![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
I noticed that the heading on OMGUbuntu! was a new design idea for LibreOffice called Citrus. It mentioned the mailing list, so I signed up. If anyone could give me more info on when and if this new design is going to be implemented, I'd be thankful.
What is "OMGUbuntu!"?
I know that there were some code changes to make LibreOffice work better with the Unity desktop that Ubuntu 11.04 and 11.10 has as its default desktop. GNOME 3.x is moving towards the way Unity looks, according to what I have read, as well.
So could "Citrus" be a part of that new look and feel that Unity desktop and Win 8 is going to? I hate Unity, and Win 8's desktop seems to be a bad idea that will be a nightmare for Windows users to relearn.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/11/citrus-a-libreoffice-interface-for-today/
That's the post that I was talking about.
The big thing we need to learn from current desktop design changes, is the fact that if the redesigns are too radical or too much different from what users are use to, then it will "turn users away" from our product.
The change from MSO's old menu design to the new one is something that caused users issues and was a concern for IT departments to be able to handle the tech calls asking for help finding where all their "normal menus went to". If LO changes too much from the "traditional" look, then we will have the same problem. If there is a change in menu look and feel, then it needs to be a slow one. People are dumping Ubuntu to go to Mint, due to Unity's change of the way their "classic" desktop was used. IT was too radical of a change for many users. MS is going to have the same issue with the way Win 8 is designed.
We must not change too much too soon.
Our users will not want to have to relearn how to use LO. I will not like to relearn how to use LO.
One of our early selling points for OOo and LO over MSO 2007, was the fact that MSO changed the way their menus were used. We had a more classic menu system that was easier to use than MSO 2007. We were the easier package[s] to use. That was what got some of my users to switch to OOo back then. They did not like the change that MSO had for their menus and other look and feel issues.
We do not want to become the same thing. We do not want LO users go to back to OOo because we changed the look and feel of LO where it is no longer easy to use.
I think a good way would be to have the user able to change between a
"classic" and a "new" look.
Also, with Windows 8 - it looks pretty much the same as Windows 7 for a
normal desktop. It has the new look for touch enabled computers, but they
can still use the old look.
If a user needs to get some work done in a good amount of time, then they
can use the classic look, and just mess around with the new look when they
have free time. They could then choose whichever look they wanted to use.
With Ubuntu 11.10, it looks like you do not have a choice to go back to the GNOME 2.32[?] desktop like Ubuntu 11.04 did.
I just do not want us to have a menu system that is too different. It we can switch between classic and the new design, that would be great, but the classic design needs to be the default. Then there must be an easy way to switch between menu designs.
We cannot afford to give our users a reason to dump us. Menu redesign is one issue that bugs users a great deal. If they are use to finding their options in one place and they are use to going to that place in one way, having them relearn how to find options and where they are located will make users not want to use LO. We all hate when things change. I hate to relearn how to do the tasks I use to do one way when it is not that way anymore.
I chose to go from Windows to Linux, so things change. Yet, I would not have that choice if LO changes their menu structure. I like it the way it is now.
I think a good way would be to have the user able to change between a
"classic" and a "new" look.Also, with Windows 8 - it looks pretty much the same as Windows 7 for a
normal desktop. It has the new look for touch enabled computers, but they
can still use the old look.If a user needs to get some work done in a good amount of time, then they
can use the classic look, and just mess around with the new look when they
have free time. They could then choose whichever look they wanted to use.
I problem with Unity/Gnome 3/Windows 8 is that the default look is the new look not the "old, staid" look that users are comfortable with. Since the changes were fairly radical for each many users were not happy because they could not use the "old" way without major headaches.
Personally I am not fond of Unity and am warming to Gnome 3 (Mint has a very interesting implementation that combines both the old and new.
I think Citrus looks like a change in the right direction!
It keeps the menus on the top (thus not breaking with the past) but adding
all buttons to the sides making better use of wide screen monitors. This
design also solves the problem of where to put new toolbars: they should
always appear on the sides (like in Gimp).
