10 ms·

[opinion-disclaimer] I've often been drawn to testing out LibreOffice (and OpenOffice), but every single time I open the apps, they always look terrible. This

[opinion-disclaimer] I've often been drawn to testing out LibreOffice (and OpenOffice), but every single time I open the apps, they always look terrible. This isn't 1990 anymore - if the kind of UI design that the devs have gone for (have settled on?) alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, there isn't a hope in hell of people like my parents using it regularly. Does anyone know why the style they use has persisted for so long? Is it just a case that no one cares about this sort of thing on that project?

dbs 10y ago
Because it just works, year after year. I moved to Linux solely because I was tired of dealing with new interfaces every other year and lack of file version compatibility every new release. Maybe the solution for LO is not adding a new interface but in removing things from it. Atom is a powerful text editor with lots of features and people don't seem to complain about the ultra-minimalist interface.
Narishma 10y ago
I disagree. I much prefer 90's style UIs for desktop applications like office suites.
- duaneb 10y ago
  I'm assuming there's a reason in there somewhere. Care to share?
  - Narishma 10y ago
    The main reason I don't like modern interfaces is that they waste too much space. I also don't like the trend to make everything look flat.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      I completely agree. Ironically our laptop screens are smaller than ever.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    You didn't offer a reason why you didn't prefer the style, other than "they always look terrible." That's both completely subjective and not specific.
    - sotojuan 10y ago
      He did say "opinion disclaimer".
      - danielhunt 10y ago
        Yup - this was, and is, completely subjective. (also, I think pessimizer missed the username of the user he replied to. It wasn't me)
mksaunders 10y ago
Does switching to the Breeze icons help? Here's how to: https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/737637299928870912 https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/737637299928870912
- danielhunt 10y ago
  The icons aren't the problem, for me at least Look at the embedded video that's linked on the article - see the integrated totp interface for Google auth? An interface that ships that kind of 'it works, it'll do* UI comes across as half-baked to me.
  - daveguy 10y ago
    I'm confused as to what is wrong with the totp interface in the video[0]. You print to file. You select a Google drive with your username and PW. If two factor is required, you get a pop-up to enter your two factor code. What is wrong with that? [0] https://youtu.be/EshNTl23liY https://youtu.be/EshNTl23liY (38s in)
    - danielhunt 10y ago
      Maybe I wasn't clear - having TOTP integration is a (genuinely) great thing. My issue is that it's ugly as sin, not that it's there. As above, though - I'm well aware that these are opinions from one person.
    - criddell 10y ago
      I'm not a fan of the modal dialog (Authentication Code) on top of a modal dialog (File Services) on top of a modal dialog (Remote Files) on top of the application window. It makes it feel that, rather than being intentionally designed, all of these features were tacked on.
      - daveguy 10y ago
        I see the aesthetic concern. Although I am not really sure how that should be done. Regarding the totp specifically, if it is a situation that only happens with say 10% of the users of the google drive should it be included in the general dialog box and left blank if not used? Is there an established design for adding typically unused options? Error and highlight if you needed totp? I'm not sure if that is better. This seems to be a fundamental design concern. I would love to see "good" examples of how to handle this.
rtpg 10y ago
I think it's the Linux desktop software style (up until 2012 at least), complete with gradient overuse. But for the most part, it does look like Word 2k3. And among the people who aren't using Google Docs, Woord 2k3 is pretty enticing.
- Sylos 10y ago
  What OS are you on? LibreOffice doesn't have gradients for me. That is on Linux, but with Breeze Dark system style. (Linux doesn't have a default-style, in case you're not aware.)
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Sorry, I guess I meant "style of a lot of software I've used in Linux". I used to be in SUSE with KDE, had a habit of seeing gradients and the like.
    - Sylos 10y ago
      Ah, that was probably a little while ago, too, then, i.e. still on KDE Plasma 4 instead of Plasma 5. Someone else posted a screenshot of LibreOffice under Plasma 5 (with the non-dark Breeze-style): http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n I also really like the way it looks on Linux Mint: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a8nJUriHD9U/VdC7bojVgpI/AAAAAAAAwys/bf23xvQri14/s1600/libreoffice%2B5%2Bmint.jpg https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a8nJUriHD9U/VdC7bojVgpI/AAAAAAAAw...
voidlogic 10y ago
>alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, You mean FE engineers? :P (half kidding) A lot of tech savvy folks think the old style UI is more usable. So you should take care speaking for a group.
- danielhunt 10y ago
  PHP4eva! Also, ya I know I'm generalising a lot with my statement. I did give a disclaimer at the start, but as with all opinions ... They're usually wrong
aoloe 10y ago
Well, the LibreOffice 5.1 (well Writer...) "desktop" looks OK on this Mac... Some dialogs are less stylish (Edit style), but most are just OK. They are not specially fancy but do not look ugly either. To me, it looks like a solid, functional, tool, without most unnecessary decoration. It won't win the prize for the prettiest UI around, but it's far for being ugly. So, I guess that the developers are working hard to add features and compatibility filters (Microsoft, Microsoft...), and settled to a timeless design that does not need to be redone from scratch every half a year because it looks so last month... Maybe, you should try to work with it, instead of just testing it out.
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  Here is how 5.2 looks on OS X 10.11: http://imgur.com/a/aalZB http://imgur.com/a/aalZB The background of the toolbar looks completely different to native applications, and the input elements try to look like native elements, but are ever so slightly different - which to me really stands out. Even the tooltip is completely different to the native look. It's not so much the design is bad, it's just it tries to fit into the native style but does a poor job of it. I think if instead it had gone for it's own look (like Telegram or Atom) it would be a lot better. As you say, it's good the developers are focusing on things that will really improve the product like compatibility, but to everyday users how things look and feel are just as important - if that wasn't the case all web applications would look like Redmine :P
  - aoloe 10y ago
    What you are showing does not look perfect to me. But it's miles away from being ugly...
zhte415 10y ago
For icons, I set it to use Breeze as the icon set. Simply as icons look consistent. For menus, I get that some people like menus, but anyone used to a ribbon interface finds menus hard. Hard to convert people. Expectations of a ribbon interface are now standard, a la WPS Office. At least provide a switch. I can get used to new things, like going back to menus, but then I grew up on menus and 65535 rows. On WPS Office, why does it have much better compatibility with MS Office than Libre/Open Office. One type of document in particular - documents with embedded documents. Libre Office invariable hangs on .pptx or .docx or .xlsx with these, but opens the same document simply re-saved in WPS Office in .ppt or .doc or .xls format seamlessly. This seems odd. What secret sauce do WPS have? I use LibreOffice daily. But can't solely use it. Love the pop-out side-bar. Cannot switch until PowerPivot is equivalent.
- nxc18 10y ago
  That's a really good question about compatibility. Microsoft released their OOXML code some time ago and have been updating it regularly since. It even supports build with mono. Doing a quality port of that should (theoretically) be relatively straightforward, and they have a great reference implementation to test against.
  - Alexqw85 10y ago
    No sources on this nor am I a developer on any of this, so take with the appropriate truck-load of salt. But, from what I remember from when the OOXML debacle was news, is that the OOXML that Microsoft published in the spec is not the OOXML they use for their format. For obvious, (old?) Microsoft interoperability hindrance reasons. ---Alex
    - davidgerard 10y ago
      OOXML doesn't exist. There is only the different formats put out by the four versions of MS Office that claim to do a format of that name. None of which are quite the version in any of the specs. You are in a twisty maze of OOXML variants, all somewhat bug-compatible. (Oh, and they broke DOC in the process too. You know what happens when you save a DOC from a later version of MS Office? OOXML embedded in the DOC. And older MS Office and other programs that read DOC may have problems with it. http://vmiklos.hu/blog/doctok.html#comment-1282339963 http://vmiklos.hu/blog/doctok.html#comment-1282339963 )
matt4077 10y ago
Thanks for mentioning it... I always feel bad for thinking it. Open/LibreOffice are basically the index case for what the Open Source community is really bad at: design & UI. Three explanations I see: - The talent pool of designers working on OSS is too small. - Design is a problem that is less accessible to a distributed, bottom-up workflow than code. - The UI is actually 80% of the workload of a software project and therefore the area where OSS's lack of resources is most obvious.
- buovjaga 10y ago
  And we can solve the problem by doing the work and recruiting those missing designers. When do you want to start?
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  > The UI is actually 80% of the workload of a software project This entirely depends on the project. In my experience, the UI is extremely important to the success of a project, but tends to be 10-20% of total work.
- arviewer 10y ago
  First explain what is wrong with the LO 5 design? I find the ribbon gui horrible. The fact that the buttons and menu haven't changed that much since ten years, so what? It does the job. The only office gui better was the Lotus Suite one, where the layout options were much better with palets like in Photoshop, onces that you could move around.
  - Someone1234 10y ago
