Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 31231
Tools->Options->OpenOffice.org->Print Usability Problems
Last modified: 2008-05-17 23:00:51 UTC
Tools->Options->OpenOffice.org->Print ------------------------------------- Imho this is the second-most confusing dialog in Openoffice It has been pointed out in another issue (#1920), that the use of radio buttons for the Settings for Printer/File differenciation is a misuse of radio buttons and should be done with tabs instead. I can only agree with that. To me the more grave problem is that this treating Printers and File output as different makes no more sense in today's world. Most of these options are IMHO workarounds for problems with individual printers, e.g. an old Level 2 LaserWriter might not like to receive printouts with transparency in them. Or you've got some shiny new high-end color inkjet and want to have the highest possible quality without OOo reducing printout quality even before the fine tuned printer driver can do anything about it. The differenciation between file and printer does *not* make any sense however. Just because I print something to a file does not mean I want different and/or specific settings. Why should I? Just like there might be *different* Printers directly connected, there might be *different* printers for which I might intend the redirected files -- at different times. Also increasingly the difference between "Printer" and "File" is blurring, with printer-driver-level document-converters (there are commercial add-on printer drivers converting to PDF etc., like Adobe the Adobe Distiller driver). I can only assume that the model behind this differenciation was, that the user has only one printer, and if she wants to print to a file, she has some very different needs. This was surely adequate circa 1990 when printers were expensive, Computers not always networked and printing to file was often done to "carry" stuff to the printer. This is *not* the norm today, where former "Printing to File" is done via PDF anyway and most office-environments sport three or four printers per user (the copier in the next room for large jobs, the Laser common to the office, the Inkjet for colour printouts etc.) Please do away with this differenciation entirely or implement it on a per-printer basis. TIA /ralph
SBA-> Ralphie: Please keep it shorter (much shorter!) in the future. Forcing us to read "more" in one issue steals time to take care of other issues. It makes no sense to tell how dumb we are by having this and that and to pile up guessings for technical background that you can not know about unless you worked here for a couple of years. Last not least it is absolutely no fun to read such stuff. Now what exactly is your proposal? Please make it SHORT this time and try to cut out ALL guesses and slightly hidden insults. Thank you for your comprehension.
Proposal a) preferred: Get rid of radio button-group "Settings for ()Printer ()Print to file" Move rest of the widgets up, use same settings for both. b) if a) is not possible Make the options presented in this dialog per-printer options, i.e. somehow selectable from the "File-Print" or "File-Page Setup" menu entry on a per-printer basis, e.g. via a "Details" button or a tab. Rationale: See above ------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, that's the suggestion in all brevity. What follows is a personal remark to your followup, don't bother wasting time, if you don't want to. Yes it is *long*: I basically got my "online socialization" on Usenet where brevity mainly is shown in the lack of an introductory greeting and the use of acronyms. Yes it might be a problem of mine, but on the other hand, if I read through Debian bugs, most of them are much, much longer, for even more banal things. And if I ever have seen a bugtracker actually *work*, it is the Debian BTS. What is clear to you if you communicate among developers is not clear to me, as a complete outsider. Therefore I supply lots of context. I don't know where you are coming from, and neither do you about me. More often than not have I seen completely *under*defined problem descriptions ("My Printer does not work, where should I click?"). I try to avoid this. Had I only written above Suggestion, I would not have been surprised if you had closed it INVALID instantly. Neither would I blame you. I *do* think that lack of usability is *the* problem of OOo today limiting its possibilities. I might be wrong, but many reviews *consistently* describe OOo as harder to use than the main competitor (and that main competitor is already complicated to use) while praising its stability and technical merits. Therefore I file usability and documentation bugs. This does *not* mean that I think you are bad UI designers, just as it does not mean you are bad programmers if I file technical bugs. I *do* think however that sometimes a complete outsider can see problems with a UI much clearer than somebody who has been closely involved for years. Exactly *because we do not know the technical limitations of the framework* (neither does the "naive" user), you should consider suggestions from outsiders. I do think some of the usability problems of OOo are because the process of its design is more technology driven istead of user-expectation driven. At least it looks that way to me as an outsider. Considering all the resources in OOo invested into infrastructure (like the native widget framework) or features (like the PDF export / Flash export for Presentations), it is for me as a user sometimes frustrating, that the core tasks of word processing (typing letters and short reports) or spreadsheet work (making simple budgets) do not become any easier over the years. A suggestion like in this issue will never make it into 2.0, therefore it most likely would be available at the earliest in late 2006 or 2007, or so it seems to me as an outsider. By then basically half the innards of OOo since 1.0 will be ripped out and replaced. But many of the simple interface flaws will be the same (yes, I know a lot will be done for 2.0 but this is mainly "Word-cloning" type of stuff). This might be in part responsible for the frustration that might have been "included" in the issue. Sorry for the rant, and sorry for coming across as confrontational in the original issue! /ralph
SBA-> Ralphie: I respect people's ability and will to exchange "background information" and thoughts. The big problem is that an issue tracker is simply the wrong place to do so. Please use the openoffice.org mailing lists/newsgroups. By doing so you can also be assured that many more people will read and appreciate your efforts. That's a much better place because if an issue gets closed, it would have been only you and me reading all this. Besides, we (QA) tend to close issues and re-write them as a "five liner" for the simple reason of their lenght. So before adding another "book" to an issue, please read issue 1820 thoroughly to get my point of "too much truth-telling is not productive" (in whatever project). The most efficient way to communicate issues is a short "list-like" way. Still the best issue description is "see summary" if it's possible to squeeze all needed information into it. SBA->MMP: (a) looks like a precise duplicate of issue 1920. From my point of view, feel free to close it. Since "cleaning up" the tools-options legacy is your cup of tea, feel free to get inspired by all the rest :-)
Quite; #1920 says "improve it", I say "remove it", MMP will surely make the right decision. I'll try to be more constructive next time.
Please look at http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=46436. It suggests a total re-work of the options system. Other than that, I agree with sba, this is a duplicate of 1920. Closing as such. I understand the wording is a little different, but it is the same in spirit. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 1920 ***
The Issue you raised has been marked as 'Resolved' and not updated within the last 1 year+. I am therefore setting this issue to 'Verified' as the first step towards Closing it. If you feel this is incorrect, please re-open the issue and add any comments. Many thanks, Andrew Cleaning-up and Closing old Issues ~ The Grand Bug Squash, pre v3 ~ http://marketing.openoffice.org/3.0/announcementbeta.html
As per previous posting: Verified -> Closed. A Closed Issue is a Happy Issue (TM). Regards, Andrew