The insert table icon has a default button which opens the table dialog and drop down menu that allows you to draw the table, so its default behaviour should be changed to open the drop down and users wishing to open the dialog, there is a 'more' button at the bottom of the drop down.
Samuel Mehrbrodt committed a patch related to this issue. It has been pushed to "master": http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=92bbd7bc99103df5136b012bf3b6652a2a721ab0 fdo#84551 Make 'Insert table' entry dropdown only The patch should be included in the daily builds available at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More information about daily builds can be found at: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.
Hi Jay, I tend do disagree here. It is a well know feature that some buttons have various functions. In this case: 1) Click Icon > Dialog insert table 2) Click and hold on Icon > show Drop down 3) Click arrow > show Drop down This is not something weird, but happens at many places. So why does _this_ really have to change? In bug 84550 one can argue that it's a different choice for 1) (and 2) I presume). But here? Do I miss something or are you :) ? Cheers Cor
Hi Cor, I would assume that most people are not aware of the 'Click and hold on Icon > show Drop down' option (including me until i just tried it now) and most people would be clicking directly on the table icon and be seeing the dialog rather than being able to simply drag the necessary cells they need. I have tried to train myself to instead always click the drop down as i want to draw the table, but still keep on messing it up and seeing the dialog. I dont know of any other office application that doesnt default to showing the table drawing option and think this is the best way for this particular entry.
Please revert this change!
Hi Jay, (In reply to Jay Philips from comment #3) > I would assume that most people are not aware of the 'Click and hold on Icon > > show Drop down' option (including me until i just tried it now) and most > people would be clicking directly on the table icon and be seeing the dialog > rather than being able to simply drag the necessary cells they need. > .. I think it's wise to gain definitely more feedback on proposed changes. So yes, pls revert.
Hi Jay, I agree with Cor, there is a lot of icons of this type in LibreOffice and once you know one, you notice the others. The extended tooltip explains well that by holding you'll be able to draw the table. Used users will lose a functionality while new users have the ability to easily learn about it. Cheers Sophie
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #5) > I think it's wise to gain definitely more feedback on proposed changes. > So yes, pls revert. Where do you advice getting more feedback from? (In reply to sophie from comment #6) > Hi Jay, I agree with Cor, there is a lot of icons of this type in > LibreOffice and once you know one, you notice the others. The extended > tooltip explains well that by holding you'll be able to draw the table. Used > users will lose a functionality while new users have the ability to easily > learn about it. Cheers Sophie Though there are many of this type in libreoffice, that doesnt mean that many users use it in this fashion. Most people dont have extended tooltips enabled, as you have to go into the Tools > Options to enable it. New users will never notice this functionality, as its not there anywhere else but libreoffice and there is no way to discover this functionality when a new user is using it.
pls don't forget that the software and the project exist for more then a decade and that there are many that you may not reach so easy that did put and put a lot of energy and trust in this and rely on certain functionality therefore IMNSHO for such basic changes: prepare a presentation for LibOCon/FOSDEM or such and have a long and decent debate or whatever. Unless a change is obvious obviously, because of new accepted technology or such.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #2) > So why does _this_ really have to change? The main reason I see is that the most used action (create a table with the dropdown) has only the small arrow while the seldom used action (show table dialog) has the button. So this patch gives the most used action the whole button while the seldom used action is now at the bottom of the dropdown. Currently I won't revert this since all the arguments brought up here against this change were about personal preference, not from an UX perspective.
Cor: Prepare a presentation to decide whether the table button should open the drop down or the dialog, i think that is quite excessive for such a small change. With all the buttons which have this functionality, the primary button has the most common action in it. As an example, the open button, it opens the dialog which allows you to select any file on your system or network, while the drop down has the less common action of selecting only the last few files you have opened. Paste is no different, the most common action of pasting is the default and the less common action of opening the drop down is for paste special. The primary button for table should be the most common action, which is being able to draw the cells you need and not the less common action of having to open a dialog to type in values.
I've now added this to the agenda of our next design meeting, we'll decide there (anyone can join btw.)
