LO has a useful categorized set of shapes, accessible via category button-dialogs/sub-toolbars on the Drawing toolbar, and in some modules through the Shapes sidebar. I find this UI well-designed, easy to grasp quickly, with its capabilities easily committed to memory and becoming "accessible-by-reflex" almost. At the same time, we have someplace else from which we can introduce shapes into a document: Shapes with the Gallery. Here, * Categorization is rough and inaccurate, with categories overlapping * Shapes are mixed with non-"shape" media, and it's not clear * Ordering seems arbitrary (it's actually by gallery item name, but one only notices that if using an icon+name view) * Choices involving multiple irrelevant features: Fill type and color, extrusion choice etc. - masking the structural differences between shapes. Example: The stars. * Many choices are completely redundant with shapes available via the toolbars, such as rectangular textboxes (many of these), many of the arrows etc. This is exacerbated by the paucity of shape control logic, e.g. in the example of the stars - one could replace ~10 stars by a single star with a variable number of points. The result is the gallery having low-usability IMHO for finding useful shapes, with the sense that it's "a pile of mostly-irrelevant stuff". And yet, it does have several items which might have been added to the shapes sidebar / sub-toolbars, with appropriate icons emphasizing their essence. I'm not advocating for the removal of the gallery of course. But the question of its role in holding shapes vis-a-vis the shapes sidebar / sub-toolbars needs to be given more consideration IMO.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0) > I'm not advocating for the removal of the gallery of course. But the > question of its role in holding shapes vis-a-vis the shapes sidebar / > sub-toolbars needs to be given more consideration IMO. Doesn't the one contradicts the other? The Gallery sidebar allows easy storage of artwork via drag'n drop from the document canvas, it can be enhanced via extensions, and provides a WYSIWYG preview. The focus is primarily on clipart. In general it is beneficial to have alternative access to the same functions (eg. via main menu, toolbar, context menu - and sidebar). Shortcomings of the Gallery are collected on the META ticket. See also https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/The_Gallery_LibreOffice https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/lo/text/shared/guide/dragdrop_gallery.html https://documentation.libreoffice.org/assets/Uploads/Documentation/en/DG7.6/DG76-DrawGuide.pdf => NAB/INV
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > easy storage of artwork ... the focus is primarily on clipart ... Ah, but there's the rub: There's "art", and there are more basic shapes. Certainly, a rectangle or a line are not "art". Above some point of collation/complection, curation of content in a gallery makes sense; below that point - pieces, components, parts - do not belong in a gallery. IMNSHO.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #2) > ...rectangle or a line are not "art" Some make a living of lines https://www.bada.org/object/set-6-picasso-line-drawings Seriously, I see no point in restricting the Gallery to only raster graphics. If you, for example, manage to create square brackets with an attached pointer, you could save this object in the Gallery under My Callouts.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #2) > > ...rectangle or a line are not "art" > Some make a living of lines > https://www.bada.org/object/set-6-picasso-line-drawings Come on, Heiko... those are drawings which _use_ lines, are _made up_ of lines. They are not a single straight line, nor an undrawn line which one draws on insertion.
Not getting the need to remove the Shape category from the Gallery deck. Sure, for bug 131779, Andreas removed the legacy "clipart" bitmaps and replaced with assemblages of actual ODF editable drawing objects (though I'd argue there is a place for packaging of SVG artwork and a selection of Emoji (non-font based) for use on canavas. Point is there is a continued distinction between the Sidebar Shapes deck and the Shapes content panel of the Gallery deck--they server different work flows and are the target for extension content. Think of the residual Gallery -> Shapes panel as a place holder for previous "clipart" and future artwork contributions. IMHO => NAB/WF
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #5) > Not getting the need to remove the Shape category from the Gallery deck. I did not suggest that's what should happen. What I'm asking for is discussion, and a clearer/better conception of the delimitation of functionality: What should go where. > Point is there is a continued distinction between the Sidebar Shapes deck > and the Shapes content panel of the Gallery deck--they server different work > flows and are the target for extension content. Think of the residual > Gallery -> Shapes panel as a place holder for previous "clipart" and future > artwork contributions. That is what I'm thinking; but a lot of what I'm seeing in Gallery > Shapes doesn't fit the definition of art, but of more basic shapes (sometimes with arbitrary styling for the sense of variety, which is IMHO just a useless distraction) - which I expect elsewhere. Or which I actually _see_ elsewhere.
We discussed the topic in the design meeting. In addition to the comments here, the Gallery is a place for various content being sorted currently by tasks mostly. If we remove the line drawings, for example, it might become more polished but we loose functionality. Nevertheless some items might be worth to challenge. In the end this ticket is not actionable => WF.