Issue 20057

Accepted.

Additional Info:

Source
Dieter Loeschky, Several
	
Category
Mail merge
	
Customer Need/Problem
OOo mail merge is very difficult to use, and does not follow 
standard approach. Needs to be more intuitive to use.
Eng Owner
Christian Jansen / Oliver Specht

added keyword Q-PCD

Agreed. The current merge tools as of 644_m4 are an improvement on 
the functionality in 1.0, but it's much too awkward. A Lotus-style 
wizard approach or the 3-step breakdown MS Office uses are both 
better, though both could bear improving on.

Some key issues:

1. Too many ways to insert and select fields, each with their own 
feature sets. The Mail Merge tabbed dialog has different features 
from the Insert Field pallete which in turn has different features 
than the Data Source drop-down panel. All should offer the same 
degree of drag-and-drop of field codes onto a document or a way to 
toggle between the three modes.

2. No preview mode showing live data in place of fields. I've filed 
an issue on this.

3. Poor CSV support. As of now CSV data sources are a subset of 
delimited text data sources, and handled badly as such. CSV should be 
a built-in mode selectable with a single click and no need for 
tweaking, rather than requiring the end-user to "define" what a CSV 
is using the custom delimited file tab, especially because that tab 
doesn't allow, for instance, comma delimiters AND comma thousands-
place markers at the same time. CSV is something specific, namely 
double-quoted elements delimited by commas.

4. Why require definition of a permanent data source to do a merge? 
The permanent data sources are nice, but many many times users in the 
real world just want to merge from a file once and will discard the 
file afterward. It should be possible--even EASY--to pick a tabular 
data source (CSV, spreadhseet, DBF, whatever) and go straight into 
dropping fields into the working document. Requiring users to set up 
a data source first creates several extra steps and is confusing when 
reuse isn't going to happen.

5. I'm mystified by the distinction between merging to a document, to 
envelopes, to business cards and to labels. When I tried merging to a 
Avery 4-up postcard stock I gave up after a while because I couldn't 
figure out how to apply the same layout to all the cards on a page 
and advance to next record with each card. When I use the bundled 
business-card template, there's a floating "synchronize cards" 
palette that copies the layout to all sections on the page. I found 
no way to do that with my choice of stock.

6. When merging to files, the current UI creates a separate output 
document for each data record, so if you're making 30 envelopes, 
you're creating 30 saved files of one envelope each. This has its 
uses, but I think many, many, many people would prefer the 
(defaultable) option of being able to merge to a single 30-page 
document. It's sure easier to print or tweak  the result that way.

-- Steve Koppelman



------- Additional comments from os Mon Mar 17 05:59:25 -0800 2003 -------

os->cj: Please use this as additional input for the next mail merge
changes. 



------- Additional comments from cj Mon Mar 24 00:05:49 -0800 2003 -------

changed to 2.0



------- Additional comments from cj Mon Apr 7 23:08:00 -0800 2003 -------

started to create the first steps for new Mail Merge.



------- Additional comments from aexl Mon Sep 1 15:54:23 -0800 2003 -------

I strongly agree, especially with topics 
(4) "ad hoc data source" needed
and
(6) "mail merge to single file"
an important use case for this would be a database report!!!
(page breaks switched off)



------- Additional comments from cj Thu Sep 11 06:10:24 -0800 2003 -------

Reassigned to Bettina.



------- Additional comments from phillg Sun Sep 14 12:10:04 -0800 2003 -------

Adding dependency:

Issue 10760 - Include option to hide blank lines when generating labels



------- Additional comments from phillg Sun Sep 14 12:33:37 -0800 2003 -------

Sorry, had too many Issues open at one time.  Please ignore the last
comment



------- Additional comments from cloph Mon Oct 13 08:04:11 -0800 2003 -------

closing issue 19116 as duplicate therefore replacing the issue in the
depends-field



------- Additional comments from bh Wed Oct 22 07:05:23 -0800 2003 -------

Hello Christian, as you are the feature-owner for mail merge (you own
the concerning PCD-task), this one goes back to you and keeps on your
owner.