What is miss in your explanation what now the difference should be between Click on Icon and Click and hold on Icon ? Also I miss why it is acceptable that the whole dropdown must be crossed. When you change something that you don't understand, is it strange that I and others are tempted to ask for decent research and debate first ensuring all stakeholders are involved? Sorry to admit, but this really annoys me.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #12) > What is miss in your explanation what now the difference should be between > Click on Icon and > Click and hold on Icon ? The button will only have one behaviour, click, just like you find in the table border style and table borders drop downs found in the table toolbar. > Also I miss why it is acceptable that the whole dropdown must be crossed. I didnt quite understand what you meant here. > When you change something that you don't understand, is it strange that I > and others are tempted to ask for decent research and debate first ensuring > all stakeholders are involved? Me not understanding that click plus hold is equivalent to clicking the drop down button is not the question at hand. The question boils down to whether a user clicking on the table icon should default to see a dialog or should it open the drop down so he/she can select cells. So me researching that every other major word processor (MS Word, iWork Pages, WPS Writer, WordPerfect, Calligra Words) has the button open the drop down isnt decent research. If you'd like to debate this issue further, i look forward to seeing you in next wednesday's design meeting. Which other stakeholders should be gathered in order to discuss this further? > Sorry to admit, but this really annoys me. Yes its unfortunate that this discussion has gone in this direction, but hopefully it will be all done in the next little while, so we can go back to the fun stuff like paste special. :D
(In reply to Jay Philips from comment #13) > (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #12) > > What is miss in your explanation what now the difference should be between > > Click on Icon and > > Click and hold on Icon ? > > The button will only have one behaviour, click, just like you find in the > table border style and table borders drop downs found in the table toolbar. So you break something that you didn't know it existed. > > Also I miss why it is acceptable that the whole dropdown must be crossed. > > I didnt quite understand what you meant here. The more is way further that the previous Click (without hold) on the button. > > When you change something that you don't understand, is it strange that I > > and others are tempted to ask for decent research and debate first ensuring > > all stakeholders are involved? > > Me not understanding that click plus hold is equivalent to clicking the drop > down button is not the question at hand. Is is. You break functionality. > The question boils down to whether > a user clicking on the table icon should default to see a dialog or should > it open the drop down so he/she can select cells. So me researching that > every other major word processor (MS Word, iWork Pages, WPS Writer, > WordPerfect, Calligra Words) has the button open the drop down isnt decent > research. If you'd like to debate this issue further, i look forward to > seeing you in next wednesday's design meeting. Those meetings match badly with my agenda. Sorry. But I guess it's not that only voices present are heard? > Which other stakeholders > should be gathered in order to discuss this further? Pls try to understand my comment #8. There are many people working with this software that rely on existing functionality that you cannot just drop because you don't know it or do not use it. > > Sorry to admit, but this really annoys me. > > Yes its unfortunate that this discussion has gone in this direction, but > hopefully it will be all done in the next little while, so we can go back to > the fun stuff like paste special. :D IIRC it took quite some effort there :\ Sorry Jay. I respect what you do and there is a lot that I can applaud and support. But not all. And I find it hard apparently to make you understand the arguments..
