Please don't do this! This would be a regression for all non MS-Word users!

I'am not against cloning parts of other suites, but never copy a bad user
interface, just because some users knows it this way!!! 

Regards Jörg Wartenberg

This requirement is based on results of a usability test we made for OOo 1. If
users, often used to do their work with Microsoft Office, does not find this
very important dialog, it does not matter if this a bad or good design provided
by competition. It is something like a standard and we have to solve the issue
users having with OOo. We will not remove the current entry in the format menu
OOo users are used to, but we have to think about solutions to guide users
coming from Microsoft Office too.

Consider that too much entries make a menu confusing. The OOo 2.0 is clear an
organized but already full of menus, adding superfluous entries like this would
be regression for the existing OOo user base.

I guess that the former MS Office users in your study, seeked in the
File-Properties dialog for something general like Portrait/Landscape orientation
or paper size . Correct?

Maybe the user is misguided, because the term 'Properties' is so general that
you can expect everything there. What about replacing this term with something,
that makes clear that this is about file properties and metadata, but not about
formating.

A similar point to improve could be a renaming of the 'Page' tab page to
something like 'Page Size' or 'Page Layout'.
Since the Page dialog opens not always with the 'Page' tab page in front, the
user might not find it even if he selected the right menu.

Changed title

I add my negative vote to this issue as well.

Don't copy bad UI.

Microsoft will change its UI completely anyway.

THis is one of the "Tell the user *once* and he will know for the future"
issues. Absolutely doesn't make sense to corrupt the UI more than it already is.

FL: So please make a suggestion "how to tell the user" - do you want to
introduce Clippy after he had retired from MS Office? Furthermore please think
about the already made change to the File menu in OOo 2.0 Impress. At the moment
OOo 2.0 is inconsistent.

Corrected target. 

Hi all .. a strong *NO* from my side.

This is one of the most stupid "usability" features in Word. If you like to
implement features that are *really* welcomed by our users, pick one out of 5500
RFE's that are filed in Issue Tracker

FL: Still waiting for suggestions by the community. Current recommendation is
based on user monitoring during usability tests. Furthermore I am sure that we
won''t start a discussion about the quality of those 5500 RFEs here.

leave it as it is now within OOo. 

I agree, that your recommendation is based on a usability test. But the new mail
merge was based on such a test as well and is considered as a regression by many
OOo users. (And based on experiences taken from OOo trainings it is not usable
for people migrating from MSO to OOo). 

Btw: Without any further training, your users would find the button but would
not get what they expect, as the page layout functionality is different from
that in word. So your suggestion would only be one stept that would cause
further complaints.

As for inconsistencies within OOo and the Impress menu:
I cannot find page properties in the impress file menue (in fact i cannot find
it in any of the OOo modules)

suggestion to solve the problem:

implement issue 4734 in a way that configuration files could easily be loaded.
Best was to switch between different configurations via GUI (or config file option).

This would give the ability to do as much menu changes as you want and apply
them to a branded product without interfering with the existing users base.

and again: 
the current suggestion is just patchwork, no solution. The suggestion  is for
writer only. So this would break consistency not only with our clear formatting
terminology but within the menu structure of the modules.
An even MS-Office users would be affected by those inconsistencies, as Excel and
Powerpoint do have File-Page Setup entry, but OOo Calc and Impress would not have.

Hi, I strongly agree with cloph and andreschnabel in this issue. 

##My negative vote for this issue##

Taking this special usability test as basis for this conclusion is more than
stupid. Please let some experienced OOo-users do such a test for MSO. They will
try to open the styles and formatting dialog with F11. That is absolutely normal.

Only because MSO users are accustomed to the way "file - page properties", it's
not the better or even the right way.

Usability does not mean "the way that I know", but "the way that is consequential".

Please leave it as it is.

I don't like - like all the others - that we'll have to implement a menu entry
just because the competitor has positioned it in the wrong menu.

But as you ask for suggestions:

1) Implement a "one-click" possibility to change a whole set of menu entries
(that was the idea of Issue 4734, I think)

2) Ask during installation, if the user wants to find as many menu entries as
possible on the places known by MS Office (Standard: turned off)

3) Give access to this question 2) through "Extras" - "Options"

For suggestion 2) and 3) you will find some more menu entries that can be moved
to another menu - I don't have MS Office here, so I can't compare it, but if I
remember right, there is an entry "View" - "Headers/Footers" in MS Office...

But please remember: These are just workarounds - best way would be to tell the
former MS Office users, where to find the right menu entry. So I suggest

4) Include a specialized help file in the programm for these migrating users,
that could be loaded at the end of the installation process, if the user wants
to (like a readme file included in many softwares). This help file could become
a new entry in the help menu (third position, I suggest), title "Help on
migrating from other office suites" or something like that.

In this file the entry "Where to find the Page Properties menu entry" could
become a quite prominent place...

Even if not many "simple" user know the meaning of <F1>, a "readme for
migration" would probably be read more often.

This is just one step in many towards usability for MS Office users - please
don't forget the millions of users already using OpenOffice.org

FL: Will double check with videos from usability tests, if this missing menu
entry let users fail to change page properties at all or just have delayed it
until they have found the other entry. I will monitor Writer and Impress.
Retargeted to OOo 2.0.4 to have time to do so. 

Thanks for all suggestion. IMHO a special help file will not work, because
normally nobody reads the hand book. A special menu configuration for Microsoft
users is a valid option but is a way more effort than changing only the main issues.

Unfortunately even small changes let users fail to get their (basic) work done
they have accomplished many times before in their used environment. This is
frustrating for a user and results in a rejection or negative attitude. This
reaction we have monitored many times even in a base study we did with Microsoft
Office 2003 and Microsoft Office users, were not all users were used to the XP
or 2003 versions. This is why this issue is so important.