    > I find the ribbon gui horrible. You're in the minority. Context aware UI is superior to most since you only see elements when they're relevant rather than constantly. This creates a much less cluttered interface, but without actually sacrificing any power/functionality. Plus LibreOffice 5 lacks legitimately useful things like real-time previews of font/size changes (via hover), graph previews, text style template saving (e.g. set up a custom title style, and you can quickly re-use that style later in that same document inc. size/font/color/etc), et al. Back with Microsoft Office 2003 I'd agree that the then OpenOffice was a legitimate competitor. And Office 2007 had some legit problems that kept that true, but by Office 2010 LibreOffice was bested and 2013/2016 only worsened its position. I cannot see why I'd use LibreOffice on Windows today. Cost perhaps?
zamalek 10y ago
I can whole heartedly agree. I really gave OpenOffice a fair chance, but Office is just so much nicer to look at. The untidy interface only adds to the intimidation of the blank page. Sure, the ribbon obfuscates the location of functions - but that's far better than toolbar clutter (of which more was added in this patch).
davidgerard 10y ago
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/NotebookBar https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/NotebookBar
grandinj 10y ago
We have a design team, and they keep improving things, but it's a fairly large surface of UI so it's taking a while.
- danielhunt 10y ago
  Please don't take my random internet musings too much to heart (if you have at all). As I've said elsewhere, I have a lot of respect for everything that you as a group have pumped out to get LO to where it is right now. Thank you for everything you've done so far, and what you'll (hopefully) continue to do into the future.
buovjaga 10y ago
There are not enough devs and designers. It's an open house, so you can join whenever you like, though. Please read my 1990s-design themed post: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3u2p7x/tired_of_the_1990s_look_of_libreoffice_heres_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3u2p7x/tired_of_the_...
jhbadger 10y ago
Personally, I'm glad they haven't updated it with that "ribbon" nonsense from Microsoft Office. Office suites are kind of a solved problem -- the only reason why Microsoft Office keeps changing is to give people an excuse to upgrade. That was even true in the 1990s, when absurd bloat features like "Word Art" (no, having the word "shark" in the shape of a shark is not useful) were beginning to be added
- arviewer 10y ago
  Totally agree! I find the ribbon gui a total mess. I'm glad I can use LibreOffice, and since version 5 the layout is quite allright. I don't know what should be better. It is exactly like I expect it, buttons are where I want them, menus like we're used to. Why change that?
- tomw2005 10y ago
  I'm not a Microsoft fan per se (just forced to use it at work) but what is the issue with the Ribbon? I have seen it complained about (mostly upon release) but not any particularly good reason. Would you care to elucidate me? Initially I was against it too but have found it to be good for compartmentalising work over time.
  - dr_zoidberg 10y ago
    I think the biggest problem was that it broke a stablished UI for no apparent reason, but that was 10 years ago. And people still hold a grudge to it, maybe? Still, I've seen more than a few workplaces that still use pre-ribbon era Office [0], and haven't upgraded because the employees hate the ribbon... [0] ...on Windows XP, with 12+ year old hardware... the horror!
    - zyxley 10y ago
      > I think the biggest problem was that it broke a stablished UI for no apparent reason The reason was that the existing interface was so overloaded that the Office team was regularly getting feature requests for things that that already existed in the apps for years.
mhogomchungu 10y ago
This[1] looks fine to me.Thats the screenshot of libreoffice writer 5.1.2.2 running on KDE plasma 5.7.3 The current UI was not designed recently and hence shouldn't be used against current FOSS UI designers. I think lack of resources is the primary reason why the UI hasnt changed to reflect what is currently considered hip. [1] http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hippich 10y ago
I am always fascinated when people complain about OS software and asking that "they" should do better. Who are "they" and why "they" should do something for you? Most often it is individual contributors doing changes and they do it the way they like it (and surprise - there are a lot of open source devs out there who just prefer conservative look.) So... as old as it is, but still - if you want some change to happen - you have to participate. Or just pay for some other product that already fits your requirements. ps: i like LibreOffice UI.
- danielhunt 10y ago
  I don't want to get drawn into this type of argument - suffice to say that hand-waving me (or anyone) away with a "well why don't you commit code to fix it|make it better?" doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid. That sort of argument is pointless, and does absolutely nothing for further the discussion. I have great respect for the creators and contributors to LibreOffice, but in my opinion, the UI is outdated. I even said at the very start of my comment, that this was an opinion. My opinion. One man's opinion.
  - hippich 10y ago
