Michele Zarri wrote:
Gary Schnabl wrote:
That blue was probably for formatting the text used in user-entered
input. [...]
Not having quotation marks for user input removes any ambiguity [...]
OOoAuthors styles use a variety of font effects (font typefaces,
mostly), depending upon the GUI components. Other font effects,
especially coloring among others, are not used much. The use of color is
rarely used at all in our docs. However, coloring is one of the easier
font effects to employ, and the various colors could carry a number of
meanings. (Another BTW: we really do not inform the readers of the
various font effects used--unlike many other documents that list their
typographical conventions.)
<rant> I find the occasional use of color to be far less irritating than
the constant usage of left-aligned text--leaving all those "ragged right
edges" for all text body paragraphs. Using justified text with text
bodies--with or w/o automatic hyphenation)--eliminates those rough edges
and might even save paper or lower page counts. </rant>
I like colours (or colors (-: ) too, as long as they are applied
consistently. If as you suggest we mark in blue the user input I will be
happy to comply.
I am reviewing chapter 9 of the Writer Guide and there blue is used to
indicate what the cross reference text will be as well as to denote user
inputs.
Blue should definitely NOT be used for x-ref text.
I personally do not like blue for user input (or another other
purpose where the colour is supposed to convey information; in
headings colour is eye candy). Colours often don't differentiate
well when printed in black-and-white, even if there are no
on-screen issues for colour-blind readers.
I definitely agree with Gary about not using quotation marks
around user input.
BTW, I thought Gary had made a style for that blue stuff. It
should show up in the style list in the chapters that use it.
IMO we should minimise typographical changes. Usually they just
cause "noise" or clutter in the docs, or draw undue emphasis to
some items, without adding any real value. They also increase the
complexity of things for authors/editors to remember to do, which
is one reason why there is so much inconsistency among the
chapters of a single book, and even more between books.
If we minimise the use of typographical changes, then we don't
need to inform the readers of what they mean. IMO if typography
needs to be explained, then we probably shouldn't be using it.
And lastly: Gary knows I think ragged-right is MUCH better than
fully-justified text (long explanation omitted, as I have no time
to type it or look up references), and automatic hyphenation is
an abomination to be avoided at all times.
--Jean