*** Issue 20054 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

*** Issue 27291 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

*** Issue 12983 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

*** Issue 5773 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

Notes from Task 7066
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merging is in a sore need for simplification. There are way too many steps from
a variety of menus that must be folowed to create a datasource, administrating
it and setting it up so that OOo will be able to use and then inserting fields
and proceeding into the merging. Lotus WordPro uses an Assistant or Wizard that
guides the user through the entire process, all from one dialog box. Willing to
send the developers a registered copy of WordPro so that they examine how they
implemented it.

OOo is great, lets concentrate on usability!!



------- Additional comments from cs Tue Feb 11 04:35:38 -0700 2003 -------

Are there anyone who know of a template for this - or similar autotool. 



------- Additional comments from hatless Sun Mar 2 15:54:41 -0700 2003 -------

Agreed. The current merge tools as of 644_m4 are an improvement on 
the functionality in 1.0, but it's much too awkward. A Lotus-style 
wizard approach or the 3-step breakdown MS Office uses are both 
better, though both could bear improving on.

Some key issues:

1. Too many ways to insert and select fields, each with their own 
feature sets. The Mail Merge tabbed dialog has different features 
from the Insert Field pallete which in turn has different features 
than the Data Source drop-down panel. All should offer the same 
degree of drag-and-drop of field codes onto a document or a way to 
toggle between the three modes.

2. No preview mode showing live data in place of fields. I've filed 
an issue on this.

3. Poor CSV support. As of now CSV data sources are a subset of 
delimited text data sources, and handled badly as such. CSV should be 
a built-in mode selectable with a single click and no need for 
tweaking, rather than requiring the end-user to "define" what a CSV 
is using the custom delimited file tab, especially because that tab 
doesn't allow, for instance, comma delimiters AND comma thousands-
place markers at the same time. CSV is something specific, namely 
double-quoted elements delimited by commas.

4. Why require definition of a permanent data source to do a merge? 
The permanent data sources are nice, but many many times users in the 
real world just want to merge from a file once and will discard the 
file afterward. It should be possible--even EASY--to pick a tabular 
data source (CSV, spreadhseet, DBF, whatever) and go straight into 
dropping fields into the working document. Requiring users to set up 
a data source first creates several extra steps and is confusing when 
reuse isn't going to happen.

5. I'm mystified by the distinction between merging to a document, to 
envelopes, to business cards and to labels. When I tried merging to a 
Avery 4-up postcard stock I gave up after a while because I couldn't 
figure out how to apply the same layout to all the cards on a page 
and advance to next record with each card. When I use the bundled 
business-card template, there's a floating "synchronize cards" 
palette that copies the layout to all sections on the page. I found 
no way to do that with my choice of stock.

6. When merging to files, the current UI creates a separate output 
document for each data record, so if you're making 30 envelopes, 
you're creating 30 saved files of one envelope each. This has its 
uses, but I think many, many, many people would prefer the 
(defaultable) option of being able to merge to a single 30-page 
document. It's sure easier to print or tweak  the result that way.

-- Steve Koppelman



------- Additional comments from os Mon Mar 17 06:59:25 -0700 2003 -------

os->cj: Please use this as additional input for the next mail merge
changes. 



------- Additional comments from cj Mon Mar 24 01:05:49 -0700 2003 -------

changed to 2.0



------- Additional comments from cj Tue Apr 8 00:08:00 -0700 2003 -------

started to create the first steps for new Mail Merge.



------- Additional comments from aexl Mon Sep 1 16:54:23 -0700 2003 -------

I strongly agree, especially with topics 
(4) "ad hoc data source" needed
and
(6) "mail merge to single file"
an important use case for this would be a database report!!!
(page breaks switched off)



------- Additional comments from cj Thu Sep 11 07:10:24 -0700 2003 -------

Reassigned to Bettina.



------- Additional comments from phillg Sun Sep 14 13:10:04 -0700 2003 -------

Adding dependency:

Issue 10760 - Include option to hide blank lines when generating labels



------- Additional comments from phillg Sun Sep 14 13:33:37 -0700 2003 -------

Sorry, had too many Issues open at one time.  Please ignore the last
comment



------- Additional comments from cloph Mon Oct 13 09:04:11 -0700 2003 -------

closing issue 19116 as duplicate therefore replacing the issue in the
depends-field



------- Additional comments from bh Wed Oct 22 08:05:23 -0700 2003 -------

Hello Christian, as you are the feature-owner for mail merge (you own
the concerning PCD-task), this one goes back to you and keeps on your
owner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes from Task 19384
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, 
 
I have a problem when doing mail merge to a file. I created a label and when 
mail merging, the printer output is OK. It goes to the next record after each 
"cadre" (this is a french word as i don't know how it's called in english). 
However when merging to a file, it doesn't go to the next record on a single 
page, the field values are only ok when the next page is created. 
 