This is not comparable to the stupid Ribbon, where MS decided which buttons
the users use most and hid all others. In addition the Ribbon was so wide
that it took a large vertical space... If you never used this design failure
named Office 2010 in a netbook, then you should, just for fun lesson of what
not-to-do 
In my opinion even the Default toolbar should move to the Right (and move
less used toolbars to the Left) where there is less travelling distance with
the cursor.
I hope this is added ASAP!
Not everyone is using widescreen monitors.
I know many users that have not bought a new monitor to replace their old 4:3 CRT monitors.
SO if you have the style "dedicated" to be used with widescreen, then you make it an issue for those who do not use the new monitors.
For myself, I do not open LO full screen. I have other packages on my screen that I need to keep visible most of the time. So having "stuff" on a side panel might not work the best for me with the documents view of 100%. Saying you are making the layout "best viewed on a 16:9 monitor" is like creating the default windows to need a larger resolution than what the user can use. Or, like saying that every users must use it in 2-page viewing mode. IT should not be that way.
If there is a side panel, then it needs to be small enough to not take up too much space for 4:3 CRT monitor users. I just sent out a "loan-out" computer that has a 17" CRT monitor. Se will use it for a few months before she can buy a new system. I do not want to tell her she has to have a widescreen monitor to use LO, like she is now using from this computer I have loaned to her.
As for moving the menu placement around, well we are all use to where they are and would have to relearn their new locations. It could be an issue for users switching between versions.
If the screen is too small then maybe the sidebar would disappear until
hovered over. Also, from the picture on OMGUbuntu! it doesn't look like
it'd take up too much room in the first place. Take a look at some of the
other pictures on the designer's blog - http://clickortap.wordpress.com/ -
it really doesn't look like it would hurt anyone - even if you don't use LO
in fullscreen mode.
If LO becomes like Unity you will surely drive me back to Windows, where I can use WordPerfect, whcih I prefer anyway.
--doug
My experience tells me that there is a /long term/ solution. However, it
requires a change in attitude amongst software publishers/developers.
Anecdote:
About 20 years ago Wordperfect was the dominant word processor on
the market. I was going to McGill University and Wordperfect was the
university's approved and internally supported word processor. Like
most software publishers, the Wordperfect publisherswere not
concerned about the UI (user Interface), and concentrated entirely
on the functionality. The result was that UI research went screaming
ahead while the Wordperfect UI was frozen in time.
Finally Wordperfect simply had no choice but to upgrade it's UI. As
the UI had been ignored for so long the upgrade was huge. All the 10
fingered 150 word per minute typists complained that they had to
learn an entirely new word processor. Worse, their typing speed
slowed to a crawl. The only reason that they stuck with Wordperfect
was because it was what the university provided, and the only word
processor the university supported.
The point is that software publishers/developers must change their
attitude. The UI is as important a part of the software as anything
else, may be more so. Ergo, UI development MUST be continuously on going
just like functionality development. That is the ONLY way to avoid the
problems being discussed in this thread.
Having said that ...
I agree with both Quinn Heagy and webmaster for Kracked. In the current
circumstances, if a new UI is introduced that is significantly different
from the classic one, it MUST be possible change back and forth.
I do not agree with webmaster for Kracked that the classic UI must be
the default. What MUST be done is to:
1. Allow the user to change back and forth simply and easily,
2. Make information about how to do things in the new UI easily
accessible, and
(possibly the most important thing of all is)
3. Inform the user, at install time, that:
A. there is a new UI,
B. that the classic UI is still available,
C. the simple and easy way to switch back and forth,
D. how to get information about getting things done in the new UI.
Neither do I agree with Pedro. He may have a wide screen monitor,
however, the install base of old fashioned CRTs is huge. I'd even hazard
a guess that if everyone in the world who currently has a CRT monitor
was to switch to a wide screen (cost and availability aside) the old
CRTs would make a pile tall enough that any self respecting mountaineer
would be eager to tackle. (Classic case of Jungian projection.)
Udvarias Ur
Software Quality Assurance Engineer (retired)
I started with Mainframe "editing", since there was no PCs out there.
My first two PC/MS DOS based word processors were PC_Write and Wordperfect.
Then came Word.
So I have seen a lot of systems over the years.
