Modify "Bullet and Numbering" formating options

English
, ,
#1

My problem

Menu Item: Format → Bullet and Numbering

  • I find it easy to use this formatting interface as it’s readily accessible from Writers user interface and an example format is shown.
  • However the predefined format options are not formats I often use, so would like to change them.
  • In the “Unordered” tab there is a “Change Bullet” button but not the equivalent in the “Ordered”, “Outline” or “Image” tabs. Is there a way of achieving equivalent functionality for the other tabs?
  • If LibreOffice does not currently support this, should it be changed to support it?

Some details

Looking at other ask.libreoffice.org entries
Default List Style
Change the formatting of default lists
set outline selection as default?
How to Modify Default Settings for Bullets
Outline Numbering Styles - help

The responses have focussed on

  • The “Bullet and Numbering” interface is easy to use but creates the equivalent of direct formatting so should not be used.
  • Using List / Paragraph styles is better because is ensures document consistency.
  • But “never mix list numbering and chapter (outline) numbering”. Which is confusing as List styles are used to make outline lists, Paragraph styles are used for hierarchically numbered headings / TOC. Paragraph styles can have a linked List style. Paragraph and List styles can be independently applied to text. All of which leaves the preferred default solution rather obscured.
  • If you use List / Paragraph styles you have to recreate your preferred formatting for each document or create a template for your preferred outline formatting and then manually import it when editing a document which does not contain your desired formatting and / or set up a template for new documents.

But that does not make sense to me as

  • The “Bullet and Numbering” user interface is much more accessible to infrequent users.
  • If it has to result in poor documents being produced, the interface should be removed. If it could produce documents which leverage LibreOffice functionality, it should be improved.
  • “Bullet and Numbering” could have the option to apply direct formatting or link to a List / Paragraph style, thus allowing the user to choose document consistency or list independence.

I maybe asking for something that is not currently supported by LibreOffice as if it was available, these Bugzilla entries could be readily resolved

Looking further it appears I’m not the only one who has noticed the issue and considerable work has already been done on it

#2

Mmmmh … Your post is not a request for help but looks rather like an invitation to discuss the philosophy to define “comfortable” way to implement list configuration.

List is a complex concept. And any interface proposal is made difficult by the domination of M$ Word which willy-nilly imposes its model upon the world (to the point that it is considered “intuitive”).

The starting point of the discussion is the workflow model of the application(s). Word and Writer radically diverge on this point. Word started practically simultaneously with the micro-computer revolution and offered features limited by the available power. Since it presented better features than the competition (compare for example to MacWrite), it quickly won public favour. It then evolved on its momentum without reconsidering its basics. Officially in order not to break usability of old documents (try now to open old Word 4.0 Mac documents and see how “compatible” they are).

Writer arrived much later and was born with a better specified document model based on styles (always perfectible, though). The consequence is a changed approach in workflow. However, it is known that humans hate to change habits. Thus to be able to gain notability, LO was doomed to accept “compatibility” breaks with its abstract model-induced workflow and provide M$-biased control.

Bullets & Numbering is the archetypical example. It is wrong and bad. Unfortunately, list style, in addition to being a complex and thus difficult-to-understand concept, is totally unknown to most users who don’t grasp (or don’t want to “lose” time learning) the structural abstract requirements of any document, even a letter to aunt Martha. Just like any sentence must follow an agreed grammatical structure, generally with a subject, a verb and complements.

List styles have the advantage of clearly flagging the membership of items to a specific list “type”. Different list styles mean different “types” or significances. You’re only left with the command to restart numbering to separate various instances of groups in the same “type”.

In Word where you have no such list style, you are confronted to a double problem: separating different lists and restarting numbering of instances of a specific list, all with a single one-size-fits-all command. This causes many difficulties when reviewing a document.

In an attempt to bridge the gap when switching from Word to Writer, LO developers implemented Bullets & Numbering à la Word, introducing many twists which create many review issues. And the feature is patched over patches with time, making it behave worse (from my point of view) and accenting the “distance” between direct formatting and styling.

I am probably very partial towards full styling (as I converted to this approach after being confronting to the difficulties presented by large technical documents intended to be maintained on long term and facing changes in company graphical charter). I consider the main difficulty is an educational ones. Users must realise and accept that tools are different and have different workflow. Consequently, some initial time must be dedicated to learning, at lest reading user guides, at best experimenting on scratch documents.

Unfortuantely, yes

Can’t be removed. Just like direct formatting (DF) can’t be removed because DF is legitimate for “exceptional” (=one of a case) occurrences to avoid excessive multiplication of styles (which is the other pitfall to full DF). Improvement is the use of list styles. I am afraid I don’t see alternatives: you already have the Customize and Position tabs.

B&N is DF. DF is never “linked” to a paragraph style, it overrides it by hiding the changed attributes. The idea of DF-ing one list item through Bullets & Numbering seems to me non-sensical (pardon me if my understanding is wrong) because B&N has a “global” range: it describes a whole list appearance. Trying to use it for a “local” single-item application removes the notion of consolidated global consistency.

Chapter numbering is indeed built upon list styling. It uses an internal “protected” list style. “Mixing”, here, is the fact to apply another list style on headings while the corresponding paragraph styles are still assigned in Tools>Chapter Numbering. You create a conflict between the internal list and your user list.

You can perfectly create independent headings associated with a user list style but you must do it with paragraph styles not designated in Tools>Chapter Numbering. This is the way to have numbered chapter and lettered annexes in the same document.

The last sentence is wrong. Paragraph styles are used exclusively for the “geometric” aspect and typographical properties of a paragraph. Hierarchical numbering is a matter of list styles. The confusion (or difficulty) may come from the fact that the chapter numbering list style is hidden from user and protected against spurious interaction.

#3

You are perceptive, that’s where I ended.
I started out trying to

  • find out how to change to pre-set outlines formats to something more useful but discovered it is probably not currently possible, then
  • what had been suggested for similar tasks on ask.libreoffice and felt the recommended List style solution was remarkably inaccessible and rather complex to use for smallish and infrequent tasks, then
  • What bugs been flagged and found a couple of other people had documented problems with the current implementation but nothing much was being done about it. So I documented where I had got to to find out if I was missing a reasonable work around or up coming solution. If not, what was the merits of making a bugs.documentfoundation.org submission then
  • After posting here I found Bug 120905 which shows lots of people have identified the issue and lots has already been done but work appears to have stalled

So yes my post here has become more of a discussion on what can be done to fix this. Because as a user I’m now left with

  • easily accessible but poor fixed system outlines,
  • a hidden and rather complex List styles approach,
  • widely documented similar concerns on bugs, but a stalled solution.

Thank you for your insight into the background of list functionality and the difficulties in addressing user base expectations. It is really appreciated.

I fully agree. Using styles is a far more efficient way of producing good looking documentation.

However for it to also be an easier way of producing good looking documentation, the styles implementation has to be accessible and easy to use.

You are correct in that is what is currently implemented however we appear to disagree on if it is the only valid implementation or how it should be implemented in the future. To explain

  • The format Menu and ribbon applies direct formatting
  • The styles Menu and ribbon applies a style and in doing so can consistently modify several attributes

In my opinion the Bullet and Numbering ribbon icon / menu could legitimately behave like either ie

  1. Clone a hidden system list style and apply this to the selected text then set the first entry to restart numbering (the current implementation) or
  2. Clone an exposed system list style (with the definition editable like other list styles) and apply this to the selected text then set the first entry to restart numbering
  3. Apply an exposed system list style (with the definition editable like other list styles) to the selected text then set the first entry to restart numbering
  4. Do either 2 or 3 above depending on a user Bullet and Numbering configuration setting “apply direct formatting or link to List style”. Which would allow the user to choose the current list independence or newer styles based document consistency. Both equally accessible to each user.

Option 4 is my preference but given I’m not likely to submit a patch to implement it, I clearly do not get to choose.

Maybe I’m having a mental block but to me if the user can readily create that such a conflict then that sound like you are describing a program design bug. To explain, in a structured document such as

1 Heading level 1
Body text
    (a) Body text outline list level 1
        (i) Body text outline list level 2
    (b) Body text outline list level 1
1.1 Heading level 2
Body text
1.1.1 Heading level 3
Body text
    (a) Body text outline list level 1
        (i) Body text outline list level 2
    (b) Body text outline list level 1
1.2 Heading level 2
Body text

In this generic document structure example

  • Using a list outline style for the heading numbering makes perfect sense as the numbering functionality is directly applicable.
  • However I would also expect to be able to create a list within each body text and have identical formatting applied to each body text list ie the Bullet and Numbering List outline level is separate to the Chapter / Heading outline list level.

If these two functions are mutually exclusive, and have to be maintained that way by the LibreOffice user, then imo that would be a bug in program design. But experimenting

  • Using Tools → Heading numbering → System heading list editing outline dialogue box. With a user defined & applied Body list format appears to work as desired.
  • Using a user defined List “My Heading numbers” for Headings is blocked by LO when trying to edit the Heading paragraph style (which is reasonable given the preferred method above) but direct formatting to a heading paragraph can be done but even so appears to work OK

So maybe functionality has been improved in this area or perhaps my limited testing has failed to reveal the potential conflict.

#4

With the help of your example document, I understand now we were not talking about about the same kind of “mixing”.

I was elaborating on a common mistake by Word-users who press the numbering toolbar button to add numbers on Heading n paragraphs. This creates ambiguity because you have the internal numbering style and overlaid upon it a DF list style.

Your case is different. Let’s look at it from an abstract point of view.

There is the usual heading outline formatted by Heading n associated to the internal list style. Configuration is such that these paragraph will be collected in the TOC.

Then you have another list inside each (sub)chapter. Unless I am wrong, the significance is different from chapter heading. Therefore, this list must be controlled by a different list style which, by definition, is unrelated to the internal heading list style. You restart the numbering at the beginning of each instance of this list.

What puzzles me is your use of “outline” word in the description. Does it mean you want this list to be also collected in the TOC? A difficulty immediately arises if you expect the TOC items to be in “continuity” with the “regular” headings: the first (a) should be at level 2 and the second (a) at level 4. This is not possible to do it automatically due to the present static nature of paragraph outline level.

It can be done with an awful hack requiring a lot of manual operations:

  • outline level is a static property of paragraph style (PS)
    Consequently you need one PS per level
  • list level is a property of list style
    Numbering is associated with list level. You build and format your list style independently from PS. The list style is associated with PS created above.
  • only Heading Numbering has an automatic PS change with list level
    As a consequence, you manually choose PS for correct outline level and then the required list level is forced with Tab for numbering.

This is not user-friendly but this is the base procedure/workflow e.g. to get lettered annexes vs. numbered chapter. It can also be used for interwoven lists like headings and your “body text” in your example.

The lock on the internal heading list style is intentional to avoid inconsistencies in numbering (as can be created in Word). Since heading numbering corresponds to a very specific semantic list, there is a single list style. You can still customise it with Heading>Chapter Numbering.

If you need coexistence of 2 numbering “families” (like numbered chapters and lettered annexes for same outline level), then you’re doomed to create a parallel hierarchy similar to Heading n with your custom list style, as I briefly sketched above.

When you apply directly a list style to a heading paragraph, you fall into the conflict situation which is always problematic, even it appears to be OK. As already mentioned, lists are complex (it is even difficult to reach common agreement theoretically on what exactly characterises a list). Avoid DF as much as you can (unless your list is full-DF; in which case, assume the consequences when reviewing and editing).

#5

The word “outline” just like “List styles” are used in two different context in LO

  • Document headings and associated toc entries form a hierarchical structure which when viewed provide an outline of the document. Hence can be termed an outline.
  • List styles can be used to define a multi level list, often used to outline a problem. The (appropriate) description for which is an outline list (as titled in Bullet and Numbering).
  • (the coding/dialogue box in LO for both functions appears to also overlap)

In summary

  • I used the word “Outline” to describe a user defined hierarchical list style as that is the descriptor used by LibreOffice.
  • I used “Body text” outline list style vs “Document heading numbering” outline list style to distinguish between these two applications as the other terms apply to both.

I agree.
I like styles as they provide document consistency. For that to work the author has to use them consistently, which is why I had separate List styles for document headings vs body text outlines.

