Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing |
Summary: | Intuitive UI (input) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Math | Reporter: | hflees <lx3hf> |
Component: | code | Assignee: | AOO issues mailing list <issues> |
Status: | CONFIRMED --- | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | Trivial | ||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | dma2002, issues, kozodaevroman, yuval |
Version: | 680m51 | Keywords: | oooqa |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Issue Type: | FEATURE | Latest Confirmation in: | --- |
Developer Difficulty: | --- |
Description
hflees
2004-09-15 01:02:06 UTC
Yes we know how MathTypes UI works. And we also had a number of users being thankful for still having a text based input method especially compared to MathType. TL->BH: Since this is a request for enhancement / change I think this belongs to you to think about. I tested 9 formula editors (on win32 and downloadable for trial/demo) to get the feel of their input methods:- 1. OpenOffice.org.Math – ver 1.9.51 2. MathEdit – ver 3.20E 3. MathMagic – ver PE 3.0 4. MathType – ver 5.2 5. OpenMathEdit – ver 0.78 6. WinTeXmacs – ver 1.0.1.3 7. Formulator – ver 1.0 8. Equation Illustrator V – ver 2.2.13.8 9. GobeProductive – ver 3.0.3 I hope to test WordPerfect 12 and Lotus Smartsuite. Unfortunately WordPerfect 12 trial does not run and no downloadable Lotus Smartsuite. The result .. 1. OpenOffice.org.Math => Assisted command line 2. MathEdit => GUI 3. MathMagic => GUI 4. MathType => GUI 5. OpenMathEdit => command line 6. WinTeXmacs => GUI 7. Formulator => GUI 8. Equation Illustrator V => GUI 9. GobeProductive => ??? OOo.Math - Assisted command line = when user select a value in the GUI, appropriate location in the command line is selected, enable editing. I must agree OOo.Math's strength is the *assisted* 'command line' whereby *assisted* make it more friendly and 'command line' make it powerful and 'in control'. I have no problem with it. The dominant word processing users are from MS-WORD world. I think this group of users are too lazy to think when they work. Don't talk about learning. If OOo.Math targeting this group of users, then OOo.Math is lacking. If we analyse it the reverse way - who will use OOo.Math ? Student? Teacher? Lecturer? Professional? May be they are 'easier' to learn. Obviously normal clerk would hardly use this module. This is just my idea.. it may be wrong. Frankly, I don't know which is better. My wife, economic lecturer, complained very difficult to use formula editor in OOo. Regards, I can see how some users might have problems learning the commands for OOoMath, but I really can't see any better way of implemementing it. One of the most common design flaws among the programs listed is that they force users to constantly switch between the mouse and they keyboard, which is both annoying any time-consuming. I can't see any way of avoiding the use of a basic command language, without creating this problem. Granted, most of them provide some keyboard shortcuts to the most common commands, but isn't learning these commands just as much work as learning the OOo math code? Also, the OOo code is much more intuitive than most of the keyboard shortcuts the other programs use. An alternative solution... Dmaths, a GPL add-on to OOo: http://www.dmaths.org I also object to the initial offer of making math-editor a WYSIWYG formula editing. I completely agree with hflees' analysis. Of course, the best solution is to have it both ways, but this is a lot of coding to do. Currently, I (and some other people *) , would like to see the formula editor going in more proffesional direction (e.g. Latex) rather than having more GUI. * See a discussion in http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=12297 Confirmed. To cut the long story short: Although many users prefer the way OOo handles "formula typing" (which can be really fast), some would like a more intuitive, e.g. Word-like, solution. Perhaps the best approach is multi-layered. I've used Mathematica before and found that UI satisfying, because it provided three approaches: palette GUI, text-input, and lastly, keyboard shortcuts. The point of keyboard shortcuts is not to supplant the other two, and not to be easier to learn than the OOo math code (that's what the GUI is for), but to provide fast entry capability for the power user who doesn't want to type, for example, "wideslash" whenever they want a pretty-slash fraction. But please consider the shortcuts carefully; they should be both intuitive and simple. I personally find the Word shortcuts to be unintuitive, but maybe it's just me. In any case, many thanks! I think the current OOo.Formula input method is complete... GUI palette to click, text-input to show and edit the formula. Not sure on the keyboard shortcut. GUI palette is targetted for GUI/competitive program users, whereas text-input for advanced users. What is lacking? Possible enhancement is GUI editing. An important element in many competitve programs is users are able to edit the result. This is not available in OOo.Formula... and that make new user run away. The cursor should be by default in the result. Any changes in the GUI/result should be reflected immediately in the text-input. For example I click this formula, the formula appears in my current cursor. I click that formula, it appears in my next cursor location. Of course, the parameters can be user's input, formula from formula button click or symbol from symbol button click. For advanced user... they type whatever they want... and the result appears in the GUI result. Garbage in garbage out. Switching between GUI/result input and text-input can be made possible via mouse click or shortcut. Comment? Is "GUI editing" different from WYSIWYG editing? I think they both mean the same thing, in which case, I agree, I'm definitely for it. But obviously this should not replace text entry editing. It should operate in parallel, as you said, so the user has a choice on how to edit (and view) the formula. By keyboard shortcuts, I mean a full palette of options available by simple two-key combinations. For example, why should I have to type "1 over 2" when I could type "1 [Ctrl-o] 2" and get the same thing? My philosophy is that the power user should be enabled to use a minimum of keystrokes to get the desired result. We may have to agree to disagree about this...? :-) Good... that's what OOo.Formula required. Can we get some votes for the following enhancement/problem statement? "To enchance OOo.Formula to allow GUI/WYISWYG editing, in addition to current assisted text-input method." I would love to see a GUI, but then we can use MathType under Windows (OLE) without any problems... In this sense the user already has a choice... I would prefer the OOo bugs fixed first though... . My opinion. I use text-based input method and this way is for me faster than using "keyboard-mouse-keyboard-mouse". I've spent only about two hours to learn OOo Math basics. I make several documents with equations and I say, that command-line method is for me better, than GUI input, for example, in MSEE. Just two hours of learning, men, just two hours - and it will be OK. On the other hand I understand, that the GUI input will help people, which wish to migrate from MSO to OOo. So I think, that command-line input must exist ever and GUI input is a useful feature for "immigrants". I really do like the formula editor because you can type very fast the formula and you can also click. Only I miss a few symbols. Why isn't there the sha symbol that is often used in fourier transforms. The integral symbol is not scalable and is very small. And if you're typing you don't have the help like in matlab and other mathamatical programms that you see that you correctly closed you're The error reporting could be better because an upset-down question mark doesn't tell you what you did wrong. There is no function to outline the formula's. You can only do that with a trick with a matrix and the function phantom. There should be an extra function to automatically outline formula's. I too would like to see OpenOffice having inbuilt support for Latex. |