    sorry, but your comment (this one and original one) sounds as a very entitled one, yet it looks like nothing was contributed by you. also, it totally ignores the facts (ones i outlined in my response.) i understand that it is your opinion - it is always someone's. but you had some intention with publishing it (otherwise you would just talk it to yourself and move on.) and that intention either bashing work of LO team, or steer that work in some direction which would benefit you, who has not invested anything significant into LO, or... idk. (and no - using it to open docs instead of paying for MS Office is not "investment".) Either way it is not cool. So please, either start project to refactor UI (ideally it should be pluggable, so people who prefer old UI still could get it, forks of project that size are bad in general,) or stop bashing/manipulating project's destiny, and just buy MS Office or some other paid office product which fits your bill.
nzjrs 10y ago
The icons, organisation, and polish get better every release. Maybe the style persists because some people prefer it over the ribbon? I know I do.
reacweb 10y ago
I think the stability of UI is one important advantage of LO compared to MO. I am still loosing a lot of time because of the ribbon of word and excel.
torrent-of-ions 10y ago
It looks exactly like google docs and things like that to me. What is the problem? Note that I don't use GUI applications much myself so I may be thoroughly out of the loop.
Spooky23 10y ago
There are a significant number of libreoffice aficionados that are virulently anti-ribbon for some reason.
dec0dedab0de 10y ago
I wish all apps looked like LibreOffice. Atleast the ones I need to use to get something done.
Lagged2Death 10y ago
This isn't 1990 anymore - if the kind of UI design that the devs have gone for (have settled on?) alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, there isn't a hope in hell of people like my parents using it regularly. I bet Microsoft Office and LibreOffice look virtually identical to most lay-people. They probably will look more alike to you than you remember, if you take the time to look honestly. Neither Office's ribbon or the LibreOffice toolbar is really so different from the toolbars of the 1980s. This is much ado about not much. If these matters of fashion are really so important in terms of distinguishing one piece of software from another, where does that leave the software development crowd? Did we really want to be fashion designers? Is this the way to change the world with software? Through fashionable icons and good font choices? There's a tremendous amount of talk in this thread about how LibreOffice looks and how Microsoft Office looks, but precious little about how well they work. What does that say about us? [Edit: consider the history of the Office GUI: http://www.thewindowsclub.com/history-evolution-microsoft-office-software http://www.thewindowsclub.com/history-evolution-microsoft-of... There's been an absolute rat's nest of buttons and other controls at the top of the document for 26 years. The graphic design of the 2013 version is currently more fashionable than the graphic design of the 1990 version, but the 1990 version indisputably has less stuff on it. When someone calls the older fashion "cluttered" I think they've merely learned to habitually overlook the greater clutter of the newer interface.]
- nice1 10y ago
  I would guess they look similar, but to me Libreoffice looks a lot better and less cluttered.
zeveb 10y ago
> Is it just a case that no one cares about this sort of thing on that project? I don't personally care. For me, the use case of LibreOffice is to view and sometimes edit Microsoft Office files sent by others, or to be sent to others. The UI is good enough for that (not quite as good as Word 5.1 for Macintosh, but good enough), and so I'm happy enough. For any actual document that I care about, I'm going to use emacs, and the format I'll be working with will be LaTeX, org-mode, Markdown, HTML, plain text &c. &c. &c. For any actual data manipulation that I care about, I'm going to use emacs and Common Lisp, Python, shell, awk, Perl, R &c. &c. &c. It's entirely possible that if I wanted to live in an office suite that LibreOffice wouldn't be good enough, but — I don't want to live in an office suite. I think that they are a fundamentally flawed way of working with information, and am privileged to be able to choose not to use them for much of my work.
pasbesoin 10y ago
I hope they keep today's "designers" as far away from it as possible. Clear, correct, and discoverable functionality. That's what I want. Mystery meat UI and the latest "precious" shade of pale blue or whatever? Fuck right off.
AgentME 10y ago
I feel like Microsoft Office's UI peaked in Office 2004, before the ribbon, and LibreOffice's UI is almost identical to it, except I get lost less in LibreOffice looking for formatting options.
chadlavi 10y ago
I think the point danielhunt is making—and it's a good one—is that people don't want to use software that isn't pretty. Sure it's functional, of course. Vim is functional. But OSS software like LibreOffice consistently have that... sad soviet-like "hey it's functional enough" feel to them.
k_bx 10y ago
New release has "view -> toolbars -> single mode" (you need to untoggle the other two), so that you get 1 toolbar instead of two now. It looks pretty ok now. Silver background surprises me a bit (could do more macOS-style), but overall looks not that bad IMHO https://i.imgur.com/5v4QRqC.png https://i.imgur.com/5v4QRqC.png
- k_bx 10y ago
  Not saying it's "as good as others", pictograms still look very askew, but it's just much better than it was.

