Issue 19291 - Split Windows for single document
Summary: Split Windows for single document
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Writer
Classification: Application
Component: viewing (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1 RC4
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial with 250 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords: oooqa, rfe_eval_ok, usability
: 4508 31350 37591 56981 57250 63788 71654 75223 76126 103967 (view as issue list)
Depends on: 102365
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2003-09-09 00:27 UTC by rblackeagle
Modified: 2014-11-04 17:09 UTC (History)
37 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: FEATURE
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---
hdu: 3.4_release_blocker-


Attachments
PIcture of two open Writer windows tiled (613.78 KB, image/png)
2005-06-23 05:00 UTC, peschtra
no flags Details
Efficient split screen layout (51.41 KB, image/png)
2005-11-13 23:46 UTC, pesala
no flags Details
Print Monitor - Documents do not print (18.28 KB, image/jpeg)
2011-04-13 18:44 UTC, lori0479
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description rblackeagle 2003-09-09 00:27:07 UTC
A feature I have found useful in other word processors is the ability to have a
split window so I could look at one part of a document and edit in another part.
 It enables me to make sure I am describing things accurately.
Comment 1 mci 2003-09-15 10:28:52 UTC
reassigned to bh@openoffice.org
Comment 2 guido.pinkernell 2004-02-12 19:22:11 UTC
Will close this as a duplicate of Issue 4508.

If you find your problem not being resolved please ask for reopen Issue 4508.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 4508 ***
Comment 3 guido.pinkernell 2004-02-12 19:22:25 UTC
.
Comment 4 stefan.baltzer 2004-04-01 14:10:26 UTC
SBA: I reopen THIS one in order to close issue 4508.
Reason: Clear and short description here, confusion and "too-much-junk-to-read"
in the other one. 
Comment 5 stefan.baltzer 2004-04-01 14:12:42 UTC
*** Issue 4508 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 6 goa103 2004-04-03 22:03:44 UTC
I thought the « Split screen feature? » post
(http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1704) might interest some of you.

To sum things up : the « Windows > New Window » feature doesn't allow users to
split a document view, it just opens a new window (menu, toolbars, navigator,
stylist... and a document view). A « View > Split Document View » feature should
allow us to split the view horizontally or vertically (like tiling windows).
Some word processors allow us to split a view simply by dragging the border of
the view (the mouse cursor changes to a split icon) or pressing and dragging a
split button.
Comment 7 jdhodges 2004-07-01 18:35:05 UTC
Paul Kuckein wrote:
> I am not quite certain what you and Jeff mean by "splitting" a window.  
> (Do you mean being able to scroll independently in tow portions of the 
> same document in the same window?)

Yes, that's what I (jdhodges) mean. (x)emacs (http://www.xemacs.org/) & NEdit
(http://www.nedit.org/) do this, for example. So does MS Word, but one can only
have one "split" active at a time, and if you ask it to also show document
"comments" at the same time, it takes over the split in order to render the doc
comments (which sux royally imho).


> If so, you can get some of that functionality in StarWriter by using 
> "Window - New" to get a copy of the current document in a new window in 
> which you can scroll independently.

Yes, I realize that, thanks. But opening another entire, seperate "tool window"
(I'm not sure what the correct terminology, nor parlence, is here; "tool window"
is the proper Xerox XDE term ;)  doesn't meet my requirements. I want/need "n"
number of independently scrollable, resizeable, dynamically instantiated/removed
"subwindows" within the same tool window, all giving a view of the same doc.

and as long as we're on the topic.. I note that with (x)emacs, one can have a
diff doc in each subwindow, and that's ok, tho I personally don't require it.
However, if that were impl'd, I'd want the UI for alloc'g a split, and for
changing "buffers" (emacs parlance) to work "better" -- I find it easy to
inadvertantly load docs into subwindows I didn't intend them to be loaded into. 
Comment 8 russc 2004-07-20 19:34:36 UTC
The ability to split a window into two panes that can be scrolled independently
is a feature I use almost daily in MS Word. It is extremely useful in developing
long  complex documents. The absence of this feature in OOo is a signifcant
shortcoming for my work.
Comment 9 n7dr 2004-08-30 19:47:06 UTC
I am surprised that at the very least there is not even a target milestone for
this feature. As others have reported, editing large documents in the absence of
this feature is a major inconvenience. Even a single vertical split, as provided
by Word, is vastly better than nothing. 

To do the job properly, of course, one would like to have every window be
splittable vertically and horizontally (recursively). That's probably asking for
too much, though :-)

Opening a second document window is a terribly poor substitute: it takes too
long and takes up so much real estate on the screen that one ends up with
precious little of the document that one can see.

I guess I'm not really adding anything to prior posts, except to say "me too",
in the hope that maybe at least the feature will get scheduled for a target
milestone in the near future. 

Comment 10 hhielscher 2004-08-30 20:08:23 UTC
note: Staroffice 5.2 had a split screen feature and can still be found at some
freeware directories.
see also issue 19292: Split Windows for Multiple Files
Comment 11 stp 2004-09-09 10:27:27 UTC
Please set target: 2.0 or Later ?
Comment 12 lohmaier 2004-09-14 23:51:36 UTC
keywords, owner according to new RFE-eval process.
Comment 13 peschtra 2004-12-04 23:23:15 UTC
I would like to throw my support behind this also. Especially since you can do
it in Calc, but not writer?

22+ votes & no milestone? Are there things with more public interest?

This is a key feature!

Thanks,
Peter
Comment 14 mipsv 2004-12-05 03:25:48 UTC
I guess they mean windows MDI mode as opposed to SDI mode (I don't know if MS
still uses these terms or not) where each doc gets its entire seperate soffice
window. It looks like the ui.xcu file has a "split" function but Im not so sure
it works here and if so how its set through the UI anyway.
Comment 15 mipsv 2004-12-05 03:53:21 UTC
sorry, not ui.xcu - views.xcu
Comment 16 utomo99 2004-12-13 02:24:24 UTC
*** Issue 31350 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 17 kieser 2005-06-22 13:14:13 UTC
Shift+Ctrl+F6 is the shortkey combo for the splitting in everything but writer.
It's actually not clear from the help text that writer is excluded. I spent
about 1/2 hour trying to work out why Shift+Ctrl+F6 wasn't working in Linux
until I re-read the text and realised that it wasn't implemented in writer.

At the very least the text in HELP should be upgraded to add a "NOTE: Writer
does not (yet) support split screen mode".

It's very seriously annoying not having this in writer. It's a feature I need
quite desperately.
Comment 18 peschtra 2005-06-22 18:09:09 UTC
Each writer window is its own window. If you tile windows on your screen, can
you accomplish the same result?
Comment 19 kieser 2005-06-22 18:40:56 UTC
No, not even close. For a start it involves a windows swap. The editing is
independant, for example if I am wanting to align a paragraph on page 5 to be
the same as that on page 3, split screen allow this very easily, whereas the two
windows approach... no chance.
Comment 20 peschtra 2005-06-23 04:59:50 UTC
Try this for me:

1) Open the document you need the split windows for
2) Select *Window > New Window* (Note that a second window opens.
3) (This step works in Windows, I don't know how other desktops handle it.) Hold
down Control and select both windows in question on the task bar.
4) Right click and select /Tile Horizontally/.

Did that work? Now you have two editable windows with the same document. See
attached screen shot. (I have dual monitors, so the screen shot looks big, but
Writer is only on one of my screens.

Let me know if this works.
Comment 21 peschtra 2005-06-23 05:00:48 UTC
Created attachment 27431 [details]
PIcture of two open Writer windows tiled
Comment 22 dromadaire35 2005-06-23 07:52:48 UTC
peschtra wrote:
> 2) Select *Window > New Window* (Note that a second window opens.
> 3) [...] Hold down Control and select both windows in question on the task bar.
> 4) Right click and select /Tile Horizontally/.

This is no solution. First of all, as acknowledged in peschtra's comment, it is
not guaranteed that the user's desktop will provide such a tiling function in a
simple way.

But the most annoyable thing is that this "hack" wastes much space on the
screen. In the peschtra's screenshot, one can see that almost 20% of the screen
is wasted by duplicating toolbars, menu bar, horizontal speedbar and window
title bar.

This shows that a split function, as exists in other OOo modules, is definitely
needed.
Comment 23 wed 2005-10-06 09:05:55 UTC
It seems there is still no split screen facility in Oo 2.0 Writer! A workaround
is to save the document in doc form, and then use the split screen facility in Word.
Comment 24 pesala 2005-11-13 23:46:03 UTC
Created attachment 31449 [details]
Efficient split screen layout
Comment 25 pesala 2005-11-13 23:54:20 UTC
Although I agree that a split screen option would be useful occasionally, I think 
the existing option to create a New Window is sufficient for occasional use.

It is easy to arrange the windows efficiently. 

1. Press Windows key + D to minimize all windows
2. Maximize the Open Office Document that you wish to split
3. Select "New Window" from the Window menu
4. Hide the status bar in both windows
5. Hide the toolbar(s) in the lower window.
Comment 26 n7dr 2005-11-14 00:58:07 UTC
Yes, I think we all understand how to get two windows on the screen at once, but
I think that we all also think that this is no substitute for a real split
screen feature. To me, there are three principal drawbacks to this method:

1. It takes a lot of work (although I suppose that someone could write a nifty
macro do to everything, but in the absence of such a macro it's simply painful
to "pseudo-split" the screen in this way);

2. It takes up too much screen real estate.

3. Resizing the windows is painful. When editing long documents (which I often
do for several hours per day) I resize the split window several times an hour. I
confess that almost always I now edit such documents in Word. 