The way OOo treats pages and their formatting is so different to the way the
competition does it that just having the same place for the menu entry doesn't
really help users. Even if people had found the menu entry where they are used
to have it they would fail to work with it if they didn't understand the
fundamental differences in the concept of how pages are formatted.

OTOH if they understood the different concept I doubt that they would still have
problems to find the menu entry.
And any person with a sane mind that doesn't find a menu entry to format a page
wher he knows it from Word should be able to find it where it really belongs ;-). 

IMHO the ux tests often neglect that the situation they study is artificial and
not necessarily typical for "real life": if you ask a Word user "setup the page"
and put a time pressure on him he might look a little bit clueless. OTOH if
somebody works with Writer the first time and thinks "how can I format the page"
there is a good chance that he will find the right place in the menu pretty
soon. But even if it took some minutes next time he will find it quite fast
because he will grasp that this is the natural place for an entry like this one.

So I opt for not adding "File-Format Page". Honestly speaking we are making
fools of ourselves with changes like this one.

This issue is all about balance:  how far do we adapt to make new users feel at
home, and how much do we ask new users to learn and how do we help with that.

It is reasonable that people who are new to OpenOffice.org expect some learning. 
So when we offer good help, especially on the points where things are different
for relative basic users. Then use that attention, to tell them more about the
powers of OOo :-)

In this special case, one can say that with File|Page setup in OOo, Wordusers
can at least change from portrait to landscape and set margins. But when it
comes to different settings for different pages, they dó need Help.

IMO, the idea #4 mentioned by Bernard Dippold is very good (even more important
than whether File|Page setup is brought in or not): when OOo is first launched,
start a page with some headlines: differences, but also important tools to use
in OOo. Just a few paragraphs to point the way and link to further info in the
Help. And explain that the page can be opened again by a (new, third) entry in
the Help Menu.
Info for former Word/WP users, could have a more prominent place.

Once again, I ask to close this issue. Aditional reasons to close:

- MS Office 2007 will introduce a new Top Level Menu (or Top Level Multi Bar)
item "Page Layout" and will have no File menu at all (at least it is not called
that way).
-> we will imitate old behaviour, where even MS sees better ways

- the current issue could be closes as duplicate of issue 1806

FL: No ressources for OOo 2.0.4 -> new target OOo 2.x

Please accept that nobody wants this feature. Neither for 2.04 nor for 2.x. =>
Please set this issue to 'Won't fix' instead of retargeting it.

Regards Jörg

FL: Not true! I have definitely seen other issues asking exactly for this
missing menu entry and we have also seen this in usability tests like already
stated above. It is not amazing that most people here are used to OOo for a long
time and so they do not need a change here, but there are more people out there
haven't used OOo at all. I will not close this issue without checking the tapes
from the tests, but currently there are no resources left to do so.

I'd be happy to have a look at the tapes and see if it is true what you are
telling. (Having unexperienced users looking for Page Setup at the file menu, is
still not a valid reason to implement the issue .. but our comments seem to be
ignored)

From what we (the community outside Sun) see from discussions, this issue should
be closed. If discussion cannot be open and is only Sun related, implement this
in a branded product, but close this issue.

Any other community contributed Issue would have been closed within 14 days, if
no more infos are contributed and not enough ressources are left to deal with
the issue.

Sorry, the videos are non-public as per agreement with the participants.
I think you don't understand my intension. It is not my personal wish to change
this, it is based on an observation and I have got the job to take care about
this issue. I just want to be sure before closing any issue.

Why do you think that you could claim “Having unexperienced users looking for
Page Setup at the file menu, is still not a valid reason to implement the issue
..� I think we all should better think about taking care of unexperienced and
intermediate users than of experts. Experts could swim anyway. 

pls see http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66443

Strong, negative vote for this issue! 

Everything against this feature is said: 

- "file, page" is inconsistant;

- changed UI in MS Off. 2007; 

- totally different concept in handling page formatting (f.e. header 
  and footer); 

- totally different concept in page numbering in multiple "sections", 
  f.e. first section i, ii... second section 1, 2, 3... 

Therefore "file, page" is not really a help for beginners. 

In my user trainings for writer since more than 6 years nobody was unable to
find "format, page". 

Suggestion: Something like "getting started" in the writer help as described in
issue 66443.

Guenter Marxen 

please do NOT do this!

It would break intuitivity by all means!

I remind the existence of the Dialogue principles, Part 10 of ISO 9241
"Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals", which
*require* a dialogue system to conform to suitability for the task (the dialogue
should be suitable for the user's task and skill level), self-descriptiveness
(the dialogue should make it clear what the user should do next), conformity
with user expectations (it should be consistent), and suitability for learning
(it should support the user to learn the dialogue system).

I gather that it is claimed (but not proved!) that moving or adding the page
setup to the file menu would make it easier for Word users to find it
("suitability for the user's skill level"). But it is undisputed that this would
totally break the dialogue's self-descriptiveness (the page setup does not work
on the file, but on the styles of the current page), conformity with user's
expectations (which is not what a user trained on one existing dialogue system
expects to find on a certain place in that specific dialogue system, but, in a
more abstract sense, what users may expect from a consistent dialogue system and
what conforms to the user's experiences and acknowledged common standards), and
suitability for learning (formatting properties can be found altogether in the
formatting menu).

I therefore cannot express how much I disagree with the purpose of this issue,
which I consider completely ignorant of ergonomic standards.

The strong negative community voting on this issue lead us to close this issue.
There are more important known usability issues to proceed with towards to OOo
2.1 and 2.2.

closed