Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 58927
Writer GUI shows two different Table Numbers for a given table
Last modified: 2013-02-07 22:41:35 UTC
Each table in Writer is identified by a Table number, seen at three different places in the GUI: 1. Navigator (Listed in the "Tables" section) 2. Status Bar (Displays only when you are inside any table) 3. Caption (Displays only when you have opted to show captions for tables) Problem: The table number in the first two places (in the list above) is different from the table number in the third place. Despite being different, both numbers are expressed in identical format ("Table n"). This is confusing for the writer and reader. >> The table number embedded in the caption is given in top-down order. The numbering is DYNAMIC: When the original order of the tables is disturbed (e.g. tables are inserted, deleted or moved in the document), the concerned tables are renumbered automatically. >> In contrast, the table number displayed in the Status Bar and Navigator reflects the order in which the tables were CREATED. The numbering is STATIC: The number allotted to a given table does not change when tables are inserted, deleted or moved in the document. Suggestion to eliminate the confusion: Either use the same number at all places, or use separate nomenclature to distinguish between these two numbers. **** Additional notes: 1. Numbering of nested tables is difficult. Particularly, if the document uses a two-column table to control its text-flow (i.e., left column is the left margin and the right column holds the text). In this case, all the "normal" tables in the document are actually at Level-2. Uniform numbering of such tables is difficult. 2. Numbering the tables in the order of their creation is not meaningful; particularly if the document is large. Even the original author will not remember a table by its birth sequence. For the reader, it makes absolutely no sense ("Go to the table that was created 53rd in this document"). 3. The number used in the caption is a field, which is automatically updated. This can be used inside the text to cross-refer to any table. When any table is renumbered, the cross-references are also updated; so the link is never broken. So, if the Navigator needs a unique identifier for each table, why not use the same number that is used in its caption?
confirmed on Windows XP Pro SP2 with OOo 2.0.1 RC2
This is not a bug. The table "number" reflected in the Navigator and Status bar is not a real number. The "Table x" is a default string given by the application in order of the table creation. This is th table name which can be edited and customized by the user in the Insert.Table dialog or the Table properties dialog. The number in the caption is the real number in order of appearance in the document.
Closed. No bug here. Don't mix up the table's name with it's number.
Raindrops -> mru. Your reply explains HOW the two numbers are different, which I had already described. But that does not justify WHY the tables were required to be numbered in two different ways; WHY both are diaplayed in the SAME format, on the SAME screen. To me, it is a bug because- 1. The user cannot use Navigator to go to the table he wants. 2. The dual numbering (for whatever reasons) confuses him Specifically, could you provide rebuttals for the specific points I mentioned as "additional notes"? Especially see point#2 and 3 together: Because the Navigator lists the tables in the order of their creation, its role as a map is lost! Can you show how to use the Navigator in the following cases: 1. The text mentions a table number, and I want to jump to it. 2. I am browsing in the document, and now I want to jump to the next table. Like the map of a city, Navigator should describe its GEOGRAPHY; not its HISTORY. If a tourist asks you about a landmark, will you tell him "it is located on a road that was created 5th in the history of the city"? How is the tourist supposed to use that information? Instead, it would be useful to say >> "It is straight down the road, third street from here" (relative address) >> "On the junction of 3rd Main, 5th Cross" (absolute address) Is there even a single use of having historical numbers for the tables? (Consider all stakehiolders: author, reviewers, readers) If there is not a single benefit, why have it at all? Also, what are the disadvantages of following a single numbering scheme everywhere?
Your reasoning states that this is not a defect, it is a request for enhancement. You propose a different handling of Writer table's naming and numbering which might be better for your desires. So marked as enhancement and reassigned to requirements.
Thanks. IMO the navigator should display the table number in physical sequence (i.e., the number that appears in the caption/status bar) AND ALSO the actual text of the caption. (Use a separator inbetween) This will allow the reader to select the table he wants based on. ****** [OT] On the issue of whether this is really a defect or an enhancement: Here, "defect" is defined as "does not work as designed". So if the design itself is counter-intuitive, the issue cannot be classified as a defect! In other words, defects arising out of a faulty requirement analysis HAVE to be named "enhancements". The definition of "defect" needs to be changed to- "not serving the intended purpose (end-use)". This distinction is especially important in a commmunity development project, as defects would get immediate attention, where as enhancements may be pushed off till later.