Description: ENHANCEMENT: Right Click context menu in the style inspector to modify style Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open a document with a heading paragraph style or anything other 2. Say I want to change that.. now I know which style it is, i still have to jump to the styles panel Actual Results: No way to access the style from Inspector panel Expected Results: Expected.. bit of an overstatement.. would make it easier..maybe? Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Version: 7.1.0.0.alpha0+ (x64) Build ID: <buildversion> CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3 Build 9600; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); UI: en-US Calc: CL
Not sure where the idea box is ;-). So spamming the bug tracker.
Absolutely.
I disagree with the request. This was a doubt i too had that whether the Inspector could allow changing of styles ,but i was instructed by my mentors by either through IRC or mail discussion that Inspector should only be able to show the properties and not change them.
(In reply to Shivam Kumar Singh from comment #3) > I disagree with the request. > This was a doubt i too had that whether the Inspector could allow changing > of styles ,but i was instructed by my mentors by either through IRC or mail > discussion that Inspector should only be able to show the properties and not > change them. Not sure how I should read this. The inspector should indeed not change anything. The idea of mine is a quick way to open the style dialog. So technically the Inspector changing nothing. Of course there still room for objection :-). However it's but unpractical to show the style name, switching to style tab & searching for the style name in question.. I assume Heiko is one of your mentors.. so we find out soon enough :-)
From the blog post: "Another source for discussion are interactions. For example, we could make it easy to delete style properties either with an icon that appears on hover or per context menu. But this sounds a bit dangerous as users may execute the function unintentionally, and is actually not part of the workflow. So it might be better to restrict the functionality and access the property dialog with the current selection or open the styles and formatting sidebar respectively." (With deletion I had attributes in mind not complete styles, for example you remove CharColor from directly formatted text.) I'm a bit split. On the one hand it sounds convenient to access PS/CS property dialogs. But it mixes two workflows. While editing a document you are supposed to apply styles from the dedicated deck (or via toolbar/menu/...).
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #5) > I'm a bit split. On the one hand it sounds convenient to access PS/CS > property dialogs. But it mixes two workflows. While editing a document you > are supposed to apply styles from the dedicated deck (or via > toolbar/menu/...). I do agree with this; based on type of functionality it shouldn't. OTOH; knowing the style might be a reason to change it.. which makes it rather practical :-) A deck only showing information is kind of uncommon. And kind of frustrating. You know they style name.. know you have to go through multiple dialog to change it. I even consider being able to modify the 'style settings' directly in the Style Inspector instead of only listing those :-). OTOH it's called Inspector. And totally not the opposite of the the design.. But would be in line with a deck being productive. Only showing stuff is useful, but changing decks for it for example rather frustrating, IMHO. However I'm also the one who want's they Navigator deck be a to way street.. So a clicked image being showing in the navigator ;-). So I can see the image name without going through all sorts of dialogs. So maybe it's me wanting odd stuff...
@Luke Also an opinion on this?
Being able to call the same dialog from different UI places is very normal thing - especially when it's so much reasonable. I don't know which "workflow" Heiko has in mind when writes "But it mixes two workflows", because *the* workflow SI is dedicated for (inspecting and understanding why your text looks the way it does, naturally not for pure curiosity, but in attempt to fix something => to change the setting that makes it not match expectations => it's natural to want to change something when you see the source of the trouble); while I currently don't propose to be able to change individual positions, it's perfectly normal to expect double-click or context menu of a style or DF to allow opening relevant options dialog.
Okay, next question is the UI. Options: a) make the style a (hyper)link b) show a (icon-only) button next to the style (eg a gear) c) access via context menu d) double click My take is c).
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #9) I would like c+d.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #10) > (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #9) > > I would like c+d. But that would interfere with double-click collapsing/expanding subtrees -> no problem in limiting to c, or making it c+b. I don't think a makes sense - it would interfere with too much things.
