[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#652878: /usr/bin/localc: typing goes to the wrong oocalc window, instead of the one with focus



Package: libreoffice-calc
Version: 1:3.4.4-2
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/localc

Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

   * What led up to the situation?
I opened two spreadsheets, using separate oocalc commands.
One spreadsheet for editing, the other I just wanted to look at.
I am not supposed to change the latter one at all, just use it as
a template for building the new spreadsheet.

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?
I clicked a cell with a formula in the template spreadsheet.
NOT for copy/paste, because the new formula has to be similar,
but NOT a copy.

Then I gave the other spreadsheet keyboard focus, in order to
type the formula there (with all sorts of clever changes, which is
why copy/paste was not appropriate.)

Problem 1: with focus gone from the first spreadsheet, the
formula in the selected cell was no longer displayed, so I
could not read it!

This was easily worked around. I clicked the cell again, and
this time I also clicked the formula itself, placing the cursor
there. I had no intention to actually edit that formula, just
make it stay visible so I could work on the other spreadsheet.

Then I moved the mouse to the other spreadsheet, and my window
manager (icewm) gave the other spreadsheet focus.

I clicked in the cell where I wanted to write, and got worried.
No cursor appeared! And when I typed anyway, nothing happened
there. Instead, the text appeared in the formula box in
the template spreadsheet, ruining the existing formula!

   * What was the outcome of this action?

Nothing happened to the spreadsheet with keyboard focus,
instead the template spreadsheet without focus got its
formula destroyed.

   * What outcome did you expect instead?
I expected my writing to go into the spreadsheet that
actaully had keyboard focus (indicated by window manager),the
spreadsheet I even had clicked on.

Not only is this useless - I get locked into a situation
where I can't type where I want, without loosing view of
the text I want to read.

Much worse: this is a gross breach of user interface expectations.
Typing ALWAYS goes into the window that the window manager gives
focus to. Always - no exceptions!

There is no such problem if I open the template spreadsheet in
gnumeric. When I then type in the new spreadsheet, text
appear where it should - in the NEW spreadsheet. Typing
does NOT make a mess in the gnumeric window that doesn't have focus.

This is rather obvious - one window has focus and have no "secret"
communication with the other process. And it should work in
_exactly the same way_ when using two oocalc windows.

The fact that oocalc handles both windows with a single
process, should NOT cause such mixups. Using a single
process may allow for easier copying between sheets, and
save some memory. That is fine. But keyboard focus must work perfectly.
One window may be in the middle of something special when
I swithc away from it. It may, for example, be in the middle
of editing a formula. But that should not affect the other window
at all. In this respect, they should be as separate as
windows belonging to different processes.

Similiarly - If I switch away from an ocalc formula
to type in this letter, then typing really happens
in this letter and not in the abandoned oocalc window.
Same should happen if the window I switch to happens
to be another oocalc window. Users does not expect
unusual keyboard focus arrangements between separate
oocalc windows - especially not when the window
manager clearly indicates which window is supposed
to have focus.

This was a nasty surprise, but fortunately I can
work around it using gnumeric instead. Others may
not be so lucky, if they use features that
gnumeric doesn't have.

Sorry if I seem very angry - this happened
while doing actual work . . .

*** End of the template - remove these lines ***



Reply to: