Unfortunately the current layout of the Entries tab is very bad and think that it could easily be improved on by displaying the structure vertically rather than horizontally. With a vertical layout, we could include buttons to reorder the entries, have entries with full names rather than abbreviations, etc. As a new set of eyes looking at this tab, i couldnt make heads or tails of it until i watched a youtube tutorial on it ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8hknb9QwCQ ) and still didnt fully get it because of the bad layout. Then who would have guessed that @libreoffice would tweet out about TOCs ( https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/570124298578477056 ) just a few minutes after i went through TOCs and indexes and stated that it was possible to delete an entry. So i tried to right-click and i tried drag selection and none worked and who was there to rescue, good old Cor saying that i should press the delete key. :D Will start working on a mockup.
Created attachment 113635 [details] mockup
(In reply to Jay Philips from comment #1) > Created attachment 113635 [details] > mockup Much better :) First remarks: - a horizontal (natural) visualization maybe on top or below the list? - not all actions (up/down) are valid on all entries, obviously.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #2) > Much better :) > > First remarks: > - a horizontal (natural) visualization maybe on top or below the list? Well if preview is open, which it is by default, you'll see it visually. :D > - not all actions (up/down) are valid on all entries, obviously. Well that would need to be taken into consideration when the developer programs it in, just like some of the buttons are currently disabled (e.g. Page No.).
For me this mockup is from the layout standpoint already a great proposal. With it this dialog box would no longer be that cryptical as currently.
Created attachment 113931 [details] mockup 2 Here is the second mockup that i've been working on. Sophie mentioned that it was possible to add regular text as an entry, so it was also added to the mockup.
We had design session about this dialog and the details can be found at this google doc - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dhaaV2Q5XFXK0-m-y2wYq5tKjIX_YRTMEKDXPslskUw/edit?usp=sharing
It is confusing to have both "Entry Text" and "Text Entry".
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #7) > It is confusing to have both "Entry Text" and "Text Entry". Yes it was confusing, which is why i had proposed to have it to 'Heading Text' and 'Text Entry' in yesterday's meeting. What do others think?
The same dialog is used for indexes as well, and e.g. for an Alphabetical Index the wording "Heading Text" does not fit. You will need individual texts for each kind of use of the dialog, when you will replace the generic "E". I don't know the effort to implement such.
Well spotted. I updated the mockup * changed 'Text Entry' to 'Heading Text' * added the item 'User Text "<value>"' * added the grouping title 'Hierarchy' * changed 'Level' to 'Level in TOC' (for clarification and to fit the the text length below; it would be better to have another group label and use 'Hierarchy Level' here)
Regina, if you think 'Heading Text' is not appropriate (sorry for missing that), what would you suggest? I think that 'Heading Text' and 'Annotation Text' works well in their own tab.
* Its best to keep the original labeling of "Entry Text" over "Heading Text" * "User Text" seems fine * 'Level in TOC' isnt good as the label as it wouldnt be abbreviated in other languages
Before trying to find better wording and better design, you have to decide, whether this dialog has to be used for all kind of indexes (as it is now), or whether each kind of index will get its own dialog. Please keep in mind, that currently the dialog is used not only for TOC, but for "Alphabetical Index", "Illustration Index", "Index of Tables", "User-Defined Index", "Table of Objects", and "Bibliography" as well.
We talked about the scope and as stated on G+ doc the redesign is for the tab 'Entries' only. All other content should remain as it is, for now. But I have to admit that at least I wasn't considering the index type. The interaction is awful. Do you think we should redesign the complete dialog? Small steps or the big fish?
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #14) > Do you think we should redesign the complete dialog? > Small steps or the big fish? I'm not sure about it. Currently there are two concepts. One with only buttons to build the entries-structure-line (used by TOC and Indexes) and the other with drop-down selection list and insert/remove buttons (used by Bibliography). Is it worth to unify it? And who will do it? (In reply to Jay Philips from comment #3) > Well if preview is open, which it is by default, you'll see it visually. :D For Bibliography the preview window exist, but does not show an example of the entries-structure.
I notice in the comments to the related blog post: http://user-prompt.com/libreoffice-design-session-entries-at-indexes-and-tables/ ... that TAB stops are likely to be handled via the character style in the new mockup. Does anyone know how this will impact bug 32360 and bug 87523? Each relates to alignment problems with the current dialog. Is it worth adding these to the See Also list? A warm thankyou to Jay, Heiko, and the Design team for your work on this. Seems like a worthy improvement even if there are still some issues to untangle.
