https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139107
Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |needsUXEval CC| |libreoffice-ux-advise@lists | |.freedesktop.org --- Comment #7 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #6) Insert > Formatting Marks only offers some of the available control characters / formatting marks. Just for bidirectional control alone there are 12 control chars; the menu has just two. Do you suggest they all be added? And then - what about control characters from here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C0_and_C1_control_codes even just the 12 will make the menu already deterring for many/most users. It's a good idea, IMHO, that it only offers some marks. > On the other hand, there is the dialog in question, that is intended to show > what is there in the fonts. And nothing else. That's really not true. This is the "Insert > Special Character..." dialog, not "Insert > Font Glyph..." ; users justifiably expect to be able to insert any special character from that dialog, without having to determine whether some typeface artificially contains that character or not. Moreover, even if the dialog only said "character", and even if the Formatting Marks actually included RLO/LOR - it is still legitimate and reasonable to have cross-coverage of functionality from different parts of the UI. It's ok if the user found their way to the special character via browsing the Unicode ranges - and we should not hinder their desire to then say "ok, I want to put one of these in my document". > The issue may be its (and its command) title "Special Character(s)" - which > has always confused me: it's not about anything special, it's about any > characters of specific fonts. It has been implemented that way. This bug report requires a change in that implementation, and that change is merited IMHO. This can be achieved without worsening or slowing down the workflow for users looking for glyphs/symbols. > But anyway: this request to add non-existing elements to fonts We should definitely implement this in a way which does not confuse users about this fact. That can happen in multiple ways, e.g. : 1. Toggle/checkbox for searching for glyphs in fonts vs non-printing control characters where the font doesn't matter. 2. Some kind of visual indication that a control character in the table is presented, and can be inserted, irrespective of whether than font "has it" or not. maybe some inner frame, or background hatching, or color triangle at a corner etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
