Description: We have a feature-rich search and replace dialog that users avoid, are confused or simply don't understand that it's possible to use it for searches (that is not solely for replacements) We need to change the "Find and Replace" dialog so it has 2 tabs. To : - Reduce the number of buttons (Search button; Replace button -> to -> Find button) - Increase the discoverability of advance find options while keeping it simple (2 tabs, less competing items) and avoid confusion (I just want to find something using this advance options why do I need to fill the replace textbox?) and by making it the default in non Writer apps - Be more consistent with what people expect and are used to Steps to Reproduce: 1. press <CTRL+H> in writer or click on the magnifying glass button on the toolbar which shows a tooltip "Find and Replace". Actual Results: the user got intimidated by all the options and the find-n-replace edit boxes and closed the application. Expected Results: the user should not be confused/intimidated by the ui. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Yes Additional Info: Version: 25.2.4.3 (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 520(Build:3) CPU threads: 32; OS: Linux 6.12; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-US (en_US.UTF-8); UI: en-US Calc: threaded
I still don't see any benefit UX-team?
@Roman: “Still”? Sahil just posted his rationale!
Created attachment 202014 [details] find tab this is how the dialog looks now by default
Created attachment 202015 [details] replace tab when you click on the replace button, the replace controls show up.
(In reply to Adolfo Jayme Barrientos from comment #2) > @Roman: “Still”? Sahil just posted his rationale! We had some discussion about it in the Telegram, therefore "still"
(In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #5) > (In reply to Adolfo Jayme Barrientos from comment #2) > > @Roman: “Still”? Sahil just posted his rationale! > > We had some discussion about it in the Telegram, therefore "still" I see only one comment (other than Ring's) in the telegram discussion by (Jandit), don't know if that's you. The comment says """ - I agree that it makes sense to split search and replace (currently replace is implicitly triggered by putting text into replace) - It does not make it look simpler (still a lot of features that need buttons and whatnot) but it will most likely reduce mistakes I think because having search and replace in one window mixes two different features ("modes") in the same place. So while it might be "less UI elements" it can be more confusing as it is now """ i would like to know "how it would be more confusing" and the argument goes in circles, makes sense -> will reduce mistakes -> having in same window mixes the two -> less elements ==> more confusion. i presented my views in favor of the change, i can't make sense out of what's being said here. if you are not this person then please quote yourself from the discussion, or if you are then please state some solid reason reason like "i still don't see any benifit because ....so....and.....so....".
(In reply to Sahil Gautam from comment #0) > We have a feature-rich search and replace dialog that users avoid, are > confused or simply don't understand that it's possible to use it for > searches (that is not solely for replacements) Two issues: Users don't understand the F&R dialog as something to search (I don't see it) and the dialog is overly complex (I agree, but the tabs won't fix this issue - and make the interaction more complex). Another reason for tabs is familiarity with MSO - and I disagree with this reason. A solution for simple searches is the sidebar - I'd rather put more effort in this UI. (In reply to Sahil Gautam from comment #3) > this is how the dialog looks now by default Commented on Gerrit: The toggle buttons are not tabs, and the content is not properly placed.
Same topic: Bug 156493 - Split search for text and for style into two tabs in Find and Replace dialog
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #7) > Commented on Gerrit: The toggle buttons are not tabs, and the content is not > properly placed. Already in place for COOL but -WIP on master against 26.2 in https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/188305
We discussed the topic in the design meeting. The proposal removes two buttons and one input line on cost of two tabs. It might be inspired by MSO, but that does not always mean it's better. We should rather think about a larger overhaul of the dialog. An alternative to the tabs might be turning the label "Replace" into a checkbox. And hide the controls if unchecked. Anyway, the recommendation is to resolve this idea as WF.
hi, do we have some consensus here? There is proposal patch from Sahil done already: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/194143 It's done via toggle buttons to avoid costly (and potentialy dangerous) rework of a dialog to use "tabs". Checkbox could be used too in that way. Anyway: I like the idea of "smaller number of buttons" in "find" tab. It's easier to operate "without thinking" :) // Just my opinion here.
> There is proposal patch from Sahil done already: > https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/194143 Regards the initial patch [1] think UX consensus was => WF for splitting dialog into two tabs. Checkbox or buttons still potential to expose the replacement controls. But Heiko had -2 the original as it was not the tabs of the summary and he had concerns with the calculating dialog size and misplacement of other buttons. The new patch is changed to use GtkToggleButton--but we don't know about effects on dialog size and other buttons. But I am fine with the button/rb/checkbox to expose the replacement controls. Replacement controls no longer exposed in the dialog by default. But, since its already merged (as buttons) to CO 25.04 [1], maybe some annotated notes with screen clips of what would change should this also be implemented on LO? =-ref-= [1] https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/188305 [2] https://github.com/CollaboraOnline/online/pull/12480
(In reply to Szymon Kłos from comment #11) > hi, do we have some consensus here? Personally I disagree, two tabs will make the dialog worse.
-1 to a tabbed F&R dialog (see comment 10)