My opinion... When the user sees a named style in the SI it would be expected and productive and reduce potential errors to be able to use that to call up the Paragraph or Character Style panel (etc) to let you make changes. I think it would be very frustrating if you instead had to remember the name and navigate manually to its UI. I feel 'c' option is essential; 'b' option greatly improves 'discoverability'. Comment 3 seems to me a misunderstanding: it was just a way to call up the style panel quickly - not an attempt to make the inspector work like NeXTstep Inspectors (able to examine and change objects, a wonderful and elegant UX). I fully agree with Mike in comment 8. HTH
Enough input, let's do it.
When testing the Style Inspector, I permanently feel the urge to edit the values or to delete a single value. As other commenters mentioned, a tool that only shows something isn't that helpful. I'm no fan of only linking values to the style dialog. Worst would be for me when the Style Inspector sidebar tab would be changed to another tab (e.g. Styles sidebar). This would break the workflow and the user has to go back to the Style Inspector manually. Without the possibility of changing or deleting single values the Style Inspector is only a bloated variant of the Contains section in the Organizer tab of the style dialog. And this restriction of this Contains section has led to several bug reports here.
(In reply to Thomas Lendo from comment #14) > Without the possibility of changing or deleting single values the Style > Inspector is only a bloated variant of the Contains section in the Organizer > tab of the style dialog. And this restriction of this Contains section has > led to several bug reports here. The "edit/delete single values" needs consideration. Because there are both DF and styles there; do you suggest to allow editing both? and the "single" entries there are sometimes parts of complex ones, so in UI, you modify several using a single control - are we going to allow really great flexibility of creating a UI to tweak those values independently - allowing "non-standard" combinations not possible with current UI, or are we going to create an involved logic that would limit the possible changes? I feel that "all or nothing" is the worst attitude possible. We must implement the first - safe - step, then proceed to consideration/discussion of the next one, independently.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #15) > The "edit/delete single values" needs consideration. Because there are both > DF and styles there; do you suggest to allow editing both? I want to elaborate on what makes me cautious about this specific aspect. SI is a tool used in a place of current cursor. Its natural/intended use case is when someone inspects some place to understand why a visible result is produced. And it's reasonable to expect that user wants to "fix" something when the problem is identified. But it is the focus on a specific place that makes it dangerous to allow editing individual parameters of styles here: user might be tempted to "tweak this little thing here", to get the wanted result, only to see (or not see!) that it broke the things elsewhere - because it was a *style* that was changed. Only allowing to open style dialog when changing style properties could emphasize that it's style that is being changed (so the change has document-wide consequences)... So it all is not so simple as "give me that innocent-looking tool NOW!!!!". It all needs consideration.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #16) > So it all is not so simple as "give me that innocent-looking tool NOW!!!!". > It all needs consideration. I personally don't like they way of bring this message. It's a kind of tendentious. We (me an Thomas) are put in category/ group of (evil) complainers. We simply put forward our impressions, to be taken into careful consideration. And it's bend in away which feels we asking the unreasonable thing Or you actually feel it as if we are 'demanding' it. Or this is more a communication style (to make a point). However with a - in my opinion - misplaced tone/ communication style. They message could be packed differently without unnecessary implying things (init's counter productive). This is 'proper' strategy to agitate/offend people. This direct to the comment here However, this is rather common habit around here (TDF organisation). Somehow attacking/offending people, making it personal etc, is somehow a structural part of the arsenal. Or people are simply not realizing how might be conceived by others. This happens at lower levels (say QA comments of behavior), but by members of BoD (comments https://sophy.ca/). It has an aura of frustrations sarcasm around it :-). Ever critic/ responds read and handled as personal attack without tolerance. There is no room for 'naive' people. However naive me doesn't now they forces in place creating and sustaining this mentality. I actual think this being a symptom of huge underlying problem at TDF. So the actual personal is pretty nice guy or girl. However somehow overwhelmed overpowered, frustrated which causes to respond in certain way. And with this response others will respond also less friendly (or even sarcastically). Which confirms they nice guy/girl to the world is bad, and he has to defend himself with all means necessary (including hitting below the belt, sabotaging). Creating a bad vibe If people want to attract new contributors this has to stop. For me they TDF community equals to a group of grumpy people already. Not all they time, but in quite a number of occurrences. I'm already surprised if someone saying something 'nice' or at least not burning me to ground (if forget a step or my report containing the bare minimum; where I assume are thinking likely myself (so problem being totally obvious) And no, surely not everyone being guilty of the behavior above. And yes everybody has can overreact once in a while. But it's far to common here. And I expect even slightly more from they professionals. And this might reduce the number of internal struggles and fights. [I think I post this on the mailing list too :-) As the latter part is pretty off-topic here.]
