LibreOffice writer - default numbering positions

[REDBoy]

The standard default for LO Writer automatically shows numbering (or bullets) positioned with: an alignment set at 0.64cm; tab stop at 1.27cm and indent at 1.27cm. I have read some of the correspondence about changing list styles and default templates, much of which seems an unnecessary complication.

The above default positions have been put in place, so why is it so difficult (or perhaps impossible) for me to alter the positions to 0; 0.70 & 0.70 and to do it in such a manner that this becomes the new default?

[REDBoy]

I appreciate the very thoughtful responses to my question but I am left wondering if there is a problem of understanding. For my part, I strongly favour (I think) the second mentioned approach. Many years ago, I found Lotus Amipro to provide a robust means of creating a structured WP document, far far better than it’s more popular competitor. I could set styles into one template with a unique set of numbers/letters and indents (unique to that one template) and I could replicate this time and again and every time I opened this template, the document would look exactly like all the others I created. Over the years I have used LO I have periodically attempted to achieve a similar result only to give up in frustration - and later to make another attempt, which led to this correspondence.

As someone who dislikes the idea of manually designing each document I prepare, my goal is to achieve a template which will allow me to produce a document in a style I specify without manually adjusting the indents, etc. I infer from responses so far that this is entirely within the design concept of LO, so if I am failing to meet my goal then either I have failed to grasp the underlying logic of LO or there is some lack of instructional clarity.

REDBoy

[mikekaganski]

+1 - thanks for the response (I upvote it, even though it shouldn’t go as an answer to your question - it’s better to modify your initial question, because this “answer” doesn’t answer your question).

Well… templates is definitely the correct way to go. And setting up styles in them once, and using forever is the correct approach, too. So - it’s required to understand what went wrong with your attempts - to help you to solve them. Please describe your steps.

[mikekaganski]

The software (actually, any software) is created around some basic principles. Those principles reflect the authors’ perceptions of proper ways of work, among other variables.

There are two main approaches to creation and working with electronic documents. One of them is providing a means to work with electronic document as with a paper and a pen. This approach often more “intuitive” for new users, and allows for less initial learning to start creating documents that look as user wants.

Another one is providing means to work with electronic document as some structured data, that reflects the document’s information structure. This approach emphasizes the information value of the document, and allows for better integration of the data/information into greater informational space of today’s world. But this requires more initial learning.

These approaches are mutually exclusive actually. They require different tools, and different state of mind. They require different architectural decisions.

Your question is about providing means for users of first approach to work more easily with the software. And each such proposed means must be weighed against its pros and contras.

What pros do the suggestion have? Well, obviously: making some operations easier for some people.
But wait, what contras could such a great thing possibly have? Actually, many. If you think about the basic approaches outlined above, any feature may help users of one or both approaches, or not affect one or both, or impede one or both. Your suggestion is beneficial to first approach users; but what about those who use second? “Well, if they don’t want to use manual formatting, then let them just not use it!”? No. The option, if implemented, would promote the manual formatting way, and decrease incentive to learn the way that is considered the proper one by those who create the software. This will increase document in the wild that have improper structure, and make life of those who do it the right way more difficult, because they will need to convert improper documents (created by ones who don’t think about further destiny of their “creations”) to proper structure.

This software (LibreOffice) is built around the second approach. And you may deem everything you want as “unnecessary complication”. It’s your choice. But for those who create the software around these principles, your proposal must be unnecessary complication of the target user base. Not only would they need to create and support some new code that takes time and manpower, but also impair life of those who consider principles of LibreOffice as its high strength.

[ajlittoz]

@mikekaganski explained why LO control is structured that way. He’s right. Your information has a higher value when it is well stuctured. But there is no hard opposition between structure and intuition.

What you want is to be able to type your text without thinking about (bothering with?) all style intricacies. This is possible with a one-shot effort. I admit it needs some intellectual investment and can’t be done ‘intuitively’.

You must go through all built-in styles and adjust them to your likings, including “internal” styles such as Tools → Chapter Numbering. When this is done, save this empty document as a template and make it your default.

If you correctly designed your styles (= parameters) with smart anticipation, you won’t need anymore to apply direct formatting, except occasional bold or italic.

You get thus the best from both approaches.