Hi Samuel, Same applaud for you :) however .. (In reply to Samuel Mehrbrodt from comment #9) > Currently I won't revert this since all the arguments brought up here > against this change were about personal preference, not from an UX > perspective. It is not about personal preferences. I don't use those buttons. But I know others do. And also that they use full functionality - which now is broken. Just by ignorance.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #15) > Hi Samuel, > > Same applaud for you :) however .. > > (In reply to Samuel Mehrbrodt from comment #9) > > > Currently I won't revert this since all the arguments brought up here > > against this change were about personal preference, not from an UX > > perspective. > > It is not about personal preferences. I don't use those buttons. But I know > others do. And also that they use full functionality - which now is broken. > Just by ignorance. Hi Samuel, same comment as Cor, I train users since more than 10 years and help them on several lists but rarely use LibreOffice for my own personal use, so my feedback is based on my professional experience, not personal one :) Sophie
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #14) > So you break something that you didn't know it existed. I do know that it exists now as you have pointed it out, but that doesnt make it broken because i suggested it to be changed. > The more is way further that the previous Click (without hold) on the button. Yes the 'more' button is at the bottom of the drop down, which is a mouse movement of approximately ~280px and if the table dialog opened, you would have to move that same distance, and more, to interact with it. > Is is. You break functionality. I'm assuming you meant 'It is'. Change is not equal to break. > Those meetings match badly with my agenda. Sorry. But I guess it's not that > only voices present are heard? Well maybe we can make some adjustments to accommodate your presence being there or alternatively Sophie can speak in your absence as i think she said she will be able to make it. What UTC time is good for you on Wednesday? > Pls try to understand my comment #8. > There are many people working with this software that rely on existing > functionality that you cannot just drop because you don't know it or do not > use it. I do understand your comments, but i dont think functionality should be withheld just because old users will have to learn new functionality because of change. You have in bug 82239 an old user requesting that the old scaling of images be brought back as he is used to scaling images non-proportionally by default. So should we change that back as well? Unfortunately, we cant make everyone happy with changes, but we try to make changes that is best suited for most users and what most similar applications offer. > IIRC it took quite some effort there :\ It did but it turned out well at the end. :D > Sorry Jay. I respect what you do and there is a lot that I can applaud and > support. But not all. And I find it hard apparently to make you understand > the arguments.. Thank you for your kind words, as they are always appreciated. I guess we have our points of view and arguments about this topic which we unfortunately wont agree on, but i look forward to discussing it future and working with you as it is always a pleasure. (In reply to sophie from comment #16) > Hi Samuel, same comment as Cor, I train users since more than 10 years and > help them on several lists but rarely use LibreOffice for my own personal > use, so my feedback is based on my professional experience, not personal one > :) Sophie Most users of office suites are not trained to use it, which is one of the main point trying to be address here. You cant compare a person who goes and learns how to fully utilize an application, with another user who is self taught or a casual user. If you look on youtube for tutorials on how to insert a table in OO or LO, none show that if you click and hold, the drop down appears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI9mDnjEkc4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmLRu8fM6bA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpSg9fPL4g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UqBan_FBYo
(In reply to Jay Philips from comment #17) > (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #14) > > So you break something that you didn't know it existed. > > I do know that it exists now as you have pointed it out, but that doesnt > make it broken because i suggested it to be changed. > > > The more is way further that the previous Click (without hold) on the button. > > Yes the 'more' button is at the bottom of the drop down, which is a mouse > movement of approximately ~280px and if the table dialog opened, you would > have to move that same distance, and more, to interact with it. > > > Is is. You break functionality. > > I'm assuming you meant 'It is'. Change is not equal to break. > > > Those meetings match badly with my agenda. Sorry. But I guess it's not that > > only voices present are heard? > > Well maybe we can make some adjustments to accommodate your presence being > there or alternatively Sophie can speak in your absence as i think she said > she will be able to make it. What UTC time is good for you on Wednesday? > > > Pls try to understand my comment #8. > > There are many people working with this software that rely on existing > > functionality that you cannot just drop because you don't know it or do not > > use it. > > I do understand your comments, but i dont think functionality should be > withheld just because old users will have to learn new functionality because > of change. You have in bug 82239 an old user requesting that the old scaling > of images be brought back as he is used to scaling images non-proportionally > by default. So should we change that back as