This is not to suggest that Word's split-screen feature is perfect, far from it,
but it's much better than anything we can do right now in OOo. OOo2 has made
great strides and is now for many purposes a realistic alternative to Word,
because it actually handles quite complicated .doc documents rather well; maybe
by OOo3 we'll actually have something that does all the Word stuff as well or
better than Word. Looking in the bugzilla archives, I see that essentially every
feature I've noticed where OOo is weaker than Word has been requested for
enhancement, so I'm hoping that the development team is going to take those
requests to heart for OOo 3. 

As others have noted, it would certainly be nice to have a target milestone for
this feature. The lack of good split-screen editing is the principal reason I
can't recommend OOo to other people in my company.
Comment 27 kyrilus 2005-11-16 10:15:00 UTC
very usefull feature when you have a lot of translations to do
1 open the original document
2 open the new document where to put the translation
3 "split"
and then you could work with both versions with only one eye

> The lack of good split-screen editing is the principal reason I
can't recommend OOo to other people in my company.
for me too, same reason
Comment 28 wed 2005-11-16 10:27:52 UTC
The lack of good split-screen editing is one of the 2 reasons why I use Word
rather than Oo Writer for writing scientific articles (the other reason is the
lack of an efficient integrated bibliography manager such as Endnote).
Comment 29 lohmaier 2005-12-11 19:13:38 UTC
*** Issue 56981 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 30 stp 2006-03-30 22:31:23 UTC
*** Issue 63788 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 31 stefan.baltzer 2006-04-18 10:48:13 UTC
*** Issue 57250 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 32 lkbowen 2006-04-26 18:28:30 UTC
Also adding my support that this gets prioritized as a new feature in the next
milestone. It would be great to see this one added in the near future. This is
an issue that goas back four years now and has been supported by me and 50 more
individuals, not to mention those that haven't spoken up on it yet, or are using
their 5 votes to support other issues, but are watching this one. It's been the
suject of at least five other bug reports/feature requests, all of which are
consolidated here.

The separate window thing just doesn't cut it. More windows means the use of
more system resources. It means reduced screen space, it means more user
interaction to switch from one window to the next. Not only that, but the
"solutiuon" has been clearly labeled as a workaround, implying that develoeprs
recognize the need to fix the issue.

I for one would like to see this sooner than OOo3. It's already implemented in
the rest of the OOo suite, and it took developers well over a year to even
realize what users are requesting.
Comment 33 kpalagin 2006-07-16 18:05:49 UTC
Dear developers,
please consider introducing this feature into all (or at least Calc and 
Writer) of OOo applications.
This is very usefull and highly used with competing products feature.
Comment 34 matthias.mueller-prove 2006-11-13 12:53:48 UTC
add my votes
Comment 35 bluloo 2006-11-13 14:01:04 UTC
Please add the split window/split view feature to OO as soon as practical.

thank you

Comment 36 grillon 2006-11-24 14:18:49 UTC
Hi all,
Since this issue is kinda similar to 19292, I'll repeat some arguments from there:

Using multiple windows gets cumbersome when:
1.I have to resize windows
2.I switch to other applications
3.Documents get numerous (in fact, I can get nuts trying that with 3 of them)
Also, the multiple buttons in the taskbar also make it too polluted (this is a
problem in Windoze, dunno if other OSs also suffer from this).

I'd also ask that "Component" and "Version" be set to "all", since this is
useful for many components and happens in different versions (mine is 2.0.3).

Thanks,
Comment 37 kpalagin 2007-03-11 23:57:31 UTC
*** Issue 75223 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 38 terablade2001 2007-03-12 08:28:39 UTC
As I see there are many people that need to split up windows in Writer. In my
(dup) Issue (75223) I have a screenshot between the way to split document in 2
windows, and the way MSOffice do it with split screen. The space that the
duplicated bars take, is a negative (-specially if you have 2 toolbards in the
top part - i have the second one in column left) of using 2 windows. And I see
that this usefull for many users (that use OOWriter for proffesional and not
only reasons) feature hasnt been set to created since OOo 1.1 RC4 to 2.1
version. Anyway..

Split Window is a good feature that we need it :)
Comment 39 Mathias_Bauer 2007-04-05 21:54:16 UTC
Issue 76126 suggests to allow horizontal as well as vertical splitting and also
the idea to have more than one part.
Comment 40 Mathias_Bauer 2007-04-05 21:55:20 UTC
*** Issue 76126 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 41 fernan_aguero 2007-10-31 15:42:52 UTC
Why is this feature available in Calc but not in writer?
Comment 42 foxcole 2007-12-07 14:39:52 UTC
I too would like to see this implemented sooner than version 3.0, yet it's not
even marked for that milestone, let alone a sooner release. This is in fact a
very important feature, and users who need this feature are not served by the
workaround of two separate edit windows... especially when working on multiple
documents, as others have noted here. That becomes a nightmare. Please assign
this issue a target milestone.
Comment 43 kpalagin 2008-02-18 13:59:03 UTC
*** Issue 71654 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 44 martinz 2008-02-19 01:53:02 UTC
I can't believe that a four-and-half years old issue with so many requests (see 
the number of posts, votes and duplicated issues) hasn't even a milestone set. 
Or at least an answer. Makes me feel that developers don't care about users 
opinion.
Comment 45 lamarcbr 2008-04-10 17:29:42 UTC
I to am perplexed by the lack of commitment pertaining to this request. This 
is a feature that I use almost daily in all office program. It is proposed 
earlier in this post that the same result can be achieved by tiling the 
document windows. If so, why was it decided that this feature had value in 
Calc and Impress/Draw but not Writer? Your hard work is appreciated but I am 
not sure how to escalate this request given all the other remarkable work that 
is happening concerning OO.org. Maybe I should give this issue all my votes.
Comment 46 grillon 2008-04-10 20:59:10 UTC
Yes, pls vote here if you agree this issue is crucial. I read somewhere that OOo
wants to beat M$O in version 3.0. So they probably are considering the issue,
because it'll never beat M$O otherwise.
BTW, I'll leave a suggestion here: to merge this with issue 19292, since that
one would hopefully solve this one.
Best regards all.
Comment 47 ibcl 2008-05-07 21:11:06 UTC
For the record:
The first public beta of OOo 3.0 still has no sign of this feature.

Of course I agree that a Word processor without split windows cannot compete
with anything.

The worst thing is: The feature has always been there in OOo's predecessor
StarOffice.
Comment 48 Mathias_Bauer 2008-05-12 11:39:21 UTC
You must be dreaming. :-) StarOffice never had that function. 

In StarOffice you could open two windows for the same document and you still can
do this in OpenOffice.org. The only additional functionality in StarOffice was
that it could rearrange the windows to be in the same task window. But as this
was possible only at a cost (lost system integration) that was removed in
OpenOffice.org.

For OpenOffice.org this needs to be done in another way. With the given
resources we can implement such features only one by one. For 3.0 we chose two
features we considered to be more important: improved "notes" and multiple page
view.
Comment 49 ibcl 2008-05-12 12:02:55 UTC
>The only additional functionality in StarOffice was that it could rearrange the
windows to be in the same task window. 

That's all we ask.

>But as this was possible only at a cost (lost system integration) that was
removed in OpenOffice.org.

I never detected any "lost system integretation", and I persume none of us would
care.

>For 3.0 we chose two features we considered to be more important: improved
"notes" and multiple page view.

I admit those would be features, but on what grounds did you consider those more
important than repairing the damage you have done by removing split document view?
Do those features have more votes?

Btw., there are rumours Sun's OOo team has a tradition of rejecting any major
patches from other people or companies (like IBM, Novell, ...). If those rumours
are true it's clear why there is a lack of resources.
No offences, I'm just forwarding street talk.

And yes, I know, I shall feel free to (re)implement the demanded feature myself ;-))
Comment 50 Mathias_Bauer 2008-05-12 13:07:13 UTC
You shouldn't believe all the rumours you hear especially if they are spread by
the same people that hold back a lot of patches.

Fact is that we gratefully accept all patches we get. But sometimes this takes
even more time than doing it ourselves. :-)

About the importance: my own assessment is that a multiple page view will give
more users a greater benefit than a split view. This is based on more than 10
years of experience. I may be wrong (nobody is perfect ;-)), but that's life.
Until now I still think I'm right. :-)

Comment 51 kieser 2008-05-12 13:32:56 UTC
I know that this is getting a bit off topic, but can you give some rough
guidelines as to when a patch will be less effort to do it yourself?