Steps to reproduce : 
 
Use attached files. One is used as datasource, the other as file to do the 
merge. 
Merge to printer and verify that it is ok (each label is different) 
Now merge to file. You will check that on each page the labels are the same, 
however each page is different. 
 
I Hope this is clear enough :-)



------- Additional comments from fabienst Wed Sep 10 04:30:19 -0700 2003 -------

Created an attachment (id=9159)
file to use to merge



------- Additional comments from fabienst Wed Sep 10 04:31:54 -0700 2003 -------

Created an attachment (id=9160)
File containing data to merge



------- Additional comments from gieschke Thu Sep 11 05:49:09 -0700 2003 -------

Created an attachment (id=9201)
Sample output Page 1 - seems to work



------- Additional comments from gieschke Thu Sep 11 05:50:41 -0700 2003 -------

I've created an attachment.

Isn't this what you expected?

Each Label is different.

Win XP, German, RC4



------- Additional comments from fabienst Thu Sep 11 05:56:29 -0700 2003 -------

both labels are the same for me (When I open your attachement) : 
The first shows :  
Name 1 
Rue 1 
CP1 Ville1 
 
The 2nd shows : 
Name 1 
Rue 1 
CP1 Ville1 
 
but it should show the data in the 2nd line of the spreadsheet 
 
Name 2 
Rue 2 
CP2 Ville2 
 



------- Additional comments from gieschke Thu Sep 11 09:58:33 -0700 2003 -------

OK, now I see it, too.

When opening the merged file there is a request to update all "links"
(?, German "Verknüpfungen"), if i choose yes the labels will be the
same but if i choose no the labels will be different.



------- Additional comments from fabienst Thu Sep 11 11:54:24 -0700 2003 -------

but that's not normal behaviour, is it ?  



------- Additional comments from st Fri Sep 12 07:10:10 -0700 2003 -------

Hi, please let developers set the target milestone after confirmation 
and eveluation of issues.
Thanks, Stefan



------- Additional comments from gieschke Fri Sep 12 14:50:03 -0700 2003 -------

> but that's not normal behaviour, is it ? 

To show an update request or the different labels?

That the contents of the labels are changend isn't normal behaviour,
of course.



------- Additional comments from fabienst Sat Sep 13 01:25:01 -0700 2003 -------

> To show an update request or the different labels?

To show the labels (especialy to show the same labels on a page)



------- Additional comments from maxweber Sat Feb 14 13:26:44 -0700 2004 -------

Trying to summarize..

User does a mailmerge on a label document. Mailmerge to printer device or files
work correctly. However when user will open any of the new mailmerge-generated
output docs, he will be prompted "Update all links? YES/NO".

This causes confusion, because..

1) There is no Help-button available.

2) From the program side the situation may be desribed as follows:
When working with label docs, we basically have a doc structure as

 label 2..n = label 1 (synchronization of a _label_ doc..). 

With mailmerging however we get generated docs, which have two following things,
that seem to be standing in conflict:

  Label 2..n != Label 1,

        when we are talking about the content of a label, but at the same time

  Label 2..n = Label 1,

        when we look at the structure and layout of a certain label.


Proposals:

1) Offer a working link to an entry explaining described situation in the
online-help
2) Maybe additionally a short description given to the user directly in the dialog.

3) [IMHO to be deferred..]
Documents, which are mailmerge generated from a label template, should not have
the structure of a label document, but - in order to "desynchronize" label
entries 1..n. - just the structure of a "regular" document (no inner connections)


Any input highly appreciated ! :-)



------- Additional comments from maxweber Sat Feb 14 13:28:11 -0700 2004 -------

changing OS to all.



------- Additional comments from maxweber Sun Feb 15 02:41:46 -0700 2004 -------

correction:

"3) [IMHO to be deferred..]"

-> "3) [IMHO to be deprecated..]"