Please excuse me from adding my 2c. I feel young, but I'm pretty sure by all your standards I'd be elderly. I'm very even tempered, and maybe acquiring a little wisdom as I age. :-) On quite a few bugs I've reported, I've felt 'triggered' by a reply, but have ignored that and just replied to the facts. Quite often, as I calmly replied, and thought about things from the responder's point of view, I came to feel I had over-reacted and was very happy I had not expressed any of that in my own response. I've seen many discussions by text only spin out of control as people reacted badly to things the writer did not intend; it's happened to me, when someone took a meaning I had not intended from my words. I suspect Mike was just using emphatic language to make a point, and did not intend to make Telesto or Thomas look like bad people. That's just my impression as an outsider: Mike of course can answer for himself. It's hard to avoid emotional miscommunication and misunderstandings in pure text, especially ascii text, especially when you can't edit your post to improve your phrasing after you make it. I have three small suggestions: 1) Use emojis to help try to express your feeling (smileys especially, but it would be very nice to have a more modern range) 2) Try to think about the human side of things whenever you post a response. 3) See if you can get this site to improve the capabilities of the text to use html, and also the UI so as to allow editing by the poster, after they've Saved Changes. HTH
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #16) > So it all is not so simple as "give me that innocent-looking tool NOW!!!!". > It all needs consideration. Unfortunately I can't avoid reading Telesto's posts - even though I don't read reports of that person, I can't avoid reading the messages in other threads. One of the reasons I try to avoid that is the constant attempts to turn any discussion personal. So after reading that, I am afraid that my words cited above might actually seem insulting to Thomas. I only want to say that it was not meant that way. And also that trying to take messages personally is very counterproductive in a mixed environment where people have different backgrounds, cultural differences, skills etc. Anyone who tries to insist on taking anything as insulting personally, instead of changing oneself to treat that neutrally, is pushing others.
Just for clarification: the reason of comments 15 and 16 is Thomas's comment #14, which told: > I'm no fan of only linking values to the style dialog. > ... > Without the possibility of changing or deleting single values the Style > Inspector is only a bloated variant of the Contains section in the Organizer > tab of the style dialog. And this restriction of this Contains section has > led to several bug reports here. This comment was a direct response to the previous decisions - so it tried to make it "the decision to add access to style dialogs is *wrong*, and should be changed". It is like "all or nothing" approach: either we introduce single attribute editing, or we don't do anything. Of course, that could be me misreading Thomas; but my comments were not meant to hurt anyone; they were meant to show that "all or nothing" approach is not good (even if that was only me thinking about "all or nothing").
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #20) Mike, I'm not hurt and I haven't read the comments in the way as others have done apparently. You're right that we all have different age, first language, education, culture ... and we should discuss as unemotional as possible. I'm no exception. -- Sometimes it seems to be hard to convince others from the own idea and to put that into the right words especially for people with non-English first language. That also causes some misunderstandings. -- This is no chat room but a board for discussing technical issues. We should make clear, _short_ and unemotional comments.