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #15) > I'm not sure about it. Currently there are two concepts. One with only > buttons to build the entries-structure-line (used by TOC and Indexes) and > the other with drop-down selection list and insert/remove buttons (used by > Bibliography). Is it worth to unify it? And who will do it? We discussed the issues you brought up in last wednesday's design meeting and the mockup will be utilized in the various index/table types that it works correctly with. Looking at the structure of the bibliography entries tab, the mockup would also work fine, as the 'Add' button contains a list of entries that can be added, so it would have the same entries found in the drop-down selection list in bibliography. > For Bibliography the preview window exist, but does not show an example of > the entries-structure. Well that should be filed as another bug if it isnt already. :D (In reply to Owen Genat from comment #16) > ... that TAB stops are likely to be handled via the character style in the > new mockup. Does anyone know how this will impact bug 32360 and bug 87523? > Each relates to alignment problems with the current dialog. Is it worth > adding these to the See Also list? The new mockup doesnt change this aspect of the dialog. Currently, when you click on a tab stop, you are given four fields - character style, fill character, tab stop position, align right - which control the look of the spacing between the entry and the page number. > A warm thankyou to Jay, Heiko, and the Design team for your work on this. > Seems like a worthy improvement even if there are still some issues to > untangle. Thank Owen. Most things have been untangled now, so all that is necessary is a developer to turn this into reality.
Created attachment 114138 [details] gdocs mockup Heiko and I went through and fixed up the mockup with the suggestions and comments that have come in since the original session and full details are in the google doc and i'm attaching the mockup to the bug report.
thanks Jay and Heiko! Looks really good.
Talked it over with a user who up to now has had a lot trouble understanding the present dailog. He thinks the mockup is a big improvement!
Stephan spotted another problem with the dialog: the 'apply to all' button. The best solution here is to remove this button completely and to add an entry in the levels dropdown. So users have to select either a particular item ('hierarchy level' called in the latest mockup, but depending on the chosen type on the first tab) or to select 'all levels' here (should be the first item).
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #21) > Stephan spotted another problem with the dialog: the 'apply to all' button. And that is what? > The best solution here is to remove this button completely and to add an > entry in the levels dropdown. So users have to select either a particular > item ('hierarchy level' called in the latest mockup, but depending on the > chosen type on the first tab) or to select 'all levels' here (should be the > first item). If so, the 'Paragraph style' must be de-activated if 'all levels' is chosen.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #21) > Stephan spotted another problem with the dialog: the 'apply to all' button. > The best solution here is to remove this button completely and to add an > entry in the levels dropdown. So users have to select either a particular > item ('hierarchy level' called in the latest mockup, but depending on the > chosen type on the first tab) or to select 'all levels' here (should be the > first item). Cant say that i agree with this approach, as a user will likely be on whatever level is set when they enter the tab and then jump to the entries section to make the changes he/she wants and then want to apply that change to other levels.
(In reply to Jay Philips from comment #23) > Cant say that i agree with this approach, ... Hey you, why jumping in with (dis)agreement immediately :) Ask some smart questions first ;) (no pun intended, just couldn't resist...)
@Cor (comment 22) The discussion about the button was started by me in the comments thread of: http://user-prompt.com/libreoffice-design-session-entries-at-indexes-and-tables I agree that the "Paragraph Style" drop-down should be disabled when "all levels" are selected. @Jay (comment 23) I see your point. However, what is to stop a user from selecting "all levels" after he has made his changes to the entries? As long as this action doesn't reset his changes, nothing of his work is lost. Another question is: How does an inexperienced user know there is an "all levels" selection? It is "hidden" in the drop-down. Is there a solution possible for that?
@Stephen: Well my comment was made with the assumption that "all levels" wasnt an entry in the drop down list. If the "all levels" entry is included in the drop down list, then it should be the first entry and preselected by default. But even with the "all levels" entry available, there will be situations where the entries in a single modified level would want to be applied to all the levels, so the button would always have a reason to exist.
*** Bug 73160 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Yousuf, work over new tab Entries was ended? ps: see bug 85814 =(
(In reply to kompilainenn from comment #28) > Yousuf, work over new tab Entries was ended? The work is still pending and is one of the GSoC projects. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/GSoC/Ideas#Table_of_Contents:_Entries_tab > ps: see bug 85814 =( UI font size is always an issue. :D
The mock-up in an early comment is truly great design. Just to state my needs, however, they are much simpler than even that. All I would need is a simple check box "Make entries clickable" that would pertain to all entry levels, and that would be it. I personally cannot envision a circumstance where I would want some level of entries clickable, and others not. That's just me, but I suspect there are many who feel the same way, and the simplicity of it would be a huge plus, rather than having to fight the dialog every time. I also would find it very helpful if there were a way to incorporate clickability programmatically, that is, via basic macro, whether for the whole Index or for a specific entry level. I have done a bunch of asking around, and have looked into the user index attributes via the MRI extension, and have not found a hook to program with.
To add to that: of course, a setting for all entries is not mutually exclusive with the original proposal here. If one wanted finer granularity one could go to the Entries tab and dial it in, either in lieu of enabling the all entries setting, or after enabling it.