We really need to think about the style of the menus, since we really have a large base of users that are using our current menu. We need to be very careful on how we change the menu system. No radical things like MS is now doing with Win 8 and Ubuntu/Unity. We need it to be close enough to the old one that is currently being used so people who now use it, can easily use the new one WITHOUT relearning it.
My experience tells me that there is a /long term/ solution. However, it
requires a change in attitude amongst software publishers/developers.Anecdote:
About 20 years ago Wordperfect was the dominant word processor on
the market. I was going to McGill University and Wordperfect was the
university's approved and internally supported word processor. Like
most software publishers, the Wordperfect publisherswere not
concerned about the UI (user Interface), and concentrated entirely
on the functionality. The result was that UI research went screaming
ahead while the Wordperfect UI was frozen in time.Finally Wordperfect simply had no choice but to upgrade it's UI. As
the UI had been ignored for so long the upgrade was huge. All the 10
fingered 150 word per minute typists complained that they had to
learn an entirely new word processor. Worse, their typing speed
slowed to a crawl. The only reason that they stuck with Wordperfect
was because it was what the university provided, and the only word
processor the university supported.The point is that software publishers/developers must change their
attitude. The UI is as important a part of the software as anything
else, may be more so. Ergo, UI development MUST be continuously on going
just like functionality development. That is the ONLY way to avoid the
problems being discussed in this thread.Having said that ...
I agree with both Quinn Heagy and webmaster for Kracked. In the current
circumstances, if a new UI is introduced that is significantly different
from the classic one, it MUST be possible change back and forth.I do not agree with webmaster for Kracked that the classic UI must be
the default. What MUST be done is to:1. Allow the user to change back and forth simply and easily,
2. Make information about how to do things in the new UI easily
accessible, and
(possibly the most important thing of all is)
3. Inform the user, at install time, that:A. there is a new UI,
B. that the classic UI is still available,
C. the simple and easy way to switch back and forth,
D. how to get information about getting things done in the new UI.Neither do I agree with Pedro. He may have a wide screen monitor,
however, the install base of old fashioned CRTs is huge. I'd even hazard
a guess that if everyone in the world who currently has a CRT monitor
was to switch to a wide screen (cost and availability aside) the old
CRTs would make a pile tall enough that any self respecting mountaineer
would be eager to tackle. (Classic case of Jungian projection.)
Not all flat screens are wide screen or are very large. I have an old standby computer with a small flat screen.
Citrus has one thing right.
When editing a document you need "Insert - Styles - Text - View".
Float "Document", "Page", "Paragraph" and "Defaults" where ever you want, but most are used to the upper left hand corner. Heck, maybe "Paragraph" should be under "Defaults" anyway.
Why "Styles" instead of "Paragraph" before "Text". Because once you start writing documents over 2 pages, your not going to edit that way unless you really are GUI only.
What they got wrong was where they put it.
The optimum is when you right click anywhere in the document and "Insert, Styles, Text, View"
shows up there. Don't waste space putting things on the edge. Once a sub-menu is paused on, it stays open unless you move your cursor to the next sub-menu.
Add "Cut" to menu if an object (letter, frame, whatever...) is selected and add "Paste" to next click point. If it doesn't happen then, "Paste" is always under "Insert" for last object.
If you want it sexy, use flat rectangle selection sub-menu (mouse movement or up/down arrow keys) rotated based on cylindrical movement (mouse movement or wheel or left/right arrow keys).
If you can, visualize the selection with "show icon and text", "show text only" or "show icon only"
It reduces movement, avoiding things like when using Calc and a menu shows up in the middle of the screen for something your doing at the tab below. Easy to see with my eyes, but what a lot of extra hand mouse movement.
If your going to change it, this is what's on my list.
Citrus has one thing right.
When editing a document you need "Insert - Styles - Text - View".
Float "Document", "Page", "Paragraph" and "Defaults" where ever you want, but most are used to the upper left hand corner. Heck, maybe "Paragraph" should be under "Defaults" anyway.Why "Styles" instead of "Paragraph" before "Text". Because once you start writing documents over 2 pages, your not going to edit that way unless you really are GUI only.
What they got wrong was where they put it.
