Summary: | Reordering Conditional Formats in Manage CF dialog | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | LibreOffice | Reporter: | Carl2333 <carl2333> |
Component: | Calc | Assignee: | Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | 79045_79045, aero.maxx.d, calestyo, erack, heiko.tietze, Peter, tdf |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 7.3.1.3 release | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Crash report or crash signature: | Regression By: | ||
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 116221 | ||
Attachments: | Manage conditions dialog with more than one condition |
Description
Carl2333
2022-03-23 23:50:04 UTC
UX-team, your opinion here? Created attachment 182896 [details]
Manage conditions dialog with more than one condition
The CF management dialog shows all conditions in a spreadsheet, for example what is applied to A1:A5 and another for B1:B5. Having two CF for one range sounds like abusing the dialog to easily switch between presets, which might be a use case itself.
On the other hand I see no way to suppress multiple CF at one range. And adding up/down interaction is cheap and simple. Perhaps we should do it as icon-only buttons right of the list to not spam the dialog with buttons.
*** Bug 153900 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Following comments on https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/calc-how-to-change-conditional-formatting-priority/91488 it seems that the list of conditions is purely alphabetical and does not indicate precedence. In Manage Conditional Formatting it looks as if the Highlighted condition is first in order of applying. For most users, including myself until today, it is not immediately obvious which condition takes precedence just from the appearance of the Manage Conditional Formatting dialogue. This is also against the expectation of the original bug post. Sample with differing order of creation at https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/calc-how-to-change-conditional-formatting-priority/91488/6?u=earnestal *** Bug 160651 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |