https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=173659
Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.documentfounda | |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35 | |538 --- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > This might be correct but likely confuses users who are familiar with the > term Font which is omnipresent. If you believe that's important, we can consistently call it "font family". That means no change is necessary in the font selection dialogs, since they already have "Family" in their label. > Better keep the education for the help. 1. People don't read the help. 2. This education will be important already with 27.2, since we've "folded away" the variants (bug 35538, bug 172647). People might be wondering "Where is my Open Sans Light?" (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #2) > Do we really gain anything by changing from the all-inclusive use of "font" > to a split and typography correct "font family" made up of "font faces"? We don't have an "all-inclusive use of font". We something refer to the font, sometimes to the "font name" and sometimes to the "family". And we sometimes refer incorrectly refer to the "typface" (albeit only in the documentation. > And sure, as currently evolved--implemented and documented, there are > occasional issues where use of the generic terminology "font" is imprecise, > but never to the point of the UI/GUI being unclear. Users aren't clamoring > for it. 1. Users don't clamor for even super-significant and highly-visible fixes. Like the fact that full RTL/CTL UI support wasn't enabled by default and was difficult to discover. Basically all users (who write these scripts) face that problem and I believe we did not get a single bug report about it until I filed one. 2. See my point (2.) in the reply to Heiko about - we're changing things up > If our focus was desktop publishing, maybe such exact terms supporting > "typeface selection" would be more of an issue. Draw is, to some extent, a desktop publishing tool. > Is there some specific technical reason this change is needed? Technical reason? I suppose not. > Would it really improve the workflows, or user comprehension? Yes, because: 1. We will be more consistent (described that in my opening comment) 2. We will match terminology used in resources on the web. 3. We will better match other apps (to the extent they give names to the aspects of a font). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