The optimum is when you right click anywhere in the document and "Insert, Styles, Text, View"
shows up there. Don't waste space putting things on the edge. Once a sub-menu is paused on, it stays open unless you move your cursor to the next sub-menu.
If you keep do not keep the menus the same, what happens with the Extensions that add to the top-level of menus, like Linguist, Writer's Tools, and Writer's Extras? Would they still work or have to be redesigned?
How about all of the other toolbars that are part of LO's top and bottom of the "window"? Will this new design allow these toolbars to be used? I use many of them that I lock to either the top or the bottom area of the "window". I need many of these tools for my LO work.
There are a lot of things to be thought through before changes are made.
Add "Cut" to menu if an object (letter, frame, whatever...) is selected and add "Paste" to next click point. If it doesn't happen then, "Paste" is always under "Insert" for last object.
If you want it sexy, use flat rectangle selection sub-menu (mouse movement or up/down arrow keys) rotated based on cylindrical movement (mouse movement or wheel or left/right arrow keys).
Many people do not have a wheel on their mouse, like laptops for one. Does Macs still use only one mouse button? I have not used one since 2000 or so, so I do not know. We go not want to tie a function to a button or mouse wheel if these buttons or wheels are not on all of the user's computers. How many people use laptops as their only computers [other than tablets and smart phones].
Udvarias Ur wrote
if a new UI is introduced that is significantly different
from the classic one, it MUST be possible change back and forth.
Agree completely. I think that not including such an option is shooting
yourself in the foot.
Udvarias Ur wrote
Neither do I agree with Pedro. He may have a wide screen monitor,
however, the install base of old fashioned CRTs is huge. I'd even hazard
a guess that if everyone in the world who currently has a CRT monitor
was to switch to a wide screen (cost and availability aside) the old
CRTs would make a pile tall enough that any self respecting mountaineer
would be eager to tackle. (Classic case of Jungian projection.)
I am well aware that most users don't have a wide screen monitor. But even
for those, this interface is better. Instead of having a top menu bar where
toolbars are added/removed making your text jump up and down, with this UI
your text doesn't move. Only the toolbars discretely change the button faces
(like in Gimp)
BTW I always prefer a good old CRT to a cheap LCD/LED 
Some other programs a few years back introduced the idea of "skins". If we're going to experiment with new user interfaces (and I expect LO will have to), I think the "skins" concept would be most appropriate. If necessary, re-engineer the underlying commands so that they are not dependent on the hierarchy of a particular type of user interface. Then let the current UI become one skin, Pedro's ideas become another, etc.
Each concept mentioned in this thread has merits that different groups of users would prefer. Skins would allow LO to cater to all those markets.
For instance, Webmaster's comments about OOo's classic design becoming a selling point when MS moved to ribbons was correct. But now, the Ribbon concept is wide-spread enough that LO could use a skin that mimics it. There is a growing crowd of potential users now for whom the Ribbon is their default, and a "Ribbon" skin would help LO appeal to them without alienating the rest of us.
-- Tim
Linux novices via ubuntu: please be aware that ubuntu is not
gnu/linux!!! Review the distrowatch web site and realise that there
many alternatives to consider. It would be a disappointment to observe
ubuntu fans complain, revert to m$ and forget rest of the open source
world.
As for LO user interface, this demonstrates the power of odf;
alternative word processors can be used.
Tim Deaton wrote
Some other programs a few years back introduced the idea of "skins". If
we're going to experiment with new user interfaces (and I expect LO will
have to), I think the "skins" concept would be most appropriate. If
necessary, re-engineer the underlying commands so that they are not
dependent on the hierarchy of a particular type of user interface. Then
let the current UI become one skin, Pedro's ideas become another, etc.
That would be perfect. Even if it's not a free-form skinning interface, it
would be fantastic to have the option to load e.g. Classic, Widescreen,
Ribbon or to create and import/export a user customized interface.
This is particularly useful when you have fine tuned the buttons you need/
don't need. This would allow the user to do it only once instead of in each
computer you use.
Contrary to what some people think this is not a pointless idea just for the
skinning/tunning geeks. This is actually a way that any user can improve
productivity by having the functions (s)he uses most at the most convenient
position.
It would be fantastic if LibreOffice chose this path of usability freedom