[scribus] Aligning frames
christoph-schaefer at gmx.de
Thu Jan 5 07:10:38 UTC 2017
> "Legacy" does not mean dead and gone, just outdated/old. I would
> consider a version of QuarkXPress that runs on a PowerMac 6400 to be
> legacy, but not the version that runs under MacOS/Windows 10.
So what are you trying to say here?
> >> 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.
> Don't you just love the English language??? <G> If you define
> "editing" as being limited to just text, you're right. But, if you
> define "editing" to include all aspects of the entire document, then it
OK then. In one way or another, everything is a kind of editing. So, in your world, we only need two or three menu entries: File, Edit, and Help.
> >> 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.
> The 1.5 branch is development, so shouldn't the documentation that's
> being developed be out there for people to mention what's missing,
> wrong, etc.?
There is no documentation being "developed", apart from some adjustments made by Greg. We simply wait until the new UI is in place and no longer prone to changes. Is that too hard to understand?
> >> 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 could read that as meaning the Scribus team is not interested in
> attracting and gaining users from other areas of computing. But I don't
> think that's true.
> As for documentation, Scribus is good, but not great. I haven't seen
> great documentation in years. Documentation seems to be something no
> one wants to put any real effort into. :-(
> > 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.
> Because it works with text, and is somewhere between a word processor
> and page layout in that regard. :-) And if a person is looking for a
> program that works with text, LyX may be what they need, not a word
> processor and not a page layout program.
Oh my ...
> > Would you mind telling us what this product is?
> Serif Page Plus. The version I use is out of date by a couple versions,
> I don't have the justification at the moment to upgrade. I've also
> learned over the years, that sometimes an upgrade does not offer
> anything of value to me. Sometimes there's more "moving the deck chairs
> around on the Titanic" than any real improvement.
That's a replacement for MS Publisher and much better than MS's product. Unfortunately it works more like a word processor with DTP capabilities than a precision tool like a real DTP software.
> FYI, Serif is in the process of completely rewriting their software, and
> the new versions are now Mac compatible along with Windows.
I'm aware of this, but how is this related to Scribus? Scribus already runs on more platforms than PagePlus, *and* it has industry connections that Serif is unlikely to ever have, at least for PagePlus. Affinity is a different story, though.
More information about the scribus