------- Additional comments from maxweber Tue Feb 24 08:55:56 -0700 2004 -------

unconfirmed -> new



------- Additional comments from hi Tue Mar 2 03:58:12 -0700 2004 -------

HI-OS: From my point of view the update popup should be disabled in case of
Mail-Merge docs.



------- Additional comments from os Tue Mar 2 04:54:55 -0700 2004 -------

A doc created by mail merge is just the same as one created differently. 
The update question is caused by the existence of linked content.

In the rework of mail merge for OOo 2.0 the creation of single documents will
most probably be dropped. 

->cj: Please add this task to your mail merge issue collection



------- Additional comments from maxweber Tue Mar 2 05:03:57 -0700 2004 -------

>> In the rework of mail merge for OOo 2.0 the creation of single documents will
>> most probably be dropped. 

oh no, please not! :-)

(( it's a feature i found most useful for the following scenario:
* database, which contains questions and answers
* mailmerge questions and answers into single files
* convert single *.swx-files to *.PDF-files
* import *.PDF-files into learning-card-application ))



------- Additional comments from lbc Tue Mar 30 14:04:28 -0700 2004 -------

I'll second the request to leave creation of separate documents in the mail
merge system.  I use it both ways (one big file and many small files) depending
on need.

Created attachment 14870 [details]
Example

Created attachment 14871 [details]
datafile

Created attachment 14872 [details]
example

cj: Spec is final. Can be found at:
http://specs.openoffice.org/writer/mail_merge/mailmerge_specification.sxw

cj->em: You've asked for a task. No you have a task ;-) Please review the
strings of the specification. When ready please send the task back to me. Thanks.

thx. Now on my to do list for next week. Hopefully to be done by May 7, but this
is huge, so it may take longer to review the text.

I've just read the final spec and am very impressed.  One issue still stands out
to me:  How will the wizard handle blank fields?  I've always wanted an option
box to allow the user to hide any blank lines.  This would at least bring OOo to
the same level as Word '97.  

A simple check box would surfice for most cases but there will still be a large
amount of users who want to create a more advanced mail merge without having to
manually enter conditional text.  To achieve this there could be an advanced
button which would bring up a further dialog similar to Match Fields.  Something
like:

Data Field  --  Hide field if blank?  --  Hide paragraph if blank?  --  Alt. Text

First Name              Tick                             <ghosted out>         
     <ghosted out> 
Surname                 <blank>                      <blank>                   
       Sir or Madam
Reference               <blank>                       Tick                     
            <ghosted out>


By offering such a dialog users would be able to create very complex mail merges
without that much knowledge of the insides of Writer.  I hope this proposal
makes sense, let me know if there is anything else I can do to try to get this
feature included.

>> One issue still stands out to me:  How will the wizard handle blank fields?

+1 !! (see f.e. issue 9435)

with the status quo volunteers helping on users maillists and forums have a
difficult job explaining people the usage of "conditional formating".. which is
a topic just too complicated for auntie miller (not wanting to insult reporter
of issue 9435, of course!).

*** Issue 9435 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

*** Issue 10760 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

Hi Folks,
The spec is now in my hands for the string review. No more functionality will be
introduced before we implement what we've got already. I'm sorry, but CJ is
leaving for vacation and what we have already is so huge that the developer
can't take on any more right now. 

Please hold further mail merge suggestions and features till after you try out
this implementation: new issues can be filed to improve upon it.  The
suggestions are going to get lost if they keep getting added to this issue, as
this issue will have to close to let the developer check in what has already
been specified. There may be time for implementing more functionality in
conjuction with OO.o 2.0 Beta, but I can't guarantee it. 

Software development has to have deadlines too, as you probably know. We
appreciate your support and feedback, but we've only got two hands per person ;-)
Thanks for understanding,
Liz

Hi Liz, 
What is the schedule for this ? 
according to 
http://development.openoffice.org/releases/OOo_2_0_timetable.html
Mailmerge enhancements swmailmerge 
planned for m36, but delayed. any new schedule ? 
Thanks

Still on my to do list but stalled. New due date for final strings is May 17.

Liz->Utomo: "As soon as possible"

Is the label issue already handeled in the new specs????
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=15878

*** Issue 15065 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

*** Issue 24448 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

Strings still not final. Sending out for external review. Should be back Aug 9.

I see I'm asking this question late in the development cycle; sorry about that.