well? Unfortunately, we cant > make everyone happy with changes, but we try to make changes that is best > suited for most users and what most similar applications offer. > > > IIRC it took quite some effort there :\ > > It did but it turned out well at the end. :D > > > Sorry Jay. I respect what you do and there is a lot that I can applaud and > > support. But not all. And I find it hard apparently to make you understand > > the arguments.. > > Thank you for your kind words, as they are always appreciated. I guess we > have our points of view and arguments about this topic which we > unfortunately wont agree on, but i look forward to discussing it future and > working with you as it is always a pleasure. > > (In reply to sophie from comment #16) > > Hi Samuel, same comment as Cor, I train users since more than 10 years and > > help them on several lists but rarely use LibreOffice for my own personal > > use, so my feedback is based on my professional experience, not personal one > > :) Sophie > > Most users of office suites are not trained to use it, which is one of the > main point trying to be address here. You cant compare a person who goes and > learns how to fully utilize an application, with another user who is self > taught or a casual user. If you look on youtube for tutorials on how to > insert a table in OO or LO, none show that if you click and hold, the drop > down appears. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI9mDnjEkc4 > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmLRu8fM6bA > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpSg9fPL4g > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UqBan_FBYo Hum but LibreOffice fortunately is used by professional who are trained during their migration period (this is the whole purpose of the certification process we put in place) or later on. So you're doing change for SOHO users and don't take into account previous users or trained one? Or should I tell the 500 000 users of the FR administration that they have to forget about what they learned because their will be new LibreOffice users soon? Well I disagree with this change, I don't have time to argue, so be it :) Sophie
(In reply to sophie from comment #18) > Hum but LibreOffice fortunately is used by professional who are trained > during their migration period (this is the whole purpose of the > certification process we put in place) or later on. So you're doing change > for SOHO users and don't take into account previous users or trained one? Or > should I tell the 500 000 users of the FR administration that they have to > forget about what they learned because their will be new LibreOffice users > soon? Well I disagree with this change, I don't have time to argue, so be it > :) Sophie So is it that whatever previous users or trained ones learn at a given point in time is carved into stone and there should never be changes in it. If that is so, then i should revert all changes i made during my toolbar proposal, as buttons that those users learned that were part of the toolbar are no longer there. We adapt to change all the time, as new versions of LO come out every 6 months, which include changes in behaviour (images scaled proportionality by default, image gallery being moved to the sidebar, sidebar open by default), UI (tango text text are black in 4.3, start center in 4.2), etc. When the drop down is opened by default when clicking the table icon or drop down icon, it gives users basic functionality with the drawing of the table and advanced features when clicking on the more button. Well the arguments seem to have been laid out from both sides and we'll have to wait and see what happens. :D
Hi Jay, So let's continue our extremely interesting conversation :) > I do know that it exists now as you have pointed it out, but that doesnt > make it broken because i suggested it to be changed. Of course it's completely valid to call it a change. Now a change can be - for example - adding or removing functionality. In this case it was removed. Yes? And indeed it was a pleasure to help you learn the full functionality. But IIRC that was after the initial proposal ;) > Yes the 'more' button is at the bottom of the drop down, which is a mouse > movement of approximately ~280px and if the table dialog opened, you would > have to move that same distance, and more, to interact with it. Therefore the original functionality: it offers _two_ ways to open the drop down :) > > Is is. You break functionality. > > I'm assuming you meant 'It is'. Change is not equal to break. Of course it's completely valid to call it a change. Now a change can be - for example - adding or removing functionality. Don't blame me that removing something that people use, is in my eyes a breakage.. > Well maybe we can make some adjustments to accommodate your presence being > there or alternatively Sophie can speak in your absence as i think she said > she will be able to make it. What UTC time is good for you on Wednesday? Thanks for the offer. Hard to say at the moment and I'm severely overloaded and freeing time must be quite limited: I have to avoid long winding meetings. (No idea how the UX one is though) Let's try to meet on IRC next days and see what we can do. > I do understand your comments, but i dont think functionality should be > withheld just because old users will have to learn new functionality because > of change. As explained before, it's not just a change from A to B. I think at the very moment that I succeed to make that clear, you may also see a good solution right before your eyes.. > You have in bug 82239 an old user requesting that the old scaling > of images be brought back as he is used to scaling images non-proportionally > by default. So should we change that back as well? Unfortunately, we cant > make everyone happy with changes, but we try to make changes that is