Issue 48790 - alignment buttons in toolbar appears to be inactive when differntly aligned items are selected
Summary: alignment buttons in toolbar appears to be inactive when differntly aligned i...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 35563
Alias: None
Product: gsl
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: current
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: AOO PleaseHelp
Assignee: stephan_schaefer
QA Contact: issues@gsl
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-05-05 19:46 UTC by jeongkyu.kim
Modified: 2005-12-02 16:43 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description jeongkyu.kim 2005-05-05 19:46:45 UTC
In writer and calc, alignment buttons in toolbar appears to be inactive when
differntly aligned items are selected. However, alignment is still working
without regarding to appearance. I believe it is better to show buttons as
normal (non pushed) state in this case. 

Steps to reproduce (in writer)
1. Open a Writer document
2. Input a paragraph and make sure alignement stays 'left'.
3. Input another paragraph and align it 'right'. 
4. Select both paragraph.
5. Confirm alignment buttons become inactivated.
6. Click 'align left' button
7. Confirm both paragraphs are aligned left.
Comment 1 jeongkyu.kim 2005-05-05 19:51:06 UTC
One interesting thing is that alignment buttons for textbox in draw has
different behavior. Was it implemented in different way to wrtier or calc?
Comment 2 mjneedles 2005-05-05 21:46:22 UTC
I think this is the expected behaviour when the selection has multiple possible
attributes for the controls on the toolbar.  If the controls were to show one of
the attributes selected, which one should it be?  For this reason, the font
name, size, style (B/I/U), and alignment attributes are left blank or greyed-out
(not inactive) when multiple, differing attributes are encountered in the
selection.  Leaving the buttons "non pushed" would be deceiving if there were
portions of the selection that contained that attribute.  Thus,  this third
state clearly shows that part of the selection has that attribute.  It's a very
good way to show that.

I think this issue should be closed as "invalid."

Matt Needles
OOo volunteer coach/tester
Comment 3 jeongkyu.kim 2005-05-06 01:25:48 UTC
Matt, thanks for your comment.

I think a grayed out button typically means that the function is not available
in current situation. Also, primary purpose of toolbar button is to show _what
user can expect by pushing toolbar button_. In case of this issue, user can
expect selected entities to be aligned with any of alignment options. So, it is
ok to leave the buttons non-pushed.

I understand it is good to show current state of selected entity through toolbar
buttons. However, openoffice.org tries it too much and it causes another type of
usability issues such as i40778 (
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=40778 ). 

In my opinion, this kind of is is very subjective matter. My arguments here are
based on simply my assumption. :-)
Comment 4 mci 2005-05-10 08:34:58 UTC
Hi jeongkyu,
thanks for using and supporting OpenOffice.org...

Please suggest what to do instead "greying out" the affected buttons...

I think mjneedles is right... What else should we do?
Comment 5 jeongkyu.kim 2005-05-10 16:22:31 UTC
Hi mci,

I suggested to show all buttons as normal(non pushed) state in this case. The
reason was in my prior comment. 
Comment 6 mci 2005-05-12 15:02:16 UTC
reassigned to cj

mci -> cj: 
Hi cj,

please have a lookat this.
I'm not sure which behaviour is better: the current behaviour or the suggested
behaviour...

Please decide...
Comment 7 mjneedles 2005-05-12 17:13:51 UTC
<Back from a recess>
The op's suggestion is the way MS does it (MSO XP).  I like our way better, 
because it shows there are multiple, different attributes in the selection.  I
don't think the term "greyed-out" correctly describes the buttons in this case,
though.  They are "selected (pushed) and dimmed" IMHO.  This shows, as far as
possible, the attributes found in the selection.  MSO's way doesn't tell you
anything.

Matt
Comment 8 jeongkyu.kim 2005-05-12 19:02:40 UTC
If they are selected (pushed) and dimmed, it has to be pushed only for selected
attributes. So, confusion still remains. If it shows just 'multiple' attributes
in selection, normal buttons can show same meaning.

My point is that toolbar buttons are not for showing selected attributes. In
case of this issue, buttons have to show 'if you click one of the alignment
button, the alignment will be applied to every selected paragraph'. I believe
normal buttons are best for showing this. Typically, pushed button is used when
user can remove selected attribute. 

Also, i40778 is a good example of inconvinience caused by showing 'current
state'. How do you think?
Comment 9 christian.jansen 2005-05-19 10:48:55 UTC
CJ -> OS: When two or more differently aligned paragraphs are selected we should
display the tb buttons enable, but not selected.

In case of Radio buttons all should be enabled, but not selected (like it
already is). In case of menu or context menu entries all should be enabled ,but
not selected (like it already is). Given that it is only consistent to display
the tb buttons in the same way.
Comment 10 christian.jansen 2005-05-19 10:49:30 UTC
.
Comment 11 Oliver Specht 2005-05-19 11:13:32 UTC
os->cj: Not that I could change anything in the appearance of toolbox items,
but: Your solution doesn't make much sense and I can't see any reason for a
target 2.01. 
I case of the alignment it might make sense to change the way they are currently
displayed for mixed attributes. In case of single buttons like bold, italic we
would lose information. 


Comment 12 christian.jansen 2005-05-19 14:07:02 UTC
cj -> ssa: Could you please have a look at this one? Thanks
cj -> os: Sorry, for assigning you as owner for this.
Comment 13 stephan_schaefer 2005-05-23 10:22:55 UTC
The patch of issue 35563 solves this issue.


*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 35563 ***
Comment 14 stephan_schaefer 2005-12-02 16:43:20 UTC
closing duplicate