Is it possible to use the File > Autopilot > Report wizard or the underlying 
hidden form controls which it employs, to generate mail merges of a single-file 
variety?

WIZARD:  For some who want a single-file user-formatted tabular output of their 
database data, the Report wizard may be sufficient and EASY to use.

HIDDEN CONTROLS:  But--IF it is possible to use the hidden form controls to 
create inline fields to generate something like MS Word's "catalog" merge--
presently it is very COMPLICATED to use.  Though it is too complicated for the 
average user to use (the current standard 3-step process for doing mail merges 
is much simpler), nevertheless OOo's Report capabilities may provide some 
significant underlying resources which you (the programmers) can utilize as 
you're revamping the mail merge wizard.

Hope this sparks some ideas.

String review is done. Spec has been updated except for the mockups of the
dialogs. They still contain the old strings. See the string lists for the final
strings.

Final spec is here:
http://specs.openoffice.org/writer/mail_merge/mailmerge_specification.sxw

Thanks everyone for your patience!
Liz
Assigning issue to OS/implementation.

..

.

.

.

The New Mailmerge is implemented in the cws.

Mail merge function is one of the most important reason for our secretaries/book
keepers not to switch from MS-Office to OpenOffice.org. Printing to several
files is not as good as it should be but it would be ok. But the database is
still linked with each field in the file and so the files could not be rewritten.

Printing to several files with losing the fields linked to the database and only
printing the text in the created files is what our secretaries/book keepers wants. 

The new Mailmerge I mean starts to be implemented with the src680m55. It can be
used but evaluate it as a beta.

closed.

There is a very important part of the UI missing and that is how to handle blank
lines.

MS Office 95 had this so surely this ranks highly on the MS compatibility front.

Issues 9054 and 10760 covered this (as did many others) but it has not been
addressed.  

Issue 36696 needs looking at before the Mail Merge feature can be complete

Hey'All - 

Just want to say that the mail merge in the new OOo 2.0 IS better than the 1.x 
series -

however, I still had a hard time figuring it out.  I do layout, as well as web 
programming, and often do mail merges with Adobe Pagemaker, Avery Designer, and 
MS Word. 

Here's what I offer for suggestions:

1. Allow "labels", etc, as options in the mail merge wizard - it's really 
confusing to go to one place for letters, and another for labels.  It took me 
forever to figure out that for labels, i had to start out by going to "File - 
New - Labels", and then remember to check the "synchronize records" thing in 
the "options" tab - good thing it was in the help file - but normally I don't 
have to read the help file to figure out mail merge!!

2. Put some step in the wizard to allow inserting of other fields besides the 
salutation and address block.  Personally, I always skip this anyway so I don't 
have to bother with matching my field names up to do the address block.  But 
it's not obvious because the option is not given.  And the salutation thing, 
while nice, is kind of confusing.  It should be offered on a push-button to 
another pop-up window or something, instead of being its own step.  

Why not have an "insert fields" step - with one button to go to 
the "salutation" dialog, one to the "address" dialog, and then just a list of 
the fields in the data source to drag and drop over displayed by default?

Right now, you have to either hit F4 to bring up data sources, or Ctrl-F2 
for "insert fields".  neither of these is obvious, though they do have nice 
featuresets.

3.  Don't actually do the merge until the last step - right now it does sort of 
a "preview" merge of all the records before you even get to the last step, 
where it asks you "print" or "merge to file", etc.  for large files with 
graphics, this could cause a huge performance hit.  sometimes it would be good 
to merge straight to printer without doing the whole merge ahead of time to a 
temporary file - for performance reasons.  MS word does this - it asks you at 
the last step, whether to merge straight to printer, or merge to a new word doc 
to do editing or saving before print.  Don't actually do the whole merge before 
the user asks you to.

4.  fix the merge to email, finally.

For anyone else reading this, I finally found the hack to fix this - it's not 
that hard - 
read http://internet.cybermesa.com/~aaron_w/OOo_email_merge/OOo_email_merge.html

hopefully this gets merged into a release soon, then we won't have to do the 
hack to make it work, but i'm still happy to get it to work anyway - the hack 
wasn't that bad - copy a file, run one command-line command, and change one 
value in a text file in an obscure folder.  not too bad.

thanks everyone for all their work on this project, i'm still quite grateful.

peace 

aaron

*** Issue 20557 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***