Description: All hidden styles were made visible in the hierarchical Styles deck view in response to bug 119919. This was a mistake. I agree that it made no sense to detach derivative styles of hidden styles from the hierarchy and continue to display them. But the solution should have been to either (1) hide the entire subtree when a parent style is hidden or (2) only do the greyed-out thing when the style has children but hide the style completely when it’s a leaf. At this point, solution 2 would be the obvious incremental fix. For motivation, just consider list styles. There are no fewer than 40 default list styles inheriting from “List”. For reasons I do not understand, they cannot be deleted. Worse, not even their names can be changed, yet the default names are not semantic. “List 1”, “List 2”, etc. mean nothing. So the user must either assign them meaning mentally or create custom styles and ignore the defaults. But ignoring them is hard since they greatly outnumber any custom list styles in a typical template. It’s not a great situation. Steps to Reproduce: 1. In the Styles deck, hide a style that has no child styles. Actual Results: The style continues to be visible in the "Hierarchical" view. Expected Results: The style is actually hidden unless the "Hidden Styles" view is selected. This used to be the case before. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: -
Thanks for the suggestion. I agree option (2) sounds good, but I don't have a strong opinion. Let's see what the UX/Design team says, and maybe Jim has an opinion too?
The hierarchy is not a strong relation as not all attributes become derived. You can hide Body Text but keep the children "Lists" visible.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2) > The hierarchy is not a strong relation as not all attributes become derived. > You can hide Body Text but keep the children "Lists" visible. So let's go with (2)?
I wouldn't hide a node in some situations, but open for more opinions.
The actual underlying issue is the large number of default styles, the majority of which are irrelevant for most documents and some of which (list paragraph styles) do not even perform their intended task unless reconfigured by the user, one by one. Do they all really need to exist? The ability to hide styles completely would not be important if it were possible to start out with a much more pared-down set of defaults. The hiding feature in its current form would actually become useful when no longer needed as a poor substitute for deleting unwanted styles.
(In reply to bintoro from comment #5) > The actual underlying issue is the large number of default styles... Agreed, although some are used for wizards (eg. letter) and not so easy to identify as obsolete. Bug 140544 was an earlier attempt to clean-up, bug 155054 supports your notion, maybe there are more tickets about this. We could hide all level >3 but is this really an improvement?
We discussed this topic in the design meeting. If we hide styles, users might not aware of it. And the number of items that come into question is low, so the benefit is little anyway. Plus, the Stylist has plenty of filters to adjust the view, and we should not make it even more harder to use. => WF