dbs 10y ago

Because it just works, year after year. I moved to Linux solely because I was tired of dealing with new interfaces every other year and lack of file version compatibility every new release. Maybe the solution for LO is not adding a new interface but in removing things from it. Atom is a powerful text editor with lots of features and people don't seem to complain about the ultra-minimalist interface.

Narishma 10y ago

I disagree. I much prefer 90's style UIs for desktop applications like office suites.

duaneb 10y ago
I'm assuming there's a reason in there somewhere. Care to share?
- Narishma 10y ago
  The main reason I don't like modern interfaces is that they waste too much space. I also don't like the trend to make everything look flat.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    I completely agree. Ironically our laptop screens are smaller than ever.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  You didn't offer a reason why you didn't prefer the style, other than "they always look terrible." That's both completely subjective and not specific.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    He did say "opinion disclaimer".
    - danielhunt 10y ago
      Yup - this was, and is, completely subjective. (also, I think pessimizer missed the username of the user he replied to. It wasn't me)

mksaunders 10y ago

Does switching to the Breeze icons help? Here's how to: https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/737637299928870912 https://twitter.com/libreoffice/status/737637299928870912

danielhunt 10y ago
The icons aren't the problem, for me at least Look at the embedded video that's linked on the article - see the integrated totp interface for Google auth? An interface that ships that kind of 'it works, it'll do* UI comes across as half-baked to me.
- daveguy 10y ago
  I'm confused as to what is wrong with the totp interface in the video[0]. You print to file. You select a Google drive with your username and PW. If two factor is required, you get a pop-up to enter your two factor code. What is wrong with that? [0] https://youtu.be/EshNTl23liY https://youtu.be/EshNTl23liY (38s in)
  - danielhunt 10y ago
    Maybe I wasn't clear - having TOTP integration is a (genuinely) great thing. My issue is that it's ugly as sin, not that it's there. As above, though - I'm well aware that these are opinions from one person.
  - criddell 10y ago
    I'm not a fan of the modal dialog (Authentication Code) on top of a modal dialog (File Services) on top of a modal dialog (Remote Files) on top of the application window. It makes it feel that, rather than being intentionally designed, all of these features were tacked on.
    - daveguy 10y ago
      I see the aesthetic concern. Although I am not really sure how that should be done. Regarding the totp specifically, if it is a situation that only happens with say 10% of the users of the google drive should it be included in the general dialog box and left blank if not used? Is there an established design for adding typically unused options? Error and highlight if you needed totp? I'm not sure if that is better. This seems to be a fundamental design concern. I would love to see "good" examples of how to handle this.

rtpg 10y ago

I think it's the Linux desktop software style (up until 2012 at least), complete with gradient overuse. But for the most part, it does look like Word 2k3. And among the people who aren't using Google Docs, Woord 2k3 is pretty enticing.

Sylos 10y ago
What OS are you on? LibreOffice doesn't have gradients for me. That is on Linux, but with Breeze Dark system style. (Linux doesn't have a default-style, in case you're not aware.)
- rtpg 10y ago
  Sorry, I guess I meant "style of a lot of software I've used in Linux". I used to be in SUSE with KDE, had a habit of seeing gradients and the like.
  - Sylos 10y ago
    Ah, that was probably a little while ago, too, then, i.e. still on KDE Plasma 4 instead of Plasma 5. Someone else posted a screenshot of LibreOffice under Plasma 5 (with the non-dark Breeze-style): http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n I also really like the way it looks on Linux Mint: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a8nJUriHD9U/VdC7bojVgpI/AAAAAAAAwys/bf23xvQri14/s1600/libreoffice%2B5%2Bmint.jpg https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a8nJUriHD9U/VdC7bojVgpI/AAAAAAAAw...

voidlogic 10y ago

>alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, You mean FE engineers? :P (half kidding) A lot of tech savvy folks think the old style UI is more usable. So you should take care speaking for a group.

