Bullets and numbering window reorganization

image description

IMHO the window in object has to be reorganized a little bit: in particular two tab pages (Outline | Image) have to be inverted as (Image | Outline).

In fact instead of having them in the current order:

| Bullets | Numbering | Outline | Image | etc …

is more logic to have them as follows:

| Bullets | Image | Numbering | Outline | etc …


Because the tab pages

| Bullets | Image | Numbering

are a kind of logical group that refers to the appearance of the “thing” that is placed before the text list, while all the other tab pages are another logical group that allows the user to modify more related settings of the outline, position, spacing, font of the list.

Posting such an idea on AskLO will not get any developer’s attention and is in fact off-topic. However, perhaps it’s okay if we assume that you are simply asking whether there may be a reason for the current setup (“Why?” could indicate this).

The way it is currently set up makes sense to me.

  • Bullets / Numbering / Outline perhaps belong in a group because it shows the standard options of bullets or numbering or combining the two.
  • Image is something different, using color images (which I do not remember ever needing).
  • Position / Customize belong in a group because they allow different settings per level and are more complex than the others.

I guess I like the current way better because I’m used to it. However, what you proposed would be fine as well. I imagine there could be many different opinions about the best way to organize dialogs.

If you are serious about wanting this change, and you believe that other people would benefit from it, then consider filing an enhancement.

You like the current way better because You are used to it?

OK copy that, but if this is a principle that applies everywhere, things don’t evolve and stay static.

For the rest I appreciated you opinion, thanks for that.

My point is that change for change’s sake alone is not good. There needs to be a reason why a change is an improvement, and if not, it’s better to keep it the way it is.

Please notice discussions in the Design Team, get in contact with them. Find more on https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design. There has recently been a discussion about numbering in Impress for example, Improvements to Lists in LibreOffice Impress - LibreOffice Design Team.

In my opinion, the first four tabs are like shortcuts or “pre-designed” settings for “universal” numbered/bulleted list items. As such, they represent a tradeoff between numerous people needs. They will never fit exactly what you really want for your document or integrate smoothly when you develop an original style. There perfect for quick-and-dirty formatting or one-shot documents.

Under the hood, these tabs set various parameters in the last two tabs. One possible workflow is to preset the parameters, then tune them in the last two tabs.

As pointed out by @jimk, the last two tabs belong in special technical group controlling all aspects of list items. They may look complex at first sight but you get quickly familiar with the parameter effects.

Personnaly, I only use the last two tabs and only to experiment. Once I have what i’m looking for, I create a corresponding list style which I associate with a paragraph style. Thus I guarantee consistency across my document and offer the possibility for several different looking lists.

Remember that the settings define in the dialog apply to “implicit” lists, those created with buttons in the toolbar. This is fine for short one-shot documents. However, when you come to elaborated look-and-feel documents, a much better strategy is to design your own styles, including those for lists, so that every aspect is under control.

As a conclusion, IMHO, the first four tabs are convenience entry-level suggestions into list items styling. You quickly work only with Customize and Position tabs, which are really different from the others. Maybe, some kind of highlighting is needed to stress this difference.

you’ve convinced me. thanks