I suppose if an author actually wanted the body text outlines in their toc it could be done by using document heading levels say 1 … 4 for true document headings, heading level 5 as an restart numbering (small/hidden font if required), and heading levels 6-9 for body text outlines. Which would probably work but not something I think I would ever want to do as I can’t imagine wanting the resultant toc.

That’s a good and interesting example I have not needed to deal with.

I agree it is using the program in a manner it is not designed to be used, so implies a loss of optimisation and ease of use.

However I’m not keen on a program being “always problematic, even it appears to be OK”. Knowing what are the pitfalls of using the program in a manner the program allows would be better.

#6

Exact. This is a simple way of handling it.

As I mentioned, Tools>Heading Numbering is based on the list machinery (using an internal style). This means all you know about lists is also applicable to headings.

  • to get an unnumbered chapter, like “Prolegomenon”, “Acknowledgment”, “Dedication” or “Foreword”, you simply cancel the number with Bksp just like you do in ordinary lists. It is indeed DF but a legitimate one because it is “one-of-kind” exceptional formatting you introduce on deliberate purpose, not a routine formatting.
  • chapter numbering can be restarted with Format>Lists>Restart Numbering, the same as for ordinary lists; therefore in your comment above, you don’t need Heading 5 only for the sake of restarting the number.

Presently, I think there is no such documentation. One is utterly needed.

#7

Getting back to easy accesses to list formats I use I found a couple of things

  1. I could find no way of modifying the system formatting defaults for Bullet and Numbering ribbon icon / menu. Nor could I find a way to stop it creating a new “List Style Name” (as well as “List Id”) every time the style is applied, which blocks subsequent document wide list formatting updates and makes it behave as direct formatting rather than the underlying style structured document. Having the option to edit these list styles and disable new “List Style Name” creation would be the most beneficial solution imo.

  2. Menu → Styles → List section has a “Bullet list style” and 5 “Numbering xxx List style” menu items.

    • The numbering style menu items correspond to user visible List Styles shown in the Styles sidebar.
    • Using the sidebar, these list styles can be edited to achieve user preferred outline list styling however these system list names can not be changed. Note “Numbering ivx” appears to be set up as an outline with different number formats for different levels by default.
    • The menu item name corresponding to these system List styles can be changed via Menu → Tools → Customise … → Menu → Target “Styles” → Select “Assigned commands” then right click item to “Rename”.
    • Unfortunately the overall approach does not work well because the scope of the above user configuration changes. The Menu item name change applies to the program configuration level (useful for the program configuration I’m trying to do) but the list style applies at the document levels. As a result the two edits do not track.

  3. New user defined “List style” is be created via “Style” side bar. The side bar includes a “No List” entry (I assume to remove list assignment and as a place holder if the selected text has no assigned list) which can not be edited (reasonable) but neither can the user create a new List Style when this item is selected (a minor bug imo).

  4. The overall effect of these program “features” makes LibreOffice List styles far less usable for me. Which is frustrating as the underlying idea and document structure looks like it could be a great feature.

I maybe missing something, so would love to know if anyone has found a better way of using this common function.

#8

You can’t. It is a clumsy and kinky feature to mimic the Word counterpart as a “compatibility mode” for those coming from M$ and reluctant to read even the most basic manual. It unfortunately gives the illusion that Writer is a drop-in replacement for Word.

It is direct formatting (DF). And like any DF, it is a unique formatting application which can’t be recorded for use in a future session (which would be contradictory with the notion of DF).

As DF, the reported list id changes in the Style Inspector on every application. If you look at the XML encoding of a document, you’ll see the same for character and paragraph DF creating unique character and paragraph single-usage styles.

list styles can be edited to achieve user preferred outline list styling however these system list names can not be changed.

Built-in styles are only examples of what can be done. They can be customised to your liking. However, some of them, mainly paragraph styles, are implicitly used by the code when some events occur, e.g. footnote creation. Consequently to avoid application crash, built-in names are protected against changes as a general rule (thus allowing future evolutions).

“Numbering ivx” appears to be set up as an outline with different number formats for different levels by default.

Yes. As an example of what can be done.