danielhunt 10y ago
PHP4eva! Also, ya I know I'm generalising a lot with my statement. I did give a disclaimer at the start, but as with all opinions ... They're usually wrong

aoloe 10y ago

Well, the LibreOffice 5.1 (well Writer...) "desktop" looks OK on this Mac... Some dialogs are less stylish (Edit style), but most are just OK. They are not specially fancy but do not look ugly either. To me, it looks like a solid, functional, tool, without most unnecessary decoration. It won't win the prize for the prettiest UI around, but it's far for being ugly. So, I guess that the developers are working hard to add features and compatibility filters (Microsoft, Microsoft...), and settled to a timeless design that does not need to be redone from scratch every half a year because it looks so last month... Maybe, you should try to work with it, instead of just testing it out.

lucaspiller 10y ago
Here is how 5.2 looks on OS X 10.11: http://imgur.com/a/aalZB http://imgur.com/a/aalZB The background of the toolbar looks completely different to native applications, and the input elements try to look like native elements, but are ever so slightly different - which to me really stands out. Even the tooltip is completely different to the native look. It's not so much the design is bad, it's just it tries to fit into the native style but does a poor job of it. I think if instead it had gone for it's own look (like Telegram or Atom) it would be a lot better. As you say, it's good the developers are focusing on things that will really improve the product like compatibility, but to everyday users how things look and feel are just as important - if that wasn't the case all web applications would look like Redmine :P
- aoloe 10y ago
  What you are showing does not look perfect to me. But it's miles away from being ugly...

zhte415 10y ago

For icons, I set it to use Breeze as the icon set. Simply as icons look consistent. For menus, I get that some people like menus, but anyone used to a ribbon interface finds menus hard. Hard to convert people. Expectations of a ribbon interface are now standard, a la WPS Office. At least provide a switch. I can get used to new things, like going back to menus, but then I grew up on menus and 65535 rows. On WPS Office, why does it have much better compatibility with MS Office than Libre/Open Office. One type of document in particular - documents with embedded documents. Libre Office invariable hangs on .pptx or .docx or .xlsx with these, but opens the same document simply re-saved in WPS Office in .ppt or .doc or .xls format seamlessly. This seems odd. What secret sauce do WPS have? I use LibreOffice daily. But can't solely use it. Love the pop-out side-bar. Cannot switch until PowerPivot is equivalent.

nxc18 10y ago
That's a really good question about compatibility. Microsoft released their OOXML code some time ago and have been updating it regularly since. It even supports build with mono. Doing a quality port of that should (theoretically) be relatively straightforward, and they have a great reference implementation to test against.
- Alexqw85 10y ago
  No sources on this nor am I a developer on any of this, so take with the appropriate truck-load of salt. But, from what I remember from when the OOXML debacle was news, is that the OOXML that Microsoft published in the spec is not the OOXML they use for their format. For obvious, (old?) Microsoft interoperability hindrance reasons. ---Alex
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    OOXML doesn't exist. There is only the different formats put out by the four versions of MS Office that claim to do a format of that name. None of which are quite the version in any of the specs. You are in a twisty maze of OOXML variants, all somewhat bug-compatible. (Oh, and they broke DOC in the process too. You know what happens when you save a DOC from a later version of MS Office? OOXML embedded in the DOC. And older MS Office and other programs that read DOC may have problems with it. http://vmiklos.hu/blog/doctok.html#comment-1282339963 http://vmiklos.hu/blog/doctok.html#comment-1282339963 )

matt4077 10y ago

Thanks for mentioning it... I always feel bad for thinking it. Open/LibreOffice are basically the index case for what the Open Source community is really bad at: design & UI. Three explanations I see: - The talent pool of designers working on OSS is too small. - Design is a problem that is less accessible to a distributed, bottom-up workflow than code. - The UI is actually 80% of the workload of a software project and therefore the area where OSS's lack of resources is most obvious.

buovjaga 10y ago
And we can solve the problem by doing the work and recruiting those missing designers. When do you want to start?
bluejekyll 10y ago
> The UI is actually 80% of the workload of a software project This entirely depends on the project. In my experience, the UI is extremely important to the success of a project, but tends to be 10-20% of total work.
arviewer 10y ago
First explain what is wrong with the LO 5 design? I find the ribbon gui horrible. The fact that the buttons and menu haven't changed that much since ten years, so what? It does the job. The only office gui better was the Lotus Suite one, where the layout options were much better with palets like in Photoshop, onces that you could move around.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  > I find the ribbon gui horrible. You're in the minority. Context aware UI is superior to most since you only see elements when they're relevant rather than constantly. This creates a much less cluttered interface, but without actually sacrificing any power/functionality. Plus LibreOffice 5 lacks legitimately useful things like real-time previews of font/size changes (via hover), graph previews, text style template saving (e.g. set up a custom title style, and you can quickly re-use that style later in that same document inc. size/font/color/etc), et al. Back with Microsoft Office 2003 I'd agree that the then OpenOffice was a legitimate competitor. And Office 2007 had some legit problems that kept that true, but by Office 2010 LibreOffice was bested and 2013/2016 only worsened its position. I cannot see why I'd use LibreOffice on Windows today. Cost perhaps?

