[scribus] Aligning frames
christoph-schaefer at gmx.de
Wed Jan 4 07:49:36 UTC 2017
> Hi, Christoph,
> I've only done one other Scribus doc, and that was about a year ago. As
> I've posted questions and gotten answers, I've been reminded I'm just
> going through the same frustrations now as I did then, and asked the
> same questions.
> IMO, continuing to emulate the menu layout and naming conventions of
> "legacy" software is the wrong way to go. How many new users to Scribus
> have any familiarity with the legacy software?
We're not only talking about "legacy software", unless you consider InDesign or QuarkXPress as belonging in that category, which would be a bit of a strech, to say the least.
> My thought is most of
> the new users have never used them but have heard of them. And maybe
> those menu naming choices weren't the best choice back then.
Maybe, maybe not. It's a fact that all major professional DTP programmes have them and users expect them, even though we could debate whether the menu entry should be called "Windows" (Scribus) or "Window" (ID, QXP).
> I think the name of a menu title should be some type of indicator of the
> things you can accomplish. "Windows" doesn't do that, and I don't think
> "Item" does either.
Alignment is related to items, which need not be frames, so this might be a better place.
> I haven't given any thought as to what the names should be, but maybe
> some of the choices could go elsewhere. For instance, Item includes
> "Adjust". I don't have any problem thinking of "Adjust" as being an
> editing function.
No, that's not an editing function. It's related to items, whatever they are.
> I do like "Extras" because that word choice says there's something here
> I need to check out. "Item" and "Windows" doesn't do that for me.
> Looking at a lot entries, I think I could come up with a lot of
> suggestions. Hyphenation and spelling I'd put under edit. That's what
> you're doing with those features isn't it, editing your document?
> Don't get me started on the Scribus manual, either. LOL
The online manual in 1.5.x versions isn't anywhere near completion, and this has been clearly communicated via our release notes. There are significant changes ahead, including the UI, and it just doesn't make sense to waste our time on documenting intermediate states of the software. You are using a development version, so you have to live with the documentation's shortcomings. It's exactly the same situation Adobe or Quark Beta testers are operating under.
> I think the Scribus team needs to think more about what a new user's
> expectations will be. They will naturally look for things in places
> they are used to. Look at your competition, word processors, document
> processors (I'm thinking of LyX here), and other page layout programs.
> How do they aggregate options and features? Then pick what seems to be
> the most common. That's more likely to be something people will be used
> to than legacy software menu layouts.
You are completely wrong again. Scribus is not and has never been developed for users who are only familiar with word processors, and the Scribus documentation, much derided by your comments, is absolutely clear about this.
I also have no idea why you saw the need to mention LyX. That's a completely different category of software. It's also more alien to users of word processors than Scribus could ever be.
> Most people I come in contact with have never heard of page layout
> software. Usually, they know of MS Word and little else.
> When the conversation is right, I tell them their project isn't meant to
> be done in a word processor, and that's usually Word. I will tell them
> it's better done in page layout software if that's appropriate. I will
> mention Scribus, but I will not recommend it. They will find it too
> difficult to even get started with. For Windows users I actually
> recommend a commercial product, one that I own, as it's far easier to
> get started with and use than Scribus.
Would you mind telling us what this product is?
More information about the scribus