If this issue isn't addresses in the next month or two, I will probably have
some free time coming up and could do the fix myself. However, it's no use doing
the patch is it's not going to be accepted.
Comment 52 grillon 2008-05-12 15:33:32 UTC
From what I could understand of multiple page view, it's the ability of seeing
adjacent pages of a single document in the same window. Though I agree it's
useful, I fully disagree it's more important than the split window feature.
While the adjacent page view is an improvement (and, as such, welcome) of what
we already have - Writer has a continuous flow view and OOo print preview can
show multiple pages - and is aimed mostly at Writer (Impress at most), split
windows is a full feature with a great impact on usability for all OOo applications.
Also, given OOo application integration, if it's done as proposed in issue 19292
(which can substitute this one, IMHO), will permit simultaneous view and editing
of different types of documents, such as text and presentations, for example.
This completely beats what I had in my previous suite (M$O 97), while the
multiple page view comes quite short of that.
It seems the decision is already made, but I just want to make devs aware of my
user point-of-view. In fact, this is the only feature I miss since I switched
from M$O.
Many thanks.
Comment 53 tora3 2008-05-12 17:13:12 UTC
Please give us more information around computing environment such as resolution 
of display like 800 x 600, the number of colors like 1 million, and what mainly 
office suite software is used for, etc.

This issue opened in 2003 and now we live in 2008. I guess that computer 
environment has been dramatically changed compared to 2003. 

This is my opinion. I do not currently need an idea of split-window, but will 
need much more other features. So I would like developers to spend time for 
enhancing and introducing other features. 

Why do I think so? I currently use 2560 x 1600 of LCD displays. With this
environment, the area of window title, menu bar, tool bars, and status bars 
occupies less than 10% of height of display. I do not need to take care of the
occupancy. 

I hate to use Window's like desktop environment such as GNOME or KDE, not to 
mention, Windows. I prefer a window manager fvwm2 that allows users have 
multiple virtual displays. Individual virtual displays lie side by side and 
thus a window of software can spread all over the displays. That means I have 
a 12800 x 8000 of virtual display with a setting of 5 x 5 virtual displays. 

Additionally, I apply focus-follow-mouse policy and auto-rise-window. I do not 
need to click some area of a window to change focus of window, just move cursor 
pointer on the desired window. The window, even it is behind the other windows, 
automatically rises up to the top. 

A window manager fvwm, predecessor of fvwm2, was available in the time of 
Windows 95. Windows-like desktop environment, however, has been dominating 
the PC markets for years, but I think such kind of poor environment leads 
much loss of productivity lasting for some decades. 

Sorry, those are somewhat off the topic. 

What I wanted to mention were: 
 - Larger display, less demands of split-window.
 - Times goes, technology enhances, becoming easier to have a larger display.
 - Within a few years, most people would not take care of this issue. 

Actually, from a technical point of view, implementation of split-window in 
an application takes much efforts than leaving a control of two windows to 
the window system provided by OS such as Windows, Mac OS, and UNIX. 
Demands of this issue would be diminishing. But there would be something 
that i have not noticed. 
Comment 54 kieser 2008-05-12 17:58:31 UTC
Oh the need for a split window is not just about screen size. It's about proper
editing of documents where one section refers to another or is related to it. It
affects many things, from cutting and pasting to proper formatting.

Two windows are nowhere near the same as a split window mode.

And although your solution works for you, others, including me, would hate it.
For me auto-focus is one of the worst features ever added to X. I don't want to
get into an auto-focus debate here, so won't list my reasons but believe me,
there are many people like me who simply hate it.

And the other issue is that yes, you may use X. As it happens, so do I. But most
people use Windows and OO competes with Office, so that's the target market.
That's where nearly all the potential users are right now.

Split window usage cannot be worked around successfully on M$ no matter what we
may think of M$ Windows as a platform. Neither can it be worked around
successfully on the Mac. There's 99% of the world's desktops immediately at a
disadvantage to Office in the OO v.s. Office competition.
Comment 55 ibcl 2008-05-12 18:53:58 UTC
Having two windows open does consume very much time for window arranging, and
still does not solve anything.

It even endangers the data, because alternately editing the document in 2 or
even 3 windows totally confuses OOo and one never knows which window is for real
(I just re-tested with OOo 2.4).

Besides operating two distant but related parts of a document there are other
nice applications for multiple _synchronized_ (!!!) views on the very same part
of a document:
Having one non-print-layout view (better for typing and editing) and one
_synchronized_ WYSIWYG view (to see what's being printed).

As of screen sizes:
You cannot assume large displays.
I love my 24" 1920x1200 screen in the office, and I know of developers with e.g.
3200x1200 dual screen desktops, but far over 50% of people work on laptops or
cheap desktop PCs with 1024x768 usally, 1400x900 tops.
During the last say 12 years, the average office PC resolution hasn't even
completed the step from 1024x768 (17" CRT, 15" LCD) to around 1280x1024 (19"
LCD) or 1400x900 (some 15" widescreen laptops).

Comment 56 tora3 2008-05-12 19:33:01 UTC
Thank you for the valued comments.

Needs:
 1) To refer to a different part of a document
 2) To refer to a beginning and ending part of an area

Measures:
 a) split-window
 b) two windows

 We are not required to choose one of them. We could incorporate both of 
 them and leave users a chance to choose it. 

Specifications:
= How to split a window =
 In horizontal writing, a window should be split horizontally into upper part 
 and lower part. In vertical writing, a window should be split vertically into 
 left part and right part. 

 Word 2003 splits a window horizontally in vertical writing. It is really mess. 
 Imagine that you are working on an English document, what do you feel if 
 the window gets split vertically and both parts of window has a horizontal 
 scroll bar. You should move it back and forth to see an entire line. 
 If we try to introduce split-window, we should consider vertical writing, too.

= Selection =
 To select a region, locate a cursor somewhere in the split-window A and then 
 locate a cursor somewhere in the split-window B with holding a Shift key. 

 Word 2003 does not work in such a way. An attempt of locating a cursor fails, 
 but simply makes a focus changed to the target window. 

 If we try to incorporate split-window, it would be better to take care of 
 selection. 

= Short cut key =
 To switch window, somewhat better short cut key or key sequence might be 
 needed. 

 With Word 2003, an attempt of switching between split-windows by Alt-TAB fails. 
 That short cut key brings us to other application's window. Is there any 
 convenience short cut key already incorporated on Word 2003 or 2007?


If we want to proceed this issue, we would need more user scenarios and 
discuss them and devise their solutions. We could refer to other software, 
but would not need to exactly mimic other software. For instance, specs of 
split-window of Word might be defined under the circumstances of small 
(800 x 600) screen in the 8 or 16 bit era. In comparison, we are currently 
living in 64 bit era with more than 1000 dot resolution screen, We do not 
need to follow such traditional, conventional, outdated, ... specifications. 

In addition, we should concentrate on what users and customers desire. User 
means those who use a software on a daily basis while customer means those who 
decide what software is chosen and give an approval of plan and/or budget. 
Comment 57 grillon 2008-05-12 20:26:33 UTC
tora, I understand your view as a high-end user, but unfortunately this
situation changes a lot among users:
The vast majority of computer users I know of have 15" or 17" monitors with
resolutions either 1024x768 or 800x600. Greater than that is pretty rare.
Very little people use a good window manager. In fact, the vast majority have
Windows installed. OTOH, few would have patience to do the managing themselves.
I'd never use focus-follow-mouse for reasons beyond our discussion here.
This could be taken care of by OSs in a few years, but we don't know how many
(let alone the majority of users get the solution). We will have in the near
future a solution which is not as good as what the competition brought over 10
years ago.

I know split windows is not a simple solution and apologize for the 'me too'
flooding. But what I really want is to have the reasons clear. For people like
me, which I believe to be many, split windows is still the feature of choice.

Best regards
Comment 58 ibcl 2008-05-12 20:35:35 UTC
If horizontal and vertical splitting are possible, I'd offer both at any time.
With large wide screens vertical splitting absolutely can make sense even with
horizontal writing. See gvim (aka vim-gtk) and xemacs.

Selecting text the way you described would be nice, but not a necessary part of
a new split window view. 
The split window implementation of M$ Word 2000 would satisfy most of us,
despite the imperfections you mentioned.

That's a general remark: Sometimes a feature is better in than out, even if it
is incomplete, experimental, looks awful, ...

As of example applications, I can name some apps aside MSO:

Word processors:
+ KWord (split windows and multiple windows, synchronized)
+ AbiWord (synchronized multiple windows)
+ StarOffice in late 1990ies ;-))

Text editors (unfair to compare with them, but still):
+ vi in all variants
+ emacs in all variants
+ nedit

Top list of apps not providing real split windows:
- OOo
- KDevelop 3.x (Feature scheduled for KDevelop 4.x)
- Eclipse 3.x (Eclipse Bug 8009, Feature has chances for 4.x; same painful
discussion there)

Comment 59 ibcl 2008-05-12 20:38:20 UTC
grillon wrote:
>We will have in the near future a solution which is not as good as what the
competition brought over 10 years ago.

Did you mean "We want to have" supporting our demands or did you really mean "We
will have" promising us something beeing in progress?
Comment 60 grillon 2008-05-12 20:50:29 UTC
(Bah, forget my last message, I only saw tora's reply after submitting it)
Selection: I dunno what's exactly the hard part here, but IMHO it should be
independent window-wise. Also, selecting a display area and a cursor position
should be retained indefinitely as the window goes out of focus. No shift-click
is necessary as far as simple editing is concerned. But, since you use an
advanced window manager and I don't, you are probably aware of more tricks than
I do. Pls share them so we can sync our thoughts.
Shortcut key: what about Ctrl-Tab? This is the common shortcut used in most
Windoze apps.
On the issue of splitting horizontally or vertically and horizontal or vertical
writing: well, the customer can decide whether to split vertically or
horizontally depending on his needs. I don't think this is a real problem.