zamalek 10y ago

I can whole heartedly agree. I really gave OpenOffice a fair chance, but Office is just so much nicer to look at. The untidy interface only adds to the intimidation of the blank page. Sure, the ribbon obfuscates the location of functions - but that's far better than toolbar clutter (of which more was added in this patch).

davidgerard 10y ago

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/NotebookBar https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/NotebookBar

grandinj 10y ago

We have a design team, and they keep improving things, but it's a fairly large surface of UI so it's taking a while.

danielhunt 10y ago
Please don't take my random internet musings too much to heart (if you have at all). As I've said elsewhere, I have a lot of respect for everything that you as a group have pumped out to get LO to where it is right now. Thank you for everything you've done so far, and what you'll (hopefully) continue to do into the future.

buovjaga 10y ago

There are not enough devs and designers. It's an open house, so you can join whenever you like, though. Please read my 1990s-design themed post: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3u2p7x/tired_of_the_1990s_look_of_libreoffice_heres_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3u2p7x/tired_of_the_...

jhbadger 10y ago

Personally, I'm glad they haven't updated it with that "ribbon" nonsense from Microsoft Office. Office suites are kind of a solved problem -- the only reason why Microsoft Office keeps changing is to give people an excuse to upgrade. That was even true in the 1990s, when absurd bloat features like "Word Art" (no, having the word "shark" in the shape of a shark is not useful) were beginning to be added

arviewer 10y ago
Totally agree! I find the ribbon gui a total mess. I'm glad I can use LibreOffice, and since version 5 the layout is quite allright. I don't know what should be better. It is exactly like I expect it, buttons are where I want them, menus like we're used to. Why change that?
tomw2005 10y ago
I'm not a Microsoft fan per se (just forced to use it at work) but what is the issue with the Ribbon? I have seen it complained about (mostly upon release) but not any particularly good reason. Would you care to elucidate me? Initially I was against it too but have found it to be good for compartmentalising work over time.
- dr_zoidberg 10y ago
  I think the biggest problem was that it broke a stablished UI for no apparent reason, but that was 10 years ago. And people still hold a grudge to it, maybe? Still, I've seen more than a few workplaces that still use pre-ribbon era Office [0], and haven't upgraded because the employees hate the ribbon... [0] ...on Windows XP, with 12+ year old hardware... the horror!
  - zyxley 10y ago
    > I think the biggest problem was that it broke a stablished UI for no apparent reason The reason was that the existing interface was so overloaded that the Office team was regularly getting feature requests for things that that already existed in the apps for years.

mhogomchungu 10y ago

This[1] looks fine to me.Thats the screenshot of libreoffice writer 5.1.2.2 running on KDE plasma 5.7.3 The current UI was not designed recently and hence shouldn't be used against current FOSS UI designers. I think lack of resources is the primary reason why the UI hasnt changed to reflect what is currently considered hip. [1] http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n http://imgur.com/a/H6r0n

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

hippich 10y ago

I am always fascinated when people complain about OS software and asking that "they" should do better. Who are "they" and why "they" should do something for you? Most often it is individual contributors doing changes and they do it the way they like it (and surprise - there are a lot of open source devs out there who just prefer conservative look.) So... as old as it is, but still - if you want some change to happen - you have to participate. Or just pay for some other product that already fits your requirements. ps: i like LibreOffice UI.

danielhunt 10y ago
I don't want to get drawn into this type of argument - suffice to say that hand-waving me (or anyone) away with a "well why don't you commit code to fix it|make it better?" doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid. That sort of argument is pointless, and does absolutely nothing for further the discussion. I have great respect for the creators and contributors to LibreOffice, but in my opinion, the UI is outdated. I even said at the very start of my comment, that this was an opinion. My opinion. One man's opinion.
- hippich 10y ago
  sorry, but your comment (this one and original one) sounds as a very entitled one, yet it looks like nothing was contributed by you. also, it totally ignores the facts (ones i outlined in my response.) i understand that it is your opinion - it is always someone's. but you had some intention with publishing it (otherwise you would just talk it to yourself and move on.) and that intention either bashing work of LO team, or steer that work in some direction which would benefit you, who has not invested anything significant into LO, or... idk. (and no - using it to open docs instead of paying for MS Office is not "investment".) Either way it is not cool. So please, either start project to refactor UI (ideally it should be pluggable, so people who prefer old UI still could get it, forks of project that size are bad in general,) or stop bashing/manipulating project's destiny, and just buy MS Office or some other paid office product which fits your bill.

