https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #30 from Rafael Lima ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #29)
> Asked of Mastodon [1] and 63% out of 408 people voted to keep the current
> width...
Thank you for the effort of considering this change =)
--
You are
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #28 from V Stuart Foote ---
(In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #27)
As I noted -- MS Office Word presents a UI of 8.43 characters and uses *Calibri
at 11 points*.
We calculate a width of 64 points but use *Liberation
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #27 from Rafael Lima ---
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #26)
> -1 for any change from current LO defaults pursuing interoperability. It
> would not offer any real relief as we are unlikely to adopt a UI oriented to
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
V Stuart Foote changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vsfo...@libreoffice.org
---
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #25 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Eike Rathke from comment #22)
> Sane proportional fonts have monospaced digits.
... which is not what ady talked about - the phrase was that "the width for
digits is not the same as
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #24 from Eike Rathke ---
Liberation Sans digits appear perfectly monospaced in Writer and Calc.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #23 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Eike Rathke from comment #21)
So 54 points is nice and round. If we were to go with 0.8", it would be 55.6
points or 1112 twips.
(In reply to Eike Rathke from comment #22)
> Sane
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #22 from Eike Rathke ---
(In reply to ady from comment #17)
> Let's not forget that the default font is not mono-spaced (i.e. not
> fixed-width), so the width for digits is not the same as some other set of
> characters.
Sane
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #21 from Eike Rathke ---
For understanding the values:
Measurement of cell widths is in typographical points (1/72 inch) and the
internal calculation is in twips (twentieth of an inch point, 1/20 point =
1/1440 inch)
The
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #20 from Roman Kuznetsov <79045_79...@mail.ru> ---
The "problem" has a very simple solution using default template customizing. I
still don't see any real reason to change the default cell size
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #19 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #18)
> Default of STD_COL_WIDTH is set to 64 twips in sc/inc/global.hxx.
No, to 64 *points* (point is 1/72 in) (and that value converts to twips for
internal
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #18 from Heiko Tietze ---
Default of STD_COL_WIDTH is set to 64 twips in sc/inc/global.hxx.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #17 from ady ---
(In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #12)
> I like the idea of 1.905 cm (0.75").
May I ask, why? Is it the amount of digits (9, without separators)? Is there
any non-subjective reasoning?
Let's not forget
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #16 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #15)
> Note that, in case there's a decision to go with a change, it is absolutely
> bad to make a global default in inches, which are used by minority of
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #15 from Mike Kaganski ---
Note that, in case there's a decision to go with a change, it is absolutely bad
to make a global default in inches, which are used by minority of the
population of the world.
Either we get
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #14 from Heiko Tietze ---
https://fosstodon.org/@libodesign/110275158368343954
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
QA Administrators changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|UNCONFIRMED
Ever
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #13 from QA Administrators ---
[Automated Action] NeedInfo-To-Unconfirmed
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #12 from Rafael Lima ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #9)
> 0.8" = 2.032 cm - fits 012345678 and half of a 9.
> 0.75" = 1.905 cm - fits 0123456789
I like the idea of 1.905 cm (0.75").
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #11 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to ady from comment #10)
> FWIW, that would be the other way around,
Yes, I mis-copy-pasted, sorry.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #10 from ady ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #9)
> 0.8" = 2.032 cm - fits 012345678 and half of a 9.
> 0.75" = 1.905 cm - fits 0123456789
FWIW, that would be the other way around, twofold... 0.8" fits
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #9 from Eyal Rozenberg ---
(In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #8)
If, for you, it doesn't matter - then you're basically voting "abstain"...
Anyway, the current width is 2.26 cm .
I'd also look at options relative
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
Roman Kuznetsov <79045_79...@mail.ru> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
Eyal Rozenberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needsUXEval
--- Comment #6
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #5 from Rafael Lima ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #2)
> Having a working template mechanism, I find it strange to change defaults
> like this. There will never be a default fitting everybody.
LO has a very nice
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #4 from ady ---
In any case, the default column width should also consider how many glyphs
(characters) are expected to be seen in such width. That is, using the default
font, the default font size, the default row's height
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #3 from Mike Kaganski ---
The other thing is that we might want to change the hardcoded constants into
configurable settings ... but that creates some kind of alternative to
templates (though having differences). We already
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #2 from Mike Kaganski ---
Having a working template mechanism, I find it strange to change defaults like
this. There will never be a default fitting everybody. And this request is
possibly the only one in our 15+ bug
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154788
--- Comment #1 from Rafael Lima ---
BTW, the overall number of cells visible is smaller in Calc than in Excel:
In Calc: 46 x 22 = 1012 cells
In Excel: 38 x 29 = 1102 cells
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
31 matches
Mail list logo
