Slashdot Mirror
The LibreOffice Story
An anonymous reader writes: Jono Bacon in his latest column writes about the story of LibreOffice and how it rose out of the ashes of StarOffice and OpenOffice.org. Bacon also touches on why he feels LibreOffice is such a key piece of Open Source for communities across the world. Jono says: "To look at LibreOffice today and compare it to Microsoft Office can be tempting. Sure, LibreOffice does not provide the same level of features and finesse Microsoft's suite may boast, but when I think of the before and after vanity shots of the suite back in 1999 and today, what the community has accomplished is phenomenal. Developing LibreOffice has been hard, technically challenging, and at times demotivating work, and contributors' efforts can be seen by millions of users across the world."
The FOSS movement should go all-in with LibreOffice in an effort to provide a perfect alternative to MS office.
Reliance on MS office is the only thing that holds back many of my folks (familiy, friends) from a total FOSS conversion of their computing habits.
Yes i said "perfect". It is feasible and there are no excuses.
I fail to see why fragmentation is a good thing.
really? usually fragmentation is the result of two parties with irreconcilable differences. would you prefer that they spend time fighting with each other or would you rather let them duke it out in implementation land and see who can make a better mousetrap?
let's look at some fragmentation over the years and see how it worked out:
- Steve Jobs took his developers away with him when he could not reconcile his design decisions with apple. He made his own version of the mac os, called it "next step". eventually apple saw the error in their ways, brought back jobs, and now OSX is next step.
- remember egcs versus gcc? gcc was getting old and stale and stagnant, new developers wanted new features on an expedited timeline and gcc said no. so egcs was forked, new features were implmented and tested and folded back into gcc. all around a good time
- remember node.js versus io.js? again the same deal as egcs versus gcc.
you can argue duplicated effort but in fact these forks allow new ideas to happen where they otherwise would not. can you argue with this?
That's presumably why Microsoft added the evil Ribbon, so Word users would have no idea how to find the features they use in a processor with a saner interface.
Then again, those users probably have no idea how to find the features they use in the Ribbon, either.
LibreOffice (and any other Office Suite) doesn't need to compete feature-for-feature with MS Office. It needs to compete on the value proposition to users versus Office.
In other words, performing (well) a subset of what Office 20xx does, for free, is likely good enough for a great many users.
My first recommendation: The icon for Italics should be a capital letter I, not, as it is now, a lower-case italic A. (An I with a top and bottom line.)
I never thought about that before, but you're right. That's one of the things that's just not a good UI decision. Because first of all, just as a matter of convention, most WYSIWYG editors will use an italic "I" for "Italic", and a bold "B" for "Bold". The fact that it's a convention should probably be enough reason to continue doing it.
But beyond that, there's a good not-completely-obvious reason why that's been a convention for so long. If you're thinking about it on a technical level, LibreOffice's approach makes a lot of sense: have the formatting button icons all show the same character, but formatted based on what the button does. All of the icons have a lower-case "a", but for the "Bold" button, the "a" is bold. Makes sense, right? The button is showing exactly what it does.
But if you think about it like a UI designer, there's a good reason why you shouldn't do things this way. By using the same basic character, you end up with a bunch of buttons that look pretty much the same. Look at the LibreOffice toolbar, and you see a bunch of "a" buttons in a row. At a glance, it's not so obvious which one does what. The "Bold" icon looks kind of just like a normal "a" unless you consider it with reference to the other "a" icons around it, and then you will probably notice that it's bolder. However, the "Bold" icon is separated from the rest of the icons by the "Italic" icon, which doesn't actually look like an italicized version of the "a" from all the other icons. Instead, it looks like an "a" printed from a different font, perhaps a script font. As a result, both the "Bold" and "Italic" icons are a bit unclear.
Maybe that was too convoluted to follow. However, I can honestly say that this bothered me even before I could quite put my finger on what was bothering me. As soon as I read your post, I looked at the toolbar and thought, my first instinct at a glance would be to think the "Bold" icon was to make the font "normal", and the "Italic" icon would make turn the font to "script".
I know there are people here who will say, "So what?! Just learn to use it. It's not hard to figure out or remember which button does what." Still, a good UI will be readily understandable at a glance. By having the LibreOffice toolbar filled with similar-looking buttons, it makes it just a little bit harder to quickly pick the one you want without really paying attention.