best > suited for most users and what most similar applications offer. I'm active long enough here to fill at least one evening with good conference on funny and a bit less stories. Maybe a good one for a social evening on our next LibreOffice conference :) > Thank you for your kind words, as they are always appreciated. I guess we > have our points of view and arguments about this topic which we > unfortunately wont agree on, but i look forward to discussing it future and > working with you as it is always a pleasure. We always must take care in such situations when you start with an idea, to avoid that we are so much focussed on that, that understanding other arguments seems out of range. > Most users of office suites are not trained to use it, which is one of the > main point trying to be address here. You cant compare a person who goes and Most users are important. But all users are more important. Ciao, Cor
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #20) > Therefore the original functionality: it offers _two_ ways to open the drop > down :) To be precise: two ways directly from the button.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #20) > Hi Jay, Hi Cor, > So let's continue our extremely interesting conversation :) Yes lets. :) > > I do know that it exists now as you have pointed it out, but that doesnt > > make it broken because i suggested it to be changed. > > Of course it's completely valid to call it a change. Now a change can be - > for example - adding or removing functionality. > In this case it was removed. Yes? > And indeed it was a pleasure to help you learn the full functionality. But > IIRC that was after the initial proposal ;) Yes the functionality of clicking 3 different ways on the button have been reduced to a single way, and this is a change in functionality because its a different type of control, similar to changing a combobox to a listbox. > > Yes the 'more' button is at the bottom of the drop down, which is a mouse > > movement of approximately ~280px and if the table dialog opened, you would > > have to move that same distance, and more, to interact with it. > > Therefore the original functionality: it offers _two_ ways to open the drop > down :) Yes it did offer two ways to open the drop down, either with click and hold of the icon and clicking the drop down arrow. > > > Is is. You break functionality. > > > > I'm assuming you meant 'It is'. Change is not equal to break. > > Of course it's completely valid to call it a change. Now a change can be - > for example - adding or removing functionality. Don't blame me that removing > something that people use, is in my eyes a breakage.. So when we change the cell border single click button to a mutli button, should this addition of functionality also be considered a breakage (bug 84132)? > > Well maybe we can make some adjustments to accommodate your presence being > > there or alternatively Sophie can speak in your absence as i think she said > > she will be able to make it. What UTC time is good for you on Wednesday? > > Thanks for the offer. Hard to say at the moment and I'm severely overloaded > and freeing time must be quite limited: I have to avoid long winding > meetings. (No idea how the UX one is though) Let's try to meet on IRC next > days and see what we can do. I doubt us discussing it on IRC will change our points of view about it, so maybe its best to leave the decision to the design team to decide after they have read both sides of the argument < http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Table-toolbar-button-behaviour-tc4124853.html >. Or do you feel this decision needs to be made by another team? > > I do understand your comments, but i dont think functionality should be > > withheld just because old users will have to learn new functionality because > > of change. > > As explained before, it's not just a change from A to B. > I think at the very moment that I succeed to make that clear, you may also > see a good solution right before your eyes.. Well as i'm currently not able to do so, do you have a recommendation on a solution. > > You have in bug 82239 an old user requesting that the old scaling > > of images be brought back as he is used to scaling images non-proportionally > > by default. So should we change that back as well? Unfortunately, we cant > > make everyone happy with changes, but we try to make changes that is best > > suited for most users and what most similar applications offer. > > I'm active long enough here to fill at least one evening with good > conference on funny and a bit less stories. Maybe a good one for a social > evening on our next LibreOffice conference :) Look forward to meeting you next year at the conference and exchanging alot of laughs. :D > > Thank you for your kind words, as they are always appreciated. I guess we > > have our points of view and arguments about this topic which we > > unfortunately wont agree on, but i look forward to discussing it future and > > working with you as it is always a pleasure. > > We always must take care in such situations when you start with an idea, to > avoid that we are so much focussed on that, that understanding other > arguments seems out of range. Yes i definitely do agree that we must always keep an open mind to hear other people's points of view on all matters. > > Most users of office suites are not trained to use it, which is one of the > > main point trying to be address here. You cant compare a person who goes and > > Most users are important. But all users are more important. If there was a way to satisfy all users, i'm always for it. > Ciao, > Cor Ciao, Jay
Please let's stop this discussion, everything was already said here, and several times ;-) Cor, Sophie - please come to the Design Hangout, on Wednesday, 17:00 UTC (19:00 CEST), I am sure we will find a solution that fits all.
