Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

 On 02/10/10 01:45 PM, Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:
Hi Mike, *,

Mike Houben schrieb:

Hey you all, I'm starting to make some scratches, but i need some help
with your ideas from your point of vue.

You knew the GUI of Microsoft's Office and the one Apple has done.
Have you some things you like to have also in the GUI of our app?
do you like to have other things that they don't have?
what do you don't like about our GUI?

I was involved in a discussion on that topic in Apr 2007 started by
Chris Monahan: [discuss] Configuration Sets

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ excerpts ++++++++++++++++++++

"Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:32:01 -0700

It seems to me that those seeking to make decisions about OpenOffice,
particularly the user interface, are plagued by the perpetual
question: Is this for power users, or average users?"


"on top of that it would make sense to, at install time, or first use
time, query the user as to what default configuration set they would
like to use.

for example:
1:power user.
3:Microsoft Office like.
4:Open Office Classic"

I introduced "capes" - configurationset + skin, which make it
possible to compose those different environments of UI.

"André Wyrwa:
More particularly, such an option would have the benefit of enabling
not only scaled configurations, but specialized setups for certain
tasks or branches.

In addition an other point of view:
Imagine there was a framework, which allowed building that configuration
sets (let's call them "capes" to complete the suite? :o))) in an easy
way. This made it possible to widely extend the resources of active
OOo development by separating core development from GUI development. The
latter could be done by the new founded ux project."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ /excerpts ++++++++++++++++++++

I think this is a topic for:


Thanks for your help :)

de nada :o))
possibly the time has come, old dreams to come true.

I very much like the current OOo GUI interface. Simple, clean and usable.
I understand the need to "improve things", but let's remember the adage:
"A camel is a horse designed by committee"

Not to dissuade this heartfelt and overwhelming need to help and improve LO, I would suggest that now is not the time to be entertaining ideas of rebuilding the wheel. We (an inclusive plural meaning the whole community) have a laundry list of things to take care that to me seem to have more of a priority.

I would prefer that LO have a very solid and stable user base (including branding and word-of-mouth advertising) leaving all users (new and not-so-new) the impression that this project is serious and means business. And that LO is a viable alternative to that other expensive and constantly-needing-purchased-upgrade office suite.

I've seen quite a bit of discussion threads on other topics. My summation so far of these topics includes (and not in any particular order): internationalization (multi-lingual LO), domains (international/national/regional), branding (if we can't get the OOo donated - work is needed to eradicate any/all references to OOo from the existing code base/documentation), advertising (i.e. encouraging others to "take the plunge" to ODF), and last but not least *documentation, documentation, documentation*! (The last one I will emphasize!).

Once the dust settles, I have no problem with the discussion of visiting the user interface. This just seems to be wrong time to me. My 2 cents (no VAT/GST).

Scott Furry

To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.
List archives are available at


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.