Description: You can edit the style of foot-/endnotes. If you edit an endnote it shows you the (combined) editor window for foot- and endnotes and starts you in the footnotes. Suggestion: Start in the tab for *end*notes (and not the section of the *foot*notes) when you edit *end*notes Steps to Reproduce: 1. Add an end note 2. Right click on the end note and select the end note edit menu Actual Results: Even you edit an end note, it starts you off in the footnote. Expected Results: When I edit an *end*note I would expect it to start in the end note section. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: First I was very confused why it wouldn't change the way how endnotes are counted (i., ii., iii.; A), B, C); 1), 2), 3); etc.) or add any text before or after the endnote. I was already testing the option to file a bug report when I saw that I was in the section of the *foot*notes the entire time. I didn't even think about checking this because when I right click on an *end*note to edit them, I wouldn't expect to end up in the section of the *foot*notes. My suggestion: If you edit an *end*note, you start in the tab where you can edit end notes.
Created attachment 187112 [details] Foot- and endnote edit window To get to this window you 1) Add an endnote 2) Right click the end note end select the Foot/Endnote edit option You are placed in the tab for *foot*notes instead of the tab for *end*notes
Created attachment 187113 [details] Foot- and endnote edit window-video What it looks like when you edit an add and edit an end note: Nothing happens (because you actually edit the *foot*notes and not the *end*notes). As said: I didn't even expect that I would have to check what type of note I was editing because I right clicked on an endnote.
This is the 'Footnotes and Endnotes...' dialog titled "Settings of Footnotes and Endnotes" [1] exposed on context menu of a reference's entry. Confirm the default opening tab is to 'Footnotes' formatting, even if called from an Endnote entry. @Heiko, since entry type calling the dialog is known (i.e. its context) seems reasonable to open to the appropriate tab on the dialog? IIRC HIG is silent on the matter of dialog default tabs. Version: 7.6.0.0.alpha0+ (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 2eb3922750b385dcadfd124d7baf686cec40eb5e CPU threads: 8; OS: Windows 10.0 Build 19045; UI render: default; VCL: win Locale: en-US (en_US); UI: en-US Calc: threaded =-ref-= [1] .uno:CurrentFootnoteDialog [2] footendnotedialog.ui
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #3) > HIG is silent on the matter of dialog default tabs. If tabs are unrelated it shouldn't be shown together. But since we have the situation I agree with switching left or right.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #3) > > HIG is silent on the matter of dialog default tabs. > > If tabs are unrelated it shouldn't be shown together. So split the dialog into two separate dialogs? That seems like a lot of duplication here given the dialog is just the two tabs. And too complicated to reformat as a single dialog panel. > > But since we have the situation I agree with switching left or right. Responding to the reference type in use and set either as Endnote or as Footnote, so open onto the correct tab. As indicated, landing on the wrong dialog tab can go unnoticed leading to wasted effort or actual content corruption. This would improve work flows for both reference styles.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #5) > > If tabs are unrelated it shouldn't be shown together. > So split the dialog into two separate dialogs? *Hide* the tab that is not relevant. No more effort than enabling the right one, question is if users expect mixed workflows (setup of end-/footnotes a priori or changing one vs. both later by starting from one).
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #6) > > So split the dialog into two separate dialogs? > > *Hide* the tab that is not relevant. No more effort than enabling the right > one, question is if users expect mixed workflows (setup of end-/footnotes a > priori or changing one vs. both later by starting from one). +1