Re: Specifications for present UI and Graphics

> Hi Rafael, hi Bernhard, all!
>
> Bernhard, thanks for the CC :-)
>
> Am Samstag, den 09.07.2011, 23:05 +0200 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
>> >  Hi Rafael, all
>> >  
>> >  just taking a very small part of your mail to reply, because this is a
>> >  different topic that shouldn't be hidden at the end of a long mail.
>> >  Rafael Rocha Daud schrieb:
>>> >  >  [...]
>>> >  >
>>> >  >  Talking of what, who do we need to talk to to get some directions on the
>>> >  >  capabilities of our current graphical libraries? Is there a
>>> >  >  specification, and someone who might be able to explain it if I get
>>> >  >  stuck? I want to continue working in the Styles and Formatting window,
>>> >  >  but I don't know what graphical elements I can throw in, explore etc.
>> >  
>> >  The best one to reply here is Christoph - but let him some time to reply
>> >  as he is in parental leave (even if he is more and more active again...)
> Starting today, our little son has some vacation some hundred kilometers
> away. So, for approx. two weeks that will lead to,
> a) missing him (already),
> b) spending some time for LibO (already) ;-)
>
>> >  As the UI is nearly unchanged from the OOo UI, you should have a look at
>> >  the OpenOffice.org specifications. I found this index:
>> >  
>> >  http://specs.openoffice.org/ui_in_general/index.html
> Hard questions - since LibO is platform neutral you'll find any kind of
> behavior within the system. Given the today's capabilities, assume that
> the "intersecting set" of the UI elements of Windows, Mac and Gnome are
> supported. So, this leads to only few elements being available per
> default. And, that led to a UI design that is a "mixture" of all the
> platforms (just have a look at grouped UI elements ...).
>
> Besides these items, there are some more elements specifically designed
> for LibreOffice - e.g. the Task Pane in Impress that was initially
> planned to be added to other LibO modules as well (already somehow
> obsolete interaction design). Or, a rather recent addition, the new
> drop-downs in Impress to change the slide layout.
>
> Unfortunately, some of these "custom elements" have been built for
> special cases only - so expect local solutions to pop up everywhere. One
> example are windows. Missing a layout manager, windows are usually not
> resizable. But, the go-OOo folks managed to add layouting capabilities
> to some windows - e.g. the Find&  Replace dialog (it seems this patch
> isn't applied to LibO). And there are hand-made solutions - e.g. the
> resizing of the Printing dialog.
>
> Please don't get me wrong - there will be specific solutions all the
> time, but we have far too many "almost identical" solutions being
> different (in terms of code).
>
> Moreover, there are some technical solutions available in the LibO
> platform being "less obvious". For example, there is a thing called
> "Drawing Layer" that is used to e.g. draw the Notes in Writer or the
> Selection Marker in all the applications. I really depends on the use
> case whether this thing can be used ... or not :-)
>
> So my proposal is to "mentally" cluster UI items in four groups (if
> anybody comes up with a better naming scheme, please go ahead*g*):
>        * Platform: Ready to use and more or less equivalent to the ones
>          used on the operating system (e.g. buttons, menu items, context
>          menus, combo boxes, ...)
>        * LibO: Ready to use and specific to LibreOffice.
>        * Local: Available in LibreOffice, but "hand-made" and thus not
>          (easily) re-usable.
>        * Unavailable: Simply missing ...
>
>
> For the "Platform" items, the most complete list might be the "UI
> Elements" list (Specification Template, Spec Project, OOo):
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/UI-Elements
>
> For "LibO" solutions, some specifications are available in the
> specification section (the link Bernhard provided). For example, task
> panes, menus, ...
>
> For "Local" artifacts there might be descriptions being part of selected
> specifications - but I hardly think that there is something. So we
> should expect to reverse engineer these items (UX wise).
>
> For "Unavailable" items, Bernhard (as far as I remember) started some
> list to collect proposals:
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/UI_Elements
>
>
> To be really sure, it'll be great if someone could ping the development
> to get e.g. a API documentation what's available and what's not. I've
> never checked that thoroughly.
>
>
> @ all: Mmh, does this collection sound reasonable? If yes, it would be
> cool if somebody could "conserve" this info in the wiki - to extend it
> bit by bit. Unfortunately, I have a huge stack of things I have been
> pushing forward for weeks ... so I won't be able to do this :-\
>
> @ Rafeael: Did that help somehow? In my point-of-view, the requirements
> for the Styles dialog are more important that what's available in terms
> of UI elements. Personally, I'd say that if the Design Team comes up
> with a good solution, there is some chance to convince some developers
> to tweak "Local" items or to add "Unavailable" ones.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph