docx format troubles

users
#21

its better to have it and dont need it than to need it and dont have it
thats my line of thinking

#22

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
Mostly.  A little slimming for low-spec machines such as hand-helds, netbooks and stuff might be good but too much would be annoying.  There is always google-docs or AbiWord and stuff for low-spec machines anyway :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#23

Abiword is a real good alternative.

#24

For any Windows users (XP thru 7) who cannot see their file extensions:
1. Open Windows Explorer ([WindowsLogo]+[e])
2. Click [Tools], then [Folder Options], then [View]
3. Uncheck the box beside "Hide extensions for known file types"

That "feature" is one of the stupidest things Microsoft has ever come up with. Ever since Windows XP introduced it, disabling it is the first thing I do to any computer.

I hope that helps.
-- Tim Deaton

#25

It's very true that 80% of people only use 20% of the program. The problem is that my 20% is not your 20%. Now, if you could do in-depth tracking of thousands of random users, you might be able to isolate a certain set of features that almost nobody uses. Then those features could be removed if doing so would make enough difference (in performance or in resources used) to make it worth the effort.

-- Tim Deaton

#26

David,

> If you were able to ring-fence about 20% of the features of MS Office then about 80% of users never stray outside that. From what i see it's more like about 100% of users. Most users don't even use all of that 20%.
I hope this isn't hijacking the thread, and if so, /please /say so, and
I'll repost this in a new thread.

The fact that 20% of the features of MS Office (and by implication, LO
and OO.o) used almost exclusively by some 80% of the users suggests to
me that OO.o should identify that 20% of features and modularize OO.o or
LO or what have you to include that 20% and make the other 80% of the
features available as extensions.

I think you will actually find individuals use about 20 - 25% of the
features regularly but I think you will find there is very little
overlap. This means that LO needs to cover about 75 - 85% of the
features as a minimum to cover the user base. You will find users who
will use one or two components almost exclusively and very rarely use
the others. For example I use Writer and Calc extensively, Base
occasionally, and almost never use Impress or Draw.

#27

Hi :slight_smile:
I completely disagree with that.  From what i see of "average" users even 10% might be far too high and it's the same 10% not a different 10% for each person.

A lot of secretaries and people that work with Word all day long consider the use of indent, tabs or tables rather than "lots of spaces" as scarily technical or over-complicated.  Copy&paste is beyond a lot of people, especially using keyboard short-cuts.  I have seen a lot of people with a spreadsheet open on their machine yet they reach for a calculator to add up a list of figures and i am talking about office managers, senior executives, accountants, not dumb idiots!  A person that takes a LOT of pictures with an iPhone was shocked when i turned it sideways to see landscape pictures fill the screen.

Using Calc does not mean using 1/6th of the functionality of the entire Suite.  It often means just typing in numbers and maybe looking at the results at the end of the row. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#28

Hi :slight_smile:
I think everyone on this list, even a fresh & 'clueless' noob, is in the top 10%.  The very fact of knowing about and trying LibreOffice puts people in a very exclusive top percentage of office 'geeks'.

Apparently it would not be trivial to remove features and make add-ons/extensions to add back that functionality if required.  Even on low-spec machines there probably wouldn't be a dramatic increase in performance and it might complicate things too much. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#29

One thing to remember is that in institutions, it will not be the user's job to install or upgrade software. Users should not be running as root/administrator and will not have access to any installation media. The efficient way to install software in such scenarios is to install everything and to provide hardware capable of operating it satisfactorily. There would be no advantage - indeed, considerable disadvantage - if IT departments had to hunt down a set of extensions to make up the package they needed. It would be another obstacle to change.

Brian Barker

#30

Brian

>The fact that 20% of the features of MS Office (and by implication,
>LO and OO.o) used almost exclusively by some 80% of the users
>suggests to me that OO.o should identify that 20% of features and
>modularize OO.o or LO or what have you to include that 20% and make
>the other 80% of the features available as extensions.

One thing to remember is that in institutions, it will not be the
user's job to install or upgrade software. Users should not be
running as root/administrator and will not have access to any
installation media. The efficient way to install software in such
scenarios is to install everything and to provide hardware capable of
operating it satisfactorily. There would be no advantage - indeed,
considerable disadvantage - if IT departments had to hunt down a set
of extensions to make up the package they needed. It would be
another obstacle to change.

Good point, there is a big difference between, home, home office, and
small business users and large institutional or corporation users. Often
the former are owner/operators and can tailor the installation, while
the latter often have limited authority to modify their installation.

#31

There really should be a dedicated mail-list limited strictly to file format compatibility issues, that has a few of the developers on it that work on the file format filters.

To make it easy for users to submit problems documents, such a list should also allow attachments (a size limitation would be advisable).

#32

That sounds good in theory, but IMHO it's not as simple as it seems once you start to debate how to implement it.
I think it's not worth the trouble, given the presence of Gnumeric + Abiword + google docs for those who need only a 20% of what OOo can offer (not that I think gnumeric is only 20% of Calc, btw).

#33

The problem is that a user may only use a fraction of LO but each user
uses a different fraction. So for office use you end up needing almost
all the features to cover what most users actually use.

The "light" programs you mentioned can be frustrating to use when you
have used a program with many more features.

#34

If you were able to ring-fence about 20% of the features of MS Office
then about 80% of users never stray outside that. From what i see it's
more like about 100% of users. Most users don't even use all of that 20%.

I hope this isn't hijacking the thread, and if so, /please /say so, and
I'll repost this in a new thread.

The fact that 20% of the features of MS Office (and by implication, LO
and OO.o) used almost exclusively by some 80% of the users suggests to
me that OO.o should identify that 20% of features and modularize OO.o or
LO or what have you to include that 20% and make the other 80% of the
features available as extensions.

I'd like comments on this idea.

David Teague

That sounds good in theory, but IMHO it's not as simple as it seems once
you start to debate how to implement it.
I think it's not worth the trouble, given the presence of Gnumeric +
Abiword + google docs for those who need only a 20% of what OOo can
offer (not that I think gnumeric is only 20% of Calc, btw).

--
Marcello Romani

The problem is that a user may only use a fraction of LO but each user
uses a different fraction. So for office use you end up needing almost
all the features to cover what most users actually use.

Agreed.

The "light" programs you mentioned can be frustrating to use when you
have used a program with many more features.

Yeah, I know this by experience... But they're not bad after all. I just like to standardize on OOo/LO/<whatever my current distro offers> because it's easier in the long run to deal with 1(ish) package than with two :slight_smile: