Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing
|Summary:||Not all, only ~11 rows displayed in MailMerge / Table window|
|Component:||code||Assignee:||AOO issues mailing list <issues>|
|Status:||CONFIRMED ---||QA Contact:|
|Priority:||P4||CC:||bero, flibby05, issues|
|Issue Type:||ENHANCEMENT||Latest Confirmation in:||---|
Description tuharsky 2004-10-08 12:29:53 UTC
Get the attachment from issue 35178. Add the spreadsheet to Data Sources. Create an empty text document and add field pointing to any column of the sheet. Now go to MailMerge. In the selection window, there are only 11 rows of the Spreadsheet visible. If U click at "forward to the end" button, remaining rows appear. If U use a sort function, again only 13 rows appear and only after Forward to end envisibles remaining rows.
Comment 1 marc.neumann 2004-10-11 14:53:12 UTC
Hi, yes that's right. First you see only a couple of records f.e. 11. And then after scrolling you see all records. You don't want to wait until f.e. 100.000 records are displayed in bug tables. So I close this issue as "wont fix" Bye Marc
Comment 2 marc.neumann 2004-10-11 14:53:28 UTC
Comment 3 tuharsky 2004-10-12 07:25:47 UTC
Well, it is well-thought, I agree . However, shouldn't the user be noticed about this? Maybe some cute text on the bottom or so could do.. Or some note that would display when mouse the first time affects the fields selection window.
Comment 4 Frank Schönheit 2004-10-12 07:47:46 UTC
Well, there's an asterik behind the record number. The documentation states (to my best knowledge) that this means the record count is incomplete. However, I admit that this is pretty non-obvious. A tooltip could do, but where? What do you mean by "fields selection window"?
Comment 6 tuharsky 2004-10-12 08:55:23 UTC
When U go to MailMerge window, this part is what I mean. The tooltip or so could cover also the scroll and other controls. Hmm, what about other small trick. The scrollbar, that is used to scroll down, changes its size by default to reflect length of the list. If we changed the size to make it smaller by default, the user would naturally expect more records and longer list. Of course, accessing the lower parts of list would change the size to appropriate. Of course, the fader should shrink only if there are really more than 11 records avaiable to display ;o) Additional improvement: a "full list" button somewhere near. User usually dosen't work with 100000's of records as You say, but some 100's usually do (when we say "MailMerge" in Office product, we're almost speaking about generating mail labels in some company). I agree that the 100000's of records would take long time, but 100's shouldn't. This way ("Full list" button), user is acknowledged that the list ISN'T FULL and that HE SHOULD TAKE SPECIAL ACTION TO DISPLAY FULL LIST -thus it is much more OK for him. The actual implementation of the window is not very lucky anyway. If user isn't aware, he dosen't feel comfortably with only 11 records showed. He feels like there are no more records, or that program is eating his data. If he does any operation (sort or so), the records are reorganised, but again only 11 appear. The may be best possible solution? Listing is real-time rendered anytime the Mail-merge window is opened. Only first visible records are displayed, but mouse cursor shows activity and the scrollbar 's size is changing contineously to reflect real amount of records. Cursor is active (not blocked) and user can do any action he wants. I understand that such solution may be the most difficult to code. What do You mean?
Comment 7 tuharsky 2004-12-08 14:14:37 UTC
Hmm, I don't think the behaviour is obvious for user. He should be noticed by some logical, self-documenting and meaningful way. The sole asterisk dosen't do the job. Please consider. Some ways to do are commented in my previous post althought I don't present them as the best possible. The size of scrollbar might be good and simple way to go, and pop-up tooltip "11 of 111000 records displayed" that would fade out after first click on whatever button might be also sympathic.
Comment 8 Frank Schönheit 2004-12-08 14:32:37 UTC
The solution to display the "11000" (or whatever) isn't possible since you cannot know this number before visiting every record - that's an inherent problem of databases. We could guestimate this number, at least. In SO 5.2, we were constantly counting the records in the background, thus the user saw a permanent increase in the record number. I agree that this was probably the best possible solution. Unfortunately, we had to kick it out for technical reasons, and did not yet find time to re-introduce.
Comment 9 tuharsky 2004-12-08 14:46:54 UTC
Well, It may be the best solution, however user should be able to disable it in Options to avoid CPU overuse in multiuser terminal systems. So the LIST ALL button seems self-documenting, transparent and relatively easy to accomplish, isn't it? Moreover, if there was time to implement background listing, the button isn't in contradiction with that; user could block the auto-background-listing and still use the button if he wishes. If auto-background-listing was enabled, pressing the button could display some "In progress" kinda note.
Comment 10 flibby05 2005-04-01 19:05:59 UTC
defect -> enhancement
Comment 11 marc.neumann 2005-04-28 13:25:36 UTC
Hi, I reassign this issue to User Experience for evaluating. Bye Marc
Comment 12 marc.neumann 2005-04-28 13:34:38 UTC
*** Issue 47670 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 13 marc.neumann 2005-05-03 08:58:42 UTC
Comment 14 marc.neumann 2005-05-03 08:59:17 UTC
*** Issue 48418 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 15 marc.neumann 2005-10-25 08:42:21 UTC
*** Issue 56583 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 16 marc.neumann 2006-01-05 09:12:23 UTC
*** Issue 60054 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 17 marc.neumann 2007-02-21 14:17:39 UTC
*** Issue 74710 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 18 marc.neumann 2007-03-16 10:22:00 UTC
*** Issue 75434 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 19 Rainer Bielefeld 2007-03-24 09:39:52 UTC
*** Issue 72405 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 20 marc.neumann 2007-10-22 13:34:56 UTC
*** Issue 82797 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 21 drewjensen.inbox 2008-12-21 18:28:11 UTC
*** Issue 97450 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 22 bero 2008-12-21 19:41:34 UTC
There is another problem with this: If a user clicks the top left corner, he expects to select the entire table (e.g. to generate a serial letter to everyone in the database) - while it selects only the users who are already loaded. I agree that it makes sense to give the user interactivity before downloading the entire db, but maybe there should be a button in the toolbar saying "load all table entries" or something?
Comment 23 Frank Schönheit 2009-01-05 09:23:09 UTC
> There is another problem with this: If a user clicks the top left corner, he > expects to select the entire table (e.g. to generate a serial letter to > everyone in the database) - while it selects only the users who are already > loaded. This is - well, should - not be true. If you click the upper left corner, then in fact every subsequent action should apply to the whole table, no the visible-so-far rows. At least this is how it was implemented long ago. Everything else is a (separate) bug, I'd say.
Comment 24 Rainer Bielefeld 2009-05-06 08:48:25 UTC
*** Issue 101510 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***