nzjrs 10y ago

The icons, organisation, and polish get better every release. Maybe the style persists because some people prefer it over the ribbon? I know I do.

reacweb 10y ago

I think the stability of UI is one important advantage of LO compared to MO. I am still loosing a lot of time because of the ribbon of word and excel.

torrent-of-ions 10y ago

It looks exactly like google docs and things like that to me. What is the problem? Note that I don't use GUI applications much myself so I may be thoroughly out of the loop.

Spooky23 10y ago

There are a significant number of libreoffice aficionados that are virulently anti-ribbon for some reason.

dec0dedab0de 10y ago

I wish all apps looked like LibreOffice. Atleast the ones I need to use to get something done.

Lagged2Death 10y ago

This isn't 1990 anymore - if the kind of UI design that the devs have gone for (have settled on?) alienates a tech-friendly user such as myself, there isn't a hope in hell of people like my parents using it regularly. I bet Microsoft Office and LibreOffice look virtually identical to most lay-people. They probably will look more alike to you than you remember, if you take the time to look honestly. Neither Office's ribbon or the LibreOffice toolbar is really so different from the toolbars of the 1980s. This is much ado about not much. If these matters of fashion are really so important in terms of distinguishing one piece of software from another, where does that leave the software development crowd? Did we really want to be fashion designers? Is this the way to change the world with software? Through fashionable icons and good font choices? There's a tremendous amount of talk in this thread about how LibreOffice looks and how Microsoft Office looks, but precious little about how well they work. What does that say about us? [Edit: consider the history of the Office GUI: http://www.thewindowsclub.com/history-evolution-microsoft-office-software http://www.thewindowsclub.com/history-evolution-microsoft-of... There's been an absolute rat's nest of buttons and other controls at the top of the document for 26 years. The graphic design of the 2013 version is currently more fashionable than the graphic design of the 1990 version, but the 1990 version indisputably has less stuff on it. When someone calls the older fashion "cluttered" I think they've merely learned to habitually overlook the greater clutter of the newer interface.]

nice1 10y ago
I would guess they look similar, but to me Libreoffice looks a lot better and less cluttered.

zeveb 10y ago

> Is it just a case that no one cares about this sort of thing on that project? I don't personally care. For me, the use case of LibreOffice is to view and sometimes edit Microsoft Office files sent by others, or to be sent to others. The UI is good enough for that (not quite as good as Word 5.1 for Macintosh, but good enough), and so I'm happy enough. For any actual document that I care about, I'm going to use emacs, and the format I'll be working with will be LaTeX, org-mode, Markdown, HTML, plain text &c. &c. &c. For any actual data manipulation that I care about, I'm going to use emacs and Common Lisp, Python, shell, awk, Perl, R &c. &c. &c. It's entirely possible that if I wanted to live in an office suite that LibreOffice wouldn't be good enough, but — I don't want to live in an office suite. I think that they are a fundamentally flawed way of working with information, and am privileged to be able to choose not to use them for much of my work.

pasbesoin 10y ago

I hope they keep today's "designers" as far away from it as possible. Clear, correct, and discoverable functionality. That's what I want. Mystery meat UI and the latest "precious" shade of pale blue or whatever? Fuck right off.

AgentME 10y ago

I feel like Microsoft Office's UI peaked in Office 2004, before the ribbon, and LibreOffice's UI is almost identical to it, except I get lost less in LibreOffice looking for formatting options.

chadlavi 10y ago

I think the point danielhunt is making—and it's a good one—is that people don't want to use software that isn't pretty. Sure it's functional, of course. Vim is functional. But OSS software like LibreOffice consistently have that... sad soviet-like "hey it's functional enough" feel to them.

k_bx 10y ago

New release has "view -> toolbars -> single mode" (you need to untoggle the other two), so that you get 1 toolbar instead of two now. It looks pretty ok now. Silver background surprises me a bit (could do more macOS-style), but overall looks not that bad IMHO https://i.imgur.com/5v4QRqC.png https://i.imgur.com/5v4QRqC.png

k_bx 10y ago
Not saying it's "as good as others", pictograms still look very askew, but it's just much better than it was.