Many thanks.
Comment 61 grillon 2008-05-12 21:10:39 UTC
ibcl, I understood we will indeed have multiple page view in OOo 3.0, based on
both mba's comments and information on the Web. Of course, I cannot promise
anything at all, even whether if there will be 3.0 at all...
Comment 62 tora3 2008-05-13 10:22:16 UTC
This is my own understandings - just one idea -.

 Split window of Writer
  It is for different views of one document.
   - Two or more split windows share one cursor mark and current positions.
   - Directly inserting or deleting letters in one split window reflects 
     inserting or deleting letters in other split window(s) at the same time 
     if viewed area is close to each other. 
   - Typing Asian characters through input method works at the current position 
     in one split window. No need to show candidates in other split window 
     while a user is choosing one of the candidates proposed by the input 
     method.  
   - An action of selecting texts in one split window is shared in another split 
     window or other split windows. 
   - Current cursor position will be stored in a file and retained upon loading 
     the file.

 New window of Writer
  It is for sharing one document with other users (normally one user)
   - Each window has own cursor mark and current positions. 
   - Directly inserting or deleting letters in one individual window reflects 
     inserting or deleting letters in other individual window(s) at the same 
     time if viewed area is close to each other. 
   - Typing Asian characters through input method works at the current position 
     in one individual window. No need to show candidates in other individual 
     windows while a user is choosing one of the candidates proposed by the 
     input method.  
   - An action of selecting texts in one individual window is NOT shared with 
     other individual windows.
   - File owner's current cursor position will be stored in a file and retained 
     upon loading the file. 

Cursor mark position is the location where you pressed a left mouse button 
and cursor current position is the location where cursor pointer currently is 
after you moved your mouse pointer. 

A new window could be displayed in the same display or other display, even or 
someone else's display if a remote window system allows the connection through 
such as a remote desktop connectivity. 
Comment 63 tora3 2008-05-13 10:43:56 UTC
I forgot to mention this.

 Each new window is capable of having one of more split windows.

Thanks.
Comment 64 Mathias_Bauer 2008-05-13 11:05:56 UTC
@kieser:

> I know that this is getting a bit off topic, but can you give some rough
> guidelines as to when a patch will be less effort to do it yourself?

OOo is a very complex application. Sometimes a patch does not address all facets
and problems and either omitted important details, creates new bugs etc. Don't
misunderstand me: we will try to do our very best to get all patches integrated
we get (see e.g. http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/patch_integration). I just
wanted to point out that getting patches does not mean that you always save a
lot of time. Especially bigger features (like this one) usually aren't done in
patches and if they are done we still need several weeks of work to get them
integrated. A good example is issue 33737 where we already have invested 3-4
weeks of work for the integration and still are not done yet.

> If this issue isn't addresses in the next month or two, I will probably have
> some free time coming up and could do the fix myself. However, it's no use 
> doing the patch is it's not going to be accepted.

Of course if anybody wanted to work on this issue we will try to help. Working
on something is the "easiest" way to make us shift our priorities. :-)
See http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/why_all_issues_are_equal
Comment 65 grillon 2008-05-13 15:07:50 UTC
tora, great starting point. Let me dispute a couple ideas:
"Two or more split windows share one cursor mark and current positions"
When I need to edit a document seeing different parts of it simultaneously, I
want to be able to copy/paste and drag/drop portions of the text from both panes
(if we can call it this way). So there's the need of cursor mark and positions
to be independent among views.
"An action of selecting texts in one split window is shared in another split
window or other split windows."
By the reason above, I think selections in one split window shouldn't be echoed
in other(s).
"Current cursor position will be stored in a file and retained upon loading the
file."
I don't have much of an idea on how to deal with the file storing the positions,
but I guess there's two possibilities:
a)Electing one view (probably the first opened) as the main one and storing only
the "main view" cursor position
b)Storing positions and splittings in the file (this could get quite messy)
In short, it would be split windows with the specs you wrote for new windows.

"It is for different views of one document"
What's your thought on merging this discussion with the quite similar issue 19292?

Many thanks for getting it moving (also for kieser) and best regards,
Emerson
Comment 66 grillon 2008-05-13 15:13:04 UTC
Forgot to mention: despite we're starting the discussion on Writer, it's a good
idea to have in mind a future stretch to the other apps, at least Calc and Impress.
Comment 67 ibcl 2008-05-13 15:21:12 UTC
We do not need to include calc, because this app has horizontal and vertical
splitting capability.
I am not sure about a multi-window view, but split view is perfectly there in calc.
Comment 68 tora3 2008-05-13 16:05:04 UTC
grillon: I can agree with you. 

Could you try "Window | Split" and "Window | Freeze panes" on Excel?
What you mention is somewhat similar to "Freeze panes" of Excel while 
my prior proposal is somewhat similar to "Split" of Excel. 

Maybe we can introduce both ideas in Writer as Excel does.

 1. Start Excel.
 2. Select a cell in the middle, center of window and choose "Window | Split."
    Now you have 4 panes, split horizontally and vertically. 
 3. Select a cell in the right bottom pane and press Ctrl-right arrow and 
    Ctrl-down arrow to move to cell IV:65536, most far from A1.
 4. Now you can select a big area by selecting C3 in the left top pane and 
    then selecting IT:65533 with holding a Shift key. 

 That is an example of selection. A staring point of an area is displayed 
 in one pane and ending point is shown in another pane.

Freeze panes of Excel does not have a horizontal or vertical scroll bar for 
upper and left panes. When we try to introduce the similar feature in Writer, 
we can add scroll bars for them. 
Comment 69 grillon 2008-05-13 22:40:26 UTC
Er... I don't have M$O... I moved to a better suite a couple years ago ;)
But anyway, Calc also has "Split" and "Freeze". I did what you suggested, and
it's a great thing indeed. Freeze is also great (I use it several times).
But what we're discussing here is two distinct, fully functional panes. By
allowing the user to have independent cursor positions and eventual area
selections, this feature becomes distinct of the current split and freeze.
As I said, I guess the proposal here is to have the functions you mentioned for
multiple windows, but viewed simultaneously in a single window. That is: one
window shows multiple instances of a file (and/or multiple files, as in issue
19292), with independent full editing capabilities for each one.

So I end up puzzled with 3 different ways of splitting data:
1.Freeze as in Calc. We cause a section to bond to the page limits, while the
other scrolls freely. We have a single cursor and, therefore, only one selection.
2.Split as in Calc. We divide the data so the different portions scroll
independently. Still a single cursor and selection.
3.Split as in M$O. We divide the window in more than one view, each one showing
a different part of one or more files. Each pane has its own cursor and selection.

I see both splits can be used in Writer.
The Calc split would work this way: the user selects a point in the text, hits
the funcion, then an horizontal or vertical (depending on the writing) divides
the screen (or maybe only the text page), allowing each side to scroll and the
cursor and selections to be shared between views. This would be quite useful and
less space-hungry than the multiple page view.
The M$O split would be like: the user opens the same file twice (or two
different files) and asks OOo to divide the window, and voilá - you have two
panes. Each one with fully independent cursors and selections and full editing
capabilities. So one could drag and drop, compare, etc., between two different
areas of the document or different documents. This is the killer feature
requested, and can be done for all apps. One could, this way, copy from a
spreadsheet to a text to a presentation, etc.

What do you think?
Best regards
Comment 70 dacrump 2008-05-23 13:35:09 UTC
I need this. Writing long academic papers opening a new window is not quite the
answer, I used to be able to do this years ago with MS office etc and having
just bought a very large wide screen monitor for this purpose I'm somewhat
stunned to find I can't easily do it.
Comment 71 grillon 2008-06-10 21:41:08 UTC
Tora, which are your thoughts on this? Do you think we can get this moving?
Many thanks,
Comment 72 szofiel 2008-07-25 20:56:38 UTC
Excuse me, but after some other people claiming for this very needed feature,
couldn't be used some sort of coding workaround that, instead of a clipart
window, there would be a similar button to do this job? Just a comment.


Thanks
Comment 73 wornways 2008-08-25 17:03:49 UTC
I for one would like to be able to utilize both the New Window feature and Split
Window, as implemented in MS Word. The type of documents I work in are organized
into three sections, all of which are edited simultaneously. The main section,
the actual work itself, would take up the right half of my screen. The other two
sections, both used for writing and keeping track of two or more different
threads of notes, would be take up the left half of my screen and be split into
two panes. Presently I have to muddle around with three separate windows, which
is not very elegant.

So I've added my vote for this issue. Hope it at least gets a milestone.
Comment 74 rustybadger 2008-12-14 00:02:02 UTC
I work for a public school district with a 1:1 laptop program for our students.
We use MS Word on those machines because Word has the split screen feature,
which has serious pedagogical benefits in the classroom. If OO had this feature,
we could save ourselves close to $20,000 per YEAR in licensing costs for M$
Orifice. This is the ONLY feature that is keeping us from switching to Open
Office on all our Macintosh laptops, but it's a serious one. All of our teachers
who use the laptops for their literacy improvement program have been trained by
the experts to use the split screen as a literacy aid for students. Especially
when working on 12" screens like our iBooks have, you cannot have two windows
open- there's simply not enough real estate. Furthermore, it adds complexity to
the task, and when you're working with Grade 4 students, that's the last thing
you want!

I assume that there's folks from Sun watching this thread: if you're out there,
contact me, please. We are willing to contribute some serious financial support
to get this implemented- as I said, we spend an astronomical amount of money on
MS every year, and we'd just love to give some of it to you if you'll help us
out here! I can guarantee you we're not the only ones in this situation as well-
I went to a conference in the summer with over a thousand teachers and
administrators from schools all over North America and the UK, many of them
having the same kind of programs in their schools. A lot of them would love to
switch to F/OSS, but they're kneecapped by lack of features that Microsoft has
played up on.

All we need is a simple horizontal split; when dragged downwards, both panes
show the same document, but are independently scrollable. We don't need two edit
points, or two cursors, or dual selection capabilities; just make it work
exactly like Word 2004 for Mac and you've got a winner in the schools. 
Comment 75 hwtan 2009-01-12 09:11:13 UTC
What is wrong here? After having 149 votes and since v. 1.0, there is still not
a milestone set! It is a shame to the developers and a big let down to all the
supporters of OOo. Please, developers, set the milestone as 3.1 and get it done
yesterday. Don't tell us it is difficult to do because I was using this feature
in Perfectwork 2.1, by Novell in the Windows 3.11 platform. It is a yesteryear
technology.
Comment 76 bluloo 2009-01-12 16:38:39 UTC
If there's a reason this cannot be implemented, the Developers sould comment. It
would be much appreciated (as is all their other hard work). 

Unfortunately, I don't see the point in making further good-faith donations
until It's implemented because the app isn't all that practically useful to me
until it has split windows. Hopefully we'll see it in the near future.
Comment 77 wornways 2009-01-13 18:46:14 UTC
I have to agree with bluloo. I frown over the fact that I can't split my windows
each and every time I bring up an Open Doc. 
Comment 78 hwtan 2009-01-14 02:19:40 UTC
It seems like there is no developer reading this issue as it is "assigned to :
requirements". So is there any way that we can bring it to their attention?
Comment 79 kissedsmiley 2009-01-15 02:45:05 UTC
I am not an Ooof programmer, but in my copious free time I will try to see how to stop this from 
languishing. From my quick partial scan of the architectural todo's, http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/To-Dos , it seems that there could be a problem regarding the 
spreadsheet not giving its functionality to the writer and vice versa.
Comment 80 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-15 15:09:25 UTC
@kissedsmiley: yes and no.

Calc has its own, specific implementation of the "split" feature. And I think
instead of implementing a second, specific solution we should aim for a
"generic" one. 

Meanwhile I think we should do it in a similar way as in StarOffice 5.2 (IIRC
this was mentioned here in an earlier comment) and this means: have TABS(!) in
OOo and allow to have more than one view to one or several documents inside of
one tab. IMHO this will be the most versatile, elegant and useful implementation.

This is my final goal, and any in-between solution should be in line with it.
Here's a small summary how that should be done:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Architecture/To-Dos#Framework_Improvements
Comment 81 bluloo 2009-01-15 15:22:05 UTC
@mba - That would result in the most versatile solution and make OO unique. I
have no idea how it should be implemented from a programming perspective but the
outcome solves more than a few problems. While some many not care for the tab
metaphor, it is where many productivity app GUIs are currently heading.

As long as we don't lose the split view within the same document feature, it
adds benefits and solves the original issue as well.

Comment 82 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-15 15:38:47 UTC
The tabs are not a necessary part of the feature - they are optional. But for me
it's important to have a solution that is generic and that fits into the current
UI (tabs only in the desktop's task bar) as well into a possible future UI with
tabs in OOo. Whether we will have some very much depends on the "project
rennaissance" (search for it at http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS in case you don't
know it).
Comment 83 grillon 2009-01-15 15:56:47 UTC
Yes, split view is the most important request, but I guess the tabs can conflict
with Issue 19292 which, IMHO, is even better (more complete) than this one.
Comment 84 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-15 16:19:14 UTC
No, there is no contradiction. We can solve this issue here and 19292 with and
without tabs, the concept/roadmap in the wiki I pointed to covers that all.
There is no difference between having two views to two different documents or
two views to one single document in one tab or task window (except that they
will have different menu entries or other UI means to create them). But the
arrangement of windows and the code to implement it will be the same. For this
part of the feature it's irrelevant whether the two (or even more) views are
part of a tab or a system task.

Having tabs and a tab bar inside OOo gives an additional advantage: you can move
view between tabs by D&D on the tab bar. This is not possible with tabs in the
system task bar. All people that have used StarOffice 5.2 might know what I
mean: this was the coolest and most useful feature of the StarOffice "desktop"
(that besides that was a very problematic feature).
Comment 85 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-15 16:22:15 UTC
No, there is no contradiction. We can solve this issue here and 19292 with and
without tabs, the concept/roadmap in the wiki I pointed to covers that all.
There is no difference between having two views to two different documents or
two views to one single document in one tab or task window (except that they
will have different menu entries or other UI means to create them). But the
arrangement of windows and the code to implement it will be the same. For this
part of the feature it's irrelevant whether the two (or even more) views are
part of a tab or a system task.

Having tabs and a tab bar inside OOo gives an additional advantage: you can move
view between tabs by D&D on the tab bar. This is not possible with tabs in the
system task bar. All people that have used StarOffice 5.2 might know what I
mean: this was the coolest and most useful feature of the StarOffice "desktop"
(that besides that was a very problematic feature).
Comment 86 grillon 2009-01-15 16:25:07 UTC
BTW, I posted a question a couple times, and still don't know people opinions on
that. Since I feel it's relevant, I'll do it again:

Why don't we merge this into Issue 19292? The latter contains this Issue, so
solving Issue 19292 will undoubtedly take care of both.

Pls share your thoughts. Thanks!
Comment 87 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-15 16:30:35 UTC
Here's an example how it could look like (it's borrowed from StarOffice 5.2):

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Tabbed_Windows_Extension_Discussion#Should_users_be_allowed_to_reorganize_tabs.3F

It shows two document views in one window. As I wrote, it's irrelevant if the
views belong to one document or two.
Comment 88 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-15 17:32:27 UTC
By doing this we make clear that we won't get something as in Calc. Calc has an
"internal" view split and the split is part of the view of the Calc document.
That's not what I want, I want the more flexible solution that I outlined. But I
wanted to mention that uniting both issues would nail the solution to the
generic one.
Comment 89 n7dr 2009-01-15 18:27:06 UTC
> Why don't we merge this into Issue 19292? The latter contains this Issue, so
> solving Issue 19292 will undoubtedly take care of both.

I'm not sure that that's true. 19292 seems to request only a single split. I
would hate for the developers to think that no one is asking them to think about
implementing multiple splits.

My model for this is Konqueror (from KDE), which allows you to make as many
splits as you like, in both vertical and horizontal directions. The text editor
I use allows this also (as, I bet, does emacs). It is unbelievable useful,
especially on modern monitors that have so much space that one can easily use
half a dozen splits productively.

Of course, even a single split is far better than what we have now. But it sure
would be nice if the general problem was coded, rather than just the
1-horizontal-split problem.
Comment 90 grillon 2009-01-15 22:00:19 UTC
n7dr, I'm not sure either. Issue 19292 says "multiple files", without stating
whether this is limited to two or not. The reported used two files as an
example. I commented that the genererally mentioned workaround, resizing
windows, is worse for more than two files. Anyway, it doesn't hurt to ask,
right? I'll post this question there to get things clear.

mba, just for myself to undertand that clearly: does your solution* predict a
free number of splits and files? I mean, within practical limits.
*I saw your screenshot on the tabbed splitted view. AWESOME! IMHO, this would be
unbeatable.
Comment 91 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-15 22:19:36 UTC
yes, there won't be any *technical* limit. Whether the UI should set
restrictions is another question.
Comment 92 grillon 2009-01-16 16:58:06 UTC
sba, since I'm not a developer, I have some difficulty following your roadmap.
But, if I got it well, the first goal is to have something as a window manager
inside OOo, allowing multiple files and/or instances of the same file to be
arranged in a single window. This seems to be what Issue 19292 is about and what
this issue is becoming.
So, in the end, both issues will become the same stuff. If I'm correct, I keep
the suggestion of closing either issue, merging talks into the other, so that
the discussion is unique.
Another possibility is to close both issues and open a fresh one, with the clear
idea in mind. Besides unifying the discussion, we also get rid of the garbage
collected over the years, making it easier and more objective.
My only intent with this is to end the split discussion (pun intended).
Then, we move on to the ideas themselves.
Thanks
Comment 93 ibcl 2009-01-16 17:20:22 UTC
I strongly object to the idea of closing this issue!

There is no "garbage" or even a idea, there is just a long history of people
claiming back a feature that had been here in StarOffice (!) but was removed at
some point for whatever reasons.

The age and history of this issue and all the votes and CCs do say something and
should not be brushed under the carpet!
Comment 94 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-16 17:33:28 UTC
Yes, we don't need to close one of them. We know that they are related and won't
get confused if both are kept open.
Comment 95 rustybadger 2009-01-16 18:01:02 UTC
I don't want to see this issue closed either. It may certainly be possible to
combine two issues, but I would worry that this one would get glossed over by
the developers, as it has for so long.

