[Scribus] insert lorem ipsum: back to context menu?

[Louis Desjardins]

Christoph Sch?fer a ?crit :
> Hi Cedric,

[snip]

>> For example, Louis seems to think of Xpress usability as a nightmare.

Did I say that!? :)

Quark is one of the main tool we work with since 1989 ... (since version 
1.0L if I recall correctly). I do have some ideas on what's working and 
what could be improved in that program. :)

> No, it is me, and I'm not exactly sure if Louis would agree with me ;)
>
Correct! I am not ready to say Quark's usability is a nightmare, 
although it's certainly far from perfect...

Back to Scribus, I like the idea raised my Craig Ringer about tracking 
down usability issues in the bug tracker.

>> We have to keep in mind that those concepts don't follow precise rules 
>> even if some ideas can be followed.

Yes. Please see below for more.

> OK, contradicting myself, I'll give you two examples from QXP. One of 
> the generally accepted ideas/rules is: avoid redundancy as much as 
> possible. Now, let's have a look at QXP 6.5's "Item" drop down menu. The 
> first three entries: "Modify", "Frame", Runaround". If you click any of 
> these items, exactly the same dialog appears, just with another active 
> tab. This is what I call bad UI design.

Actually, this could be looked at as a very good example of redundancy. 
Something we should probably want to avoid in Scribus. I say "should" 
because I know it's easier to say than to do and Scribus is not 
redundancy-free.

> Another example from the same drop down menu: "Duplicate" and "Step and 
> Repeat" are in row 2, whereas "Super Step and Repeat" is in row 6. Do 
> you call this approach reasonable?

Why is there a Step and Repeat and a Super Step and Repeat is a nonsense 
to me. I aknowledge the reason is historical, since it took years to get 
the Super Step and Repeat. So Quark decided to add the new dialog and 
not simply add to the existing Step and Repeat. Now, this could be 
improved (simplified) in Scribus. Just an opinion... no nightmare! :)

> 
> Anyway, you are right in stressing individual habits and preferences. 

The post from Peter Nermander is very interesting imo on that particular 
part of the issue. Especially the discussion about the mouse movements 
and clicks and how to access the menus. "Page layout" is very different 
from "Word processing" in that respect. His post is well worth reading. :)

> What is important, however, is to discuss usability issues here (as has 
> happened before). This is also important to convince current QXP/ID 
> users that scribus is/will be a viable (and better) alternative. The 
> ability to have shortcut sets for former QXP/ID users available, is an 
> important step in that direction, especially from the usability point of 
> view.

Shorcuts are of upmost importance. And reducing the number of round 
trips to the menus and tools is just about as important. These could be 
part of the few "rules" we could set to discuss the usability and 
productiveness of Scribus. Again, I strongly support Craig R.'s view on 
this and I think we'd be better discussing each issue in the bug 
tracker, at some point. :)

Cheers!

Louis
> 
> In general, the wizards probably need user feedback as much as their 
> programming skills to make the right/best decisions on implementation. 
> Hope you join in :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christoph