Unfortunately the overall approach does not work well because the scope of the above user configuration changes.

I don’t fully understand the remark. The discrepancy is indeed confusing and addresses two different aspects: UI which can be modified at will and built-in styles which are protected to avoid potential inconsistencies because of hard-coded usages.

This is a fake entry. There is no such real style. As you guessed, it is present in the style list so that it appears in the drop-down menu of Outline & List tab for paragraph styles in order to remove a list style association. The entry behaves exactly the same as No Character Style.

The problem is what people imagine a list is. There has not been any education about it and even “typographers” don’t agree about the theoretical notion. For many, it is simply a “decoration” (sufficient for bullet list). However, declaring a paragraph as a member of a list has the consequence of grouping together a set of semantically homogeneous paragraphs into a “significance” collection. This goes beyond the simple appearance of having a bullet or number at head of them. It confers a specific "value’ to the group. Thus, as is the case when semantics comes into play, this value is embodied in a style, not DF.

So, if you want to manage your list in a professional way similar to what you do with text, you must use list styles. Styles are nothing else than semantic markup. They offer the added advantage to allow for central formatting tuning operating on targeted parts of your text.

Don’t start a document with the idea that styles are formatting directives. You’ll quickly meet limits and conflicts because typographical attributes are in low number (you inevitably apply the same on different things). You should think of your text in significance bits. In the end, you assign typographical attributes to these significances and you act on them separately, even if you decide different ones look the same but you can change it afterwards without the need to review text.

This is the same for lists though it is more difficult to clearly define the “personality” of a list because we are not accustomed to it.

#9

No, to be blunt, the problem is the current user interface to List styles in LO is terrible.

I understand how styles can used to make formatting a document far easier, which is why I’m putting the effort in to trying to use List Styles. (I started my engineering career writing technical specification where structured formatting codes were entered by typing the opening and closing code delimiters. Post processing then producing the formatted deliverable document).

What I’m trying to do in LibreOffice is set it up so useful common formatting can be easily done. The short answer for which is, that is not currently possible in LibreOffice.

The long answer is, parts of LibreOffice go close, but all fail for various reasons.

1. Use a Bullet and Numbering user interface

Advantages

  • provides WYSIWYG List style user interface
  • readily accessible to the user (prominent menu and ribbon items)
  • base on list styles
  • automatically set first entry to restart numbering

Problems

  • users can not customise the style to something useful for them
  • Users can not disable on every time it’s used the clone the system style is cloned and each clone has a new name (making it behave like apply direct List formatting vs apply list style formatting)

Here we differ

  • I have no objection to LO supporting a M$ mimicking word interface option.
  • I object strongly to that being used for justification that the rest of the LO user base has to waste screen space live with clumsy kinky interface.
  • Both user group would benefit from the Bullet and Numbering formatting options being configurable.
  • The difference between list DF and style apply functionality is only the omission of cloning the list style prior to applying it. There is no reason this could not be a configuration option.

2. Try using the Menu → Styles → List section

Advantages

  • It is accessible
  • It can be customised to produce a list formats useful to each user

Disadvantages

  • It is not WYSIWYG
  • It can not be given a meaningful name (the system style name is not editable, the menu item name is editable but does not track with the edited List style definition as both have a different scope).
  • The first entry has to be manually set to restart numbering for every list

You are speaking like a programmer not a user.
For formatting commands to be usable, the user has to have some indication what their action will result in. WYSIWYG is best, if not a descriptive name can be used. LO list menu achieves neither if customisation is done. (Without customisation LO if left with a formatting demonstration but of limited use tool).

3 Give up on all LO main stream list tools and only use the side panel

Advantages

  • Flexible user defined styles supported
  • Lists can be given meaningful names

Disadvantage

  • Customisation must be done at the document level (even if that involves importing the styles desired for each document)
  • Only accessible from the styles side panel
  • Not WYSIWYG
  • Must manually set first entry of each list to restart numbering
  • The flexibility to define components of lists in different ways adds to the complexity especially for occasional users
  • Likely to be too complex for the vast majority of LO users, so not used.

Summary

No the problem is LO current user interface does not support list style use.
It could however be readily improved so it did.

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.