I cannot state this strongly enough: the split document view is the only feature
that's keeping OO from being widely adopted by the education market. I just
spent $10,000.00 renewing my Microsoft licensing for my district- this is money
I could have spent in better ways if I could have deployed Open Office; some of
that money (or all of it for all I care) could have been spent on OO
development- an offer I made quite some time ago with no response. The offer is
still there for an ambitious developer- you implement the feature, I am willing
to pay for it. I can't see why this seems so difficult. F/OSS is a great thing,
except when development stalls: then it sucks. OO is a great product, and kudos
to the developers who are working to make it better. Please, though- we've been
waiting for this split-document view option for ages now in education. Make it
happen!
Comment 96 lamarcbr 2009-01-16 21:19:19 UTC
I agree as well that both issues have to be separate. Issue 19292 applies to all 
applications, and if I read it right would give OOo.org the ability to view 
multiple documents within the same application window. As a matter of fact I use 
this feature all the time in Excel!

This issue, 19291, which I am commenting on only applies to Writer, and would 
give Writer functionality which already exists in Draw and Calc.
Comment 97 Mathias_Bauer 2009-01-16 22:41:16 UTC
Yes and no. The Calc functionality is not enough - IMHO.
You can split the view, but you can have only one selection and the two parts
can only be scrolled together.

In a Writer document I wouldn't accept that - IMHO both parts must be scrollable
independently. And I want to select something in one view without losing the
cursor in the other.

And again: if done like proposed, this wouldn't be something for Writer only.
Comment 98 hwtan 2009-01-19 01:55:41 UTC
I think this issue should be kept. Also, my suggestion is we should go ahead and
implement a split screen in a single document first. Then we move on from there
to implement the multiple tab. If no one write the first line of code, it can
never be done. Just get it moving. Please and thank you.
Comment 99 grillon 2009-01-20 18:00:52 UTC
Now I got the idea of keeping both Issues. Thank you for the comments.
IMHO, mba's roadmap is a good way to go - if I got it right, first the split
screen (with any reasonable number of splits and files), then tabs on top of it.
It's how I see it: split screen, both for single and multiple files is the one
enhancement to get, prior to anything else except bugs. This is what will bring
OOo ahead of competitors - other stuff is peanuts compared to split screen.

Going to the practical side: what is needed for this to move on? Programming
skills? Which languages? Logical thinking? Organization? Pls someone inform how
we can push this forward other than just endlessly discussing what's already clear.

Many thanks.
Comment 100 jsonnentag 2009-06-07 01:45:01 UTC
I'm removing my 2 votes for this one because I recently found out that using
Window - New Window will open the same document in a new window.  They are
linked so that a change in one affects the other, so it is basically what is
needed, only a little of a pain to work with.  There is wasted space due to
multiple window menu lines, but when extra menus are turned off most space can
be recovered.  It is a little better than Word in that you can open as many
"splits" and desired so you can be looking at lots of different points in a
document.

Anyway, the way it is now will work for me.
Comment 101 sietske 2009-07-14 10:44:29 UTC
It is really annoying working with the "two-screens-alternative", because I was
used to move the "split" in MS Word up and down depending on the length of the
paragraphs I'm comparing. It would be really great if someone else could do
something about it, because I lack the programming skills for it. 
Comment 102 wornways 2009-07-16 11:34:36 UTC
I'm with sietske on this. I use the two windows alternative all the time, but
it's not enough. I'd like to use the two windows AND split screens together.
Because I often work with several documents, and at several points within those
documents, simultaneously, I have a strong need for both. I also lack the
programming skills to bring this feature to life. My plight is that of an
impoverished poet, not a prosperous programmer. I've been keeping my fingers
crossed for this split screen now for a handful of years--they're beginning to
get a bit sore.
Comment 103 hwtan 2009-07-28 04:13:01 UTC
If I remember correctly, Staroffice 5.1 has such a feature. Since Staroffice is
the predecessor of OOo, could the developers take a look at the codes of
Staroffice, modify it and use it in OOo. That would save a lot of time and
effort I suppose.
Comment 104 eric.savary 2009-08-03 10:33:17 UTC
*** Issue 103967 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 105 borgo1971 2009-11-19 18:15:10 UTC
I was surprised to not find this feature. Adding windows to see other parts of document can be done with 
>20" inch display, but with notebook splitting one window is far better
Comment 106 borgo1971 2009-11-19 18:15:11 UTC
I was surprised to not find this feuture. Adding windows to see other parts of document can be done with 
>20" inch display, but with notebook splitting one window is far better
Comment 107 wornways 2009-11-23 03:47:35 UTC
Well put, borgo. And notebooks have become the norm. I'm actually thinking of
going back to MS Office lately now that I've waited a couple of years for this
one important feature that I don't think will ever be implemented.
Comment 108 adeneba 2010-01-12 18:04:18 UTC
After many year without MSWord, I still feel very annoying by the lack of the
splitview feature in writer. This issue should be taken the most seriously now.
Using the "new window" menu is kind of crafting.
Comment 109 wornways 2010-01-12 23:55:45 UTC
Note that the split-view feature already exists in Open Office, just not in
Writer. It _is_ in Calc, however, complete with the freeze frame option. And it
works very nicely there. So it seems to me that the code is already there. It's
just a matter of copying it over to Writer or letting Writer have access to it,
or however it works. The point is, the code has already been written.
Comment 110 vasa1 2010-02-16 04:26:30 UTC
This is my first post here, so please pardon any bungles:

wornway wrote:
[quote]
Note that the split-view feature already exists in Open Office, just not in
Writer. It _is_ in Calc, however, complete with the freeze frame option. And it
works very nicely there. So it seems to me that the code is already there. It's
just a matter of copying it over to Writer or letting Writer have access to it,
or however it works. The point is, the code has already been written.
[/quote]

What I would like to see in Calc (if this issue is not limited to Writer):
I would like to have a possibility that "New Window" and "Arrange"
(horizontally, vertically, tiled, etc) gives me two windows for the same .ods
file with the option to work on one sheet in one window *and* any other sheet
(from the same .ods file) in the other window.

"Split" or Freeze frame" doesn't allow for working on a choice of sheets.

I currently open a new window, size it, and position it manually. I have even
got OpenOffice to remember the size and position of the second window. So for me
the only drawback is the loss of a couple of rows devoted to tool bars, etc. If
this could be done in OpenOffice, I'd gain these rows.

(No, not everyone has mega screens and if one of the aims of OpenOffice is to
attract new users, please, please introduce this feature.)

Now to see where I cast my vote ***in favour*** of this added functionality.
Comment 111 passerpunt 2010-03-10 17:48:40 UTC
just updated to 3.2, and it's still not there.... pity... is it likely there
will be a solution for this anny time soon??

hope so since it's in fact the only function I'm missing in OO.... 
Comment 112 hwtan 2010-03-11 01:20:11 UTC
passerpunt,

If you look at the version, it is since the time of version 1.1. It has been a
few years and with 182 votes to date. As some of us have noted, technically, it
is not impossible, and probably already found in StarOffice 5.1 and the Calc
(present version). I have no idea what is in the minds of those developers, and
how the voting system works. Only if we have the time and expertise, we do not
have to keep waiting in vain.
Comment 113 grillon 2010-03-11 13:55:41 UTC
Pls read comment from mba posted in Jan 15 2009 15:09:25. Also his comment in
Issue 19292 in Thu Jan 15 16:28:32 +2009.
According to developers, it will be done, and there's already a roadmap - tabbed
windows.
I'd just ask a milestone and a higher priority. IMHO, the milestone is needed
because no major upgrade makes sense without this feature - indeed, this feature
will be the killer upgrade. The higher priority would just be more suitable,
since this feature is badly needed.
Comment 114 Dmitry Pashkevich 2010-05-31 16:21:13 UTC
It is a pity that such simple though useful feature isn't implemented in 7 
years...
Comment 115 eric.savary 2010-06-15 23:36:35 UTC
*** Issue 37591 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 116 wope 2010-08-05 12:30:21 UTC
For some Users, this is a argument, to use MS Office
Comment 117 1antoine1 2010-08-07 11:56:12 UTC
I really hope this feature will be implemented soon, after all these years. I
believe it's a terrible lack for OOo Writer and I just don't understand why
developers (used to ?) consider it as a second-class issue.
(Sorry for my poor English, I'm French.)
Comment 118 hanspl 2011-01-24 09:32:46 UTC
I would like a split view into the same document very much.  My Winword 2.0 had
it already decades ago!  
Comment 119 passerpunt 2011-01-28 16:50:18 UTC
lets hope LibreOffice will implement requests more quickly! 
Comment 120 beeandy 2011-02-11 15:37:29 UTC
I think it would be consistent to have the same split screen function like in
openoffice calc. Voted!
Comment 121 lori0479 2011-04-13 18:44:27 UTC
Created attachment 76375 [details]
Print Monitor - Documents do not print 

Before I updated OO, I never saw this. I print dbf files of addresses every week. It won't print anymore!
Comment 122 Mathias_Bauer 2011-04-14 06:30:42 UTC
@lori0479: are you sure that you wanted to attach the picture to this issue? It has a completely different topic.

Please attach the picture to the correct issue. In case you don't find one, please create a new issue and describe exactly how the problem can be reproduced.
Comment 123 erika 2011-07-24 22:30:44 UTC
I'm writing my masters thesis right now and my paper is about 130 pages long. I am writing the conclusion and need to reference other parts of my paper. This would be a lot easier if I could split the window. It seems like such a useful feature for documents of this length. I'm considering buying Word 2010 because it has a few useful features that OpenOffice lacks.
Comment 124 Mathias_Bauer 2011-07-25 07:57:05 UTC
Buying Word just for this feature surely would be an exaggeration. If your wish is being able to see two parts of your document at a time, that's possible with OOo also. It's just less comfortable.

