic formatting was carried out.  And finally, the grammar check was done with a focus upon the intended audience.  These are separate steps, and fast typists do not want to waste keystrokes at all.  They literally hate it, because it gets in the way of the thought processes.  Anything, anything at all, that interrupts that flow is very bad, and the word processor must be as unobtrusive as possible.  Writer just gets in the way too much.

(In reply to kitchm from comment #12)
> Right, and the point of Options is that they should likely go somewhere
> else.  The spell check is for spell check.  Muddying it up with other things
> is not helpful, and is not what is normally done IMHO.
It absolutely is helpful. Another example is if you have a word that you want to "add to dictionary", and don't have a dictionary setup for that, then options allows you to easily do it in the context of spell-checking.

Many users (probably most) feel completely differently about this than you do. See bug 143689, bug 156476, and bug 168144.

It does sound as though choosing a particular dictionary is something that goes into setup prior to spell check usage.  Or is that too obvious for the app?  I see it as what is actually meant by the word Options.  We find that right under Tools and right next to Customize.  All those are settings.

What you mentioned, on the other hand, was adding a new word to a dictionary, which most applications which offer that choice do right during spell check.  That is not an option in programming parlance.  It is more appropriately an offer to save a word.  But isn't that already done?

My objection to the current situation has nothing to do with adding a word to a dictionary or even selecting a dictionary.  It has to do with usability of the flawed interface and the needed streamlining of it.  I have yet to read an example of why closing the dialog box when done with its primary function is a problem.

By the way, is there some way to setup a poll to check on user's wishes?

Thank you.