Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 40111
Two different sorts of 3d objects producible: irritating for the user
Last modified: 2013-02-07 21:53:41 UTC
At the moment it is possible to produce two different kinds of 3d objects: - extrude an autoshape - draw a rectangle and convert it to 3d. Extruded objects can be altered with the 3d settings toolbar but not the 3d rectangle. The 3d rectangle can be altered with the contextmenu/3d effects but the autoshape cannot. No user will understand this differentiation. Therefor we should change the behaviour of the rectangle and ellipse button in the toolbar. They should insert autoshapes and not our old drawing objects. Powerpoint does it the same. Please contact CJ and me if you have different thoughts. Thanks.
If we use autoshapes for all standard shapes, then these shapes will all get lost while exporting to OOo 1.0 Therefore we would need a migration path which we don't have and will not have in the remaining OOo 2.0 timeframe.
We only have two standard shapes left at the moment: rectangle and ellipse. The broad mass of objects is already autoshapes. So we loose all this if we export to OOo1.0? Then the additional loss of rectangle and ellipse wont make it any worse for the user... I think the problem with 1.0 is not so serious as if we have two kinds of objects that no normal user can differ.
According to CL, the code change required for this are pretty complex/risky, so we won't do this anymore in the 2.0 time frame. Additionally, back when the autoshape feature was implemented, it was agreed (according to CL, too) in the iTeam that there won't be a complete migration story for the shapes. => OOo Later
I'm sure that the i-team was not conscious about the aftermath when they made the decision. Such a complex operation cannot be overseen in all of its consequences in the forefront.
sj: We are having a migration path now if exporting to OOo1.0, so it is possible to replace Rectangle and Ellipse shapes by the corresponding CustomShape.
It is not just "rectangle" and "ellipse". If you draw an arbitrary closed poly, then you get a shape that is not an autoshape. There should be a way to convert a poly to an autoshape, in order to get the new 3D behaviour.
*bell ring* pls solve this problem more quickly. There's also confusion because "word wrap text in shape" do not work for Drawing objects but works for autoshapes. If you Google " "word wrap text in shape" " the first result (OOoForums) calls this "very illogical and confusing", and it is. This is bad PR, since its the first result but no one has replied to the post to explain this awkward situation.
*bell ring* pls solve this problem more quickly. There's also confusion because "word wrap text in shape" do not work for Drawing objects but works for autoshapes. If you Google "word wrap text in shape" the first result (OOoForums) calls this "very illogical and confusing", and it is. This is bad PR, since its the first result but no one has replied to the post to explain this awkward situation.
Rectangle, ellipse and path have direct counterparts in svg, customs shapes not. Therefore I'm against removing the classical shapes.
ALG: +1 to Regina, I also want to keep it as it is. Maybe we can better present these mixed objects to users, but the situation itself is caused by supporting MS CustomShapes at all. There are more and mightier things you can do with the simple original shapes, we would lose functionality, too.