Use "Window - New Window". This opens a second view to your document that can be scrolled and zoomed differently. The disadvantage of this solution against a "split window" function is that you have to arrange your windows by hand. On Windows 7 that's easy as it allows you to "dock" windows at the left and right side by keyboard shortcut.
Comment 125 hwtan 2011-07-25 08:51:10 UTC
While it is possible in Windows 7 to arrange the two windows, having two different windows takes up a lot of space for the windows title bars, menu etc. Yes, we can switch all those off, but that will be too troublesome.
Comment 126 1antoine1 2011-07-25 09:02:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #124)
> Buying Word just for this feature surely would be an exaggeration. 
I think he wouldn't be the first to do so, whether exaggereted or not. Surely.
Comment 127 1antoine1 2011-07-25 09:06:01 UTC
*exaggerated
Comment 128 Mathias_Bauer 2011-07-25 09:14:26 UTC
Yes, you would have two menus, but in case you have the windows side by side (and not over each other) they take the same amount of screen space as one menu. The same would be true for the toolbars in their default location. Only toolbars or windows docked at the left or right side of the document window eat up additional screen space. 

Besides that, I didn't want to give the impression that this is a complete replacement for a "split window", but IMHO it should be enough to avoid buying Word *just for this reason*. YMMV.
Comment 129 wornways 2011-07-25 09:39:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #125)
> While it is possible in Windows 7 to arrange the two windows, having two
> different windows takes up a lot of space for the windows title bars, menu etc.
> Yes, we can switch all those off, but that will be too troublesome.

I've found this tool to be very useful for preconfiguring snap locations, accessible from a right click on the menu bar or the drag sides and corners of any window: http://www.brianapps.net/sizer/

It's very simple, free, and it just works.
Comment 130 methylene_blue 2011-07-25 10:34:00 UTC
This very useful, sensible, evidently implementable (in standard and non-standard applications) feature request will be ten years old in May next year (see <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=4508" title="Split screen in word processor would be a nice addition">original dup. issue 4508</a> (and the Status is "NEW"!?). 

Not only does it not have a target milestone, it has not been assigned to any developer ("requirements" = nobody)! It seems some of the "workarounds" suggested here are being offered as justifications for not giving this issue any attention. 

I am puzzled why the work area in Calc was made to be splittable (at least horizontally) and in Writer it is being seemingly dismissed as trivial or uninteresting. 

Not introducing this feature may (to some) not seem like a sufficient reason for switching to an alternative word-processing application, but it is certainly ANOTHER REASON TO SWITCH... and minimizing those reasons are in the best interest of the "community". 

So, either work on this issue or be honest enough to close it as "WONTFIX"! Users shouldn't be given the false impression that this issue matters to the OpenOffice development team!
Comment 131 avoran 2011-07-25 11:59:49 UTC
I agree - this is really lousy service. If OOo were a paid product I would have dumped it long ago - except that I'm forced to use it by my employer (sounds like something that used to happen to Microsoft users). I do translations and want the two versions of the text in front of me simultaneously - and in the course of a working day may want to 'split view' several dozen different documents. Fiddling around with it manually is not a realistic option when you do it that frequently. Furthermore, on my screen and with the resolution I have to use the duplicated toolbar issue is a serious one. So I'm forced to repeatedly cut and paste - a real nuisance. Otherwise I'm very happy with Writer, but please, get with it, people!
Comment 132 nattie 2011-07-25 13:27:58 UTC
I cannot believe I have subscribed to this bug when I was still living with my mother, because she is a translator trying to use openoffce.  I have been married for five years and you are still discussing this. She obviously gave up on using OO long ago...
Comment 133 lamarcbr 2011-07-25 13:57:16 UTC
Every organization has limited resources. An alternative avenue to get this feature implemented would be to propose this as an enhancement to the various OO.org derivatives, such as LibreOffice, Go-oo, and Lotus Symphony. IBM developpers seem to be very opened to feedback.
Comment 134 rustybadger 2011-07-25 14:01:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #116)
> For some Users, this is a argument, to use MS Office

Oh yes. Let me tell you my story...

For seven years, I worked in the technology department of a public school
district. I was in charge of purchasing. We used a lot of FOSS in our district-
all of us in the department were eggheads. So anyhow, when our District moved
to using Mac computers (laptops for all students and teachers, desktops for lab
areas), we looked into deploying them with as much Open Source as possible,
both to save money, and to further our ideological views (duh).

Having used Oo, we all thought it would be a great fit- until we actually spoke
with teachers who used word processors in the classroom. And guess what? The
split view that Word offers is the one feature that pedagogically, they can't
do without. It's simple, really- when you have a student editing their own
work, it makes a huge difference if they can see the original portion they are
correcting. So, I jumped on here to see if there was plans to implement this in
Writer- imagine my shock when I found that the devs are pretty much idiots who
simply say 'suck it up, princess, and use two windows!'. Obviously, none of
them have ever been teachers, or tried to use tiled windows on a 12" iBook!

I even went so far as to post a bounty in this thread (which I'm sure you can
find if you look hard enough), with no responses AT ALL. Nobody even flinched.
I offered $10K to fix this damn thing. It obviously wasn't enough. Not my
money, of course- we were paying $20K a year in M$ licenses, and I got
permission to offer half that in order to get us off the teat, but nobody from
the dev side bit.

Now, I use Pages for work and personal use- my old school District is still
using MS Word. I keep getting these thread comments mostly for the amusement
factor- it reminds me to stay in the real world where Open Source is often
ridiculed for its lofty ideals and complete failure to deliver value. There's a
reason most .edu organisations use proprietary stuff: they want it to work. You
can bet your ass if MS Word lacked this feature that their devs would implement
pretty fast when schools started asking.

Now I'll go back to lurking for another 5 or 6 years.
Comment 135 hwtan 2011-07-26 00:53:23 UTC
Perhaps, we should lead the developers to see the positive side of implementing this feature.

How about this, ask this question: how many of those who gave up OO due to the leak of this feature will turn back to use OO?

May I assume that there are at least a few thousand?
Comment 136 emersonprado 2011-07-26 01:15:55 UTC
Everyone already knows how needed is the feature, so let's not waste time ranting on that. This place is for techical discussion. If you can write the code for that, pls do so. Or, if you want someone else to do it, cursing them isn't the way to go.
Comment 137 hwtan 2011-07-27 02:46:10 UTC
After looking at the attitude of those who challenge the general user to write the code themselves, I am now totally agree with methylene_blue to close this issue as "WON'T FIX".

While I agree that this is a place to discuss technical issue, and not a place to justify a feature, but I suppose the voting system speaks loudly for such a feature. I am wandering if there is any other feature that receives so many votes. Shouldn't this place the feature as the top priority for the development team? If not, how does the voting system works? After all, since Calc has such a feature, which proves that technically it is possible, so we are not asking for the moon.

I know that we have limited developers and resource, but we can still prioritize it by setting a milestone to it. If not, just close it with "Won't Fix".
Comment 138 hwtan 2011-07-27 02:52:35 UTC
After looking at the attitude of those who challenge the general user to write the code themselves, I am now totally agree with methylene_blue to close this issue as "WON'T FIX".

While I agree that this is a place to discuss technical issue, and not a place to justify a feature, but I suppose the voting system speaks loudly for such a feature. I am wandering if there is any other feature that receives so many votes. Shouldn't this place the feature as the top priority for the development team? If not, how does the voting system works? After all, since Calc has such a feature, which proves that technically it is possible, so we are not asking for the moon.

I know that we have limited developers and resource, but we can still prioritize it by setting a milestone to it. If not, just close it with "Won't Fix". After all, we are here to make OOo a better programme and not to be toyed around with a voting system, a feature request still considered as new after 8 years or more, and a target milestone that never been set.

Close it as "Won't Fix".
Comment 139 wornways 2011-07-27 04:40:34 UTC
It's always puzzled me that Calc has the split window feature while Write doesn't. If I understand the object oriented world in which these two applications were programmed correctly, then it should require very nearly the same code used in Calc correctly placed and fitted into Write in order to implement the same functionality. It might not be more than 15 minutes work in all.
Comment 140 emersonprado 2011-07-27 11:34:25 UTC
(In reply to comment #137)
> After looking at the attitude of those who challenge the general user to write
the code themselves...

Isn't this what free software is about? Why can't a general user with programming abilities help?

> I am now totally agree with methylene_blue to close this issue as "WON'T FIX".

I vehemently disagree. This is the single most needed feature. It may not be fixed now or in the near future, but it should be fixed sometime. There's even a workpath for it:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ArchitectureTo-Dos#Framework_Improvements

> I suppose the voting system speaks loudly for such a feature... Shouldn't this > place the feature as the top priority for the development team?
Yes, it does. Yes, it is. That's why, instead of "Won't fix", I'd like to ask for a milestone - or better, a blocking flag - at 4.0. IMHO, there's no point in a major version change without a major feature change. In fact, I said the same for 3.0...

> I know that we have limited developers and resource, but we can still
> prioritize it by setting a milestone to it.

By all means, do that. As already said enough times by enough people in enough places, this is by far the most important feature. New bells and whistles or minor changes can surely wait, while lacking this feature is a plain show stopper.
IMHO, it'd be more convenient to block 4.0 on that. What sense would have a 4.0 release without split windows? Pls set the milestone, but also strongly consider the blocking flag.

If not, just close it with "Won't
> Fix".
Comment 141 hwtan 2011-07-28 02:48:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #140)
> (In reply to comment #137)
> > After looking at the attitude of those who challenge the general user to write
> the code themselves...
> 
> Isn't this what free software is about? Why can't a general user with
> programming abilities help?

Yes, but I suppose none of us, the 222 voters are not capable to do that.


> 
> > I suppose the voting system speaks loudly for such a feature... Shouldn't this > place the feature as the top priority for the development team?
> Yes, it does. Yes, it is. That's why, instead of "Won't fix", I'd like to ask
> for a milestone - or better, a blocking flag - at 4.0. IMHO, there's no point
> in a major version change without a major feature change. In fact, I said the
> same for 3.0...
> 
> > I know that we have limited developers and resource, but we can still
> > prioritize it by setting a milestone to it.
> 
> By all means, do that. As already said enough times by enough people in enough
> places, this is by far the most important feature. New bells and whistles or
> minor changes can surely wait, while lacking this feature is a plain show
> stopper.
> IMHO, it'd be more convenient to block 4.0 on that. What sense would have a 4.0
> release without split windows? Pls set the milestone, but also strongly
> consider the blocking flag.

I am not authorized to set. I think only the developers do, but it is obvious that they have no intention of doing it. That is the source of all our frustration.



> 
> If not, just close it with "Won't
> > Fix".
Comment 142 methylene_blue 2011-07-28 13:31:05 UTC
This issue depends on bug 102365 (which, unlike this issue, appears to have been assigned to a human being AND has the milestone OOo 3.x - hurrah!). 

This means that bug 102365 blocks this issue from being implemented. 

I would encourage all those who have voted for this issue to vote for bug 102365 as well! Perhaps that will encourage the devs to move this along.
Comment 143 emersonprado 2011-07-28 20:30:23 UTC
(In reply to comment #141)
> I am not authorized to set. I think only the developers do, but it is obvious
> that they have no intention of doing it. That is the source of all our
> frustration.

Understood. My frustration too. Let me suggest something: try entering the inherited bug in LibreOffice: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31481. Since LO is more community-driven, chances are we have better luck there. Maybe the users with programming skills are more able to do something there.
Comment 144 emersonprado 2011-07-28 20:33:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #142)
> This issue depends on bug 102365 (which, unlike this issue, appears to have
> been assigned to a human being AND has the milestone OOo 3.x - hurrah!). 
... 
> I would encourage all those who have voted for this issue to vote for bug
> 102365 as well! Perhaps that will encourage the devs to move this along.

Agreed and done. What about echoing my request on setting a milestone for this bug too?
Comment 145 methylene_blue 2011-07-28 22:45:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #144)
> What about echoing my request on setting a milestone for this bug too? 
Well, yes of course I certainly echo that, for what it is worth (effectively zero).

I think your suggestion below has a better chance of succeeding:

(In reply to comment #143)
> Let me suggest something: try entering the inherited bug in LibreOffice:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31481.

I've made an entry there and hope others will do likewise. (It means, of course, setting up yet another bug tracker account... sheesh!) 

It will be interesting to compare responses between OpenOffice and LibreOffice on this matter!
Comment 146 methylene_blue 2011-07-28 22:57:00 UTC
(removed non-deliverable CC's jdhodges, mr_smyle, peschtra)
Comment 147 hwtan 2011-08-01 03:45:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #145)
> (In reply to comment #144)
> > What about echoing my request on setting a milestone for this bug too? 
> Well, yes of course I certainly echo that, for what it is worth (effectively
> zero).
> 
> I think your suggestion below has a better chance of succeeding:
> 
> (In reply to comment #143)
> > Let me suggest something: try entering the inherited bug in LibreOffice:
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31481.
> 
> I've made an entry there and hope others will do likewise. (It means, of
> course, setting up yet another bug tracker account... sheesh!) 
> 
> It will be interesting to compare responses between OpenOffice and LibreOffice
> on this matter!

So we are talking about an exodus here. I will follow suit.
Comment 148 methylene_blue 2011-08-01 22:14:15 UTC
> > > Let me suggest something: try entering the inherited bug in LibreOffice:
> > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31481.
> > 
> So we are talking about an exodus here. I will follow suit.

The few postings at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31481 have already paid off a bit! The priority/importance of this issue on LibreOffice was changed yesterday from medium to high! That's more that can be said for this issue posted here over 9 years ago!

There's hope, folks! Let's move LibreOffice along!
Comment 149 hanspl 2011-08-02 08:36:32 UTC
Well,  me too:  I'm gone,  went to LibreOffice installing LO 3.3.3 and am supporting  https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31481 .  I have new hope.
Comment 150 emersonprado 2011-08-02 20:13:37 UTC
Pls note Bug 102365 blocks this one. Those who can help by writing code, testing and giving technical suggestions, pls go there and help. Those who can't, like me, pls to there, enter the CC list and vote. Before Bug 102365 is solved, all discussion here becomes useless...
Comment 151 judgedredd 2011-12-20 01:52:49 UTC
This is the problem with so-called 'Open source' products - the people that create them sometimes are too arrogant, or whatever the hell the problem is, to take on board a valid request. This bug is listed as trivial. Trivial indeed. 

300,000+ lawyers work in the USA alone. 

I have recently spoken to one person in this area who had a new computer delivered to him (but not sold to him by me) which had Open Office (of all things!)on it. He rang me up and complained that he couldn't find the split screen function in OO and would I know where it is. I said to him that it doesn't have it. Not a very happy camper was he.  

Here is why 300,000+ lawyers need this function (as just an example in ONE profession):

When working on a case, other cases have to be read for research and case citations extracted and placed (via copy and paste) in a master document. This enables points to be summarized, notes to be added, more references to be made to go look up something else relating to the case that has just been noted, etc. This is done tens, sometimes even hundreds, of times FOR ONE CASE. Hence the enormously valuable ability of having two documents up side by side; one is the case being read and the other is where one puts the notes. And the stupid remark about having two (different) WINDOWS open really is very, very dumb and shows a complete lack of understanding of why this feature is so valuable. Go and ask any lawyer and they will tell you why - in great detail too.

That's why you won't find many lawyers, if any, using OO (and if they are its probably because they are too poor to afford MS Office). Trivial indeed. Huh.

MS Office allows not only split screens, but also unlocking the scrolling function so that both screens can scroll independently of each other.

Needless to say, my friend has put MS Office on his machine and removed OO.
Comment 152 sorath 2012-04-11 20:17:41 UTC
The Calc application already has the similar feature (menu "Window" - "Split").

Could splitting be implemented to Writer by the same way with both horizontal and vertical splitting (vertical may be usefull for wide screens)  and with adding of Rulers wihthin both "frames"?

I know about option of opening the second window (menu "Window"-"New Window") but it's inconvenient in the very most cases and take a lot of time to arrange the windows ans such manipulations grab attention from working with document.
Comment 153 sorath 2013-02-11 20:33:16 UTC
This Feature request exists already 10 years and was voted 229 times. So it's rather wanted feature.

Please, implement it like it's already implemented in Calc of Apache OpenOffice if it could be made for AOO 4.0.
Comment 154 jrdgyg 2014-11-04 16:45:22 UTC
I have been impressed with Apache up until this point but I do a lot of translating and the simple split screen that I used on MS Office was an invaluable tool. I don't want to give MS a lot of money but translating on Apache is far more time consuming than on MS.
Comment 155 jrdgyg 2014-11-04 16:47:53 UTC
I have been impressed with Apache up until this point but I do a lot of translating and the simple split screen that I used on MS Office was an invaluable tool. I don't want to give MS a lot of money but translating on Apache is far more time consuming than on MS.
Comment 156 jrdgyg 2014-11-04 17:02:22 UTC
I just found a way that helps me translate.

In bottom right hand corner of an open document I selected the icon with two pages next to each other, not the one where they are joined. I then set the zoom to 69% so I had the original document on the left hand side of the screen and the blank document on the right hand side. I adjusted font size and full screen view to get a readable document with my ageing vision. With this I could read the original and write on the blank page.

This is not perfect because each page will have to be adjusted separately but it is better than going from one screen to another.
Comment 157 greenteaman 2014-11-04 17:09:54 UTC
(In reply to jrdgyg from comment #156)
> I just found a way that helps me translate.
> 
> In bottom right hand corner of an open document I selected the icon with two
> pages next to each other, not the one where they are joined. I then set the
> zoom to 69% so I had the original document on the left hand side of the
> screen and the blank document on the right hand side. I adjusted font size
> and full screen view to get a readable document with my ageing vision. With
> this I could read the original and write on the blank page.
> 
> This is not perfect because each page will have to be adjusted separately
> but it is better than going from one screen to another.

Translating is much more efficient when you use specialized tools. If you want to use AOO, you may try Anaphraseus extension. This is not to say that split view issue doesn't need addressing, but translating using just two "buffers" is suboptimal in most cases. Of course, when you are Ok with this suboptimal approach, not being able to split the window makes it subsuboptimal.