Hi (In reply to Jan Holesovsky from comment #23) > Please let's stop this discussion, everything was already said here, and > several times ;-) Sorry, I would add an argument which, it seems, has not been given. It is from an UX perspective, in reply comment #9) > The main reason I see is that the most used action (create a table with the > dropdown) has only the small arrow while the seldom used action (show table > dialog) has the button. 1. To draw a table I want: click, hold down, draw, release. 2. To display a dialog I want one click in the toolbar The previous functioning was ok. It was not necessary to click on the arrow. In one single "move": click the button, hold down and draw. The new functioning adds one click to the second point. If there was one thing to change, in my opinion, it would have been force to hold on to select... but that is another issue :) Best regards Pierre-Yves
(In reply to Jan Holesovsky from comment #23) > Please let's stop this discussion, everything was already said here, and > several times ;-) > > Cor, Sophie - please come to the Design Hangout, on Wednesday, 17:00 UTC > (19:00 CEST), I am sure we will find a solution that fits all. Sorry, and another related issue, the "M" accelerator assigned to the More... button is non-functional. On Windows 7 sp1, 64-bit en-US Version: 4.4.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: fc24eadc6283cd03397b70fda309a578ce295f16 TinderBox: Win-x86@39, Branch:master, Time: 2014-10-03_00:31:27 Also, the button might be renamed something other than "More", perhaps "Table layout" a string that is good for translation. From a UX perspective the graphical layout action seems more intuitive, but agree that crossing the panel to get to the "More..." button is a nuisance, requires the accelerator to be functional. Should I not make the Design meetup Wednesday, if I had to choose I'd pick Jay & Samuel's new implementation with the accelerator fully functional.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #25) > Sorry, and another related issue, the "M" accelerator assigned to the > More... button is non-functional. Thanks for catching that. I filed a bug for it (bug 84699). > Also, the button might be renamed something other than "More", perhaps > "Table layout" a string that is good for translation. The label 'More Options' is used in all drop downs in the sidebar, while the insert field toolbar button was recently changed from 'Other' to 'More', so that it is identical to insert table.
I do not understand why we are now forced to open a drop-down when I just want to quickly open the Table dialog. This is nonsense.
Adolfo: Accessing via a toolbar is a slow operation by itself, so I think we do not have to nitpick about one additional click to access dialog where the user will spend a considerable time anyway (much more time compared to getting the dialog itself). For the power users / really quick access, there is Ctrl+F12. The main issue I see here is that the "More..." button is not descriptive at all, and the text should be changed to something more descriptive; ideas appreciated. Either way - hope to see you in the call on Wednesday, call-in numbers in the design@ list / agenda, or send me your G+ user name if you want to join via G+ Hangout! :-)
(In reply to Jan Holesovsky from comment #23) > Please let's stop this discussion, everything was already said here, and > several times ;-) I doubt ;) Maybe my initial comment in this issue was a bit strong and unfriendly and didn't that help the discussion. If so, apologies. > Cor, Sophie - please come to the Design Hangout, on Wednesday, 17:00 UTC > (19:00 CEST), I am sure we will find a solution that fits all. Lucky coincident: my planned meeting is rescheduled, so I'll try to join, Cheers
My two cents: I love this change. It's much more consistent and less confusing to the user. Adolfo: I think most users do not even need to see the table dialogue. Why confront users with complex stuff that many do not even need. For advanced users, there's always the "more" link to the dialogue. so +1 for this change.
had a additional chat with Jay and understood that the patch also changes the look of the button, from split to single. Downloaded the daily and see it works OK there. Looking back: for me the discussion was confused from the beginning, since the original behaviour was not included in the analyses/explanation.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #31) > had a additional chat with Jay and understood that the patch also changes > the look of the button, from split to single. > Downloaded the daily and see it works OK there. Glad you were able to make it to the design meeting yesterday and that we were able to clear it up and that you are now okay with the change. > Looking back: for me the discussion was confused from the beginning, since > the original behaviour was not included in the analyses/explanation. Yes it seems that part may have clouded the rest of the discussion.