https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46583

--- Comment #15 from Hossein <[email protected]> ---
There are interesting questions inside this issue, that I try to answer.

First of all, is it good to do selection in the first place? And what to
synchronize in the combo box that shows the width.

I tried to experiment with the UI, both in LibreOffice Writer, and the similar
dialog box in MS Word.

In Word, you can change values by choosing a value from the combo box for
width, and then clicking on some border. I could not select borders that are
displayed, which makes the UI non-intuitive.

LibreOffice, on the other hand, chooses a better approach, and makes it
possible to select different borders, either individually by clicking on some
border, or holding Ctrl and/or Shift and clicking on some border.

To improve usability, I think it makes sense to synchronize the width values
with selection(s).

This is the question from the above Gerrit patch:
> When multiple borders with different properties are selected, What should be 
> displayed in the UI?
As multiple selection is allowed, the question is how to handle multiple
different values. One approach can be to have a blank option, and display it
where different values are used. Another approach would be to add a [Multiple
values] or [Different values] option, to show that the values are different. In
this case, width should not be changed when clicking or accepting the dialog
box by pressing [OK]. This is similar to what Shrey described. Selecting a
different value should change the width for all the selected borders.

This should also be done for style and color, beyond width.

The selection itself is a little different with normal selection of icons, etc.
in LibreOffice and elsewhere using Ctrl and/or Shift. You may not deactivate
the selection of a border by clicking on it again.

An alternative approach would be to avoid selection completely (just like
Word), in which I do not recommend.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to