https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150409
--- Comment #12 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #8) > These points are (1) to bring the whole picture for those who are not > intimately familiar with the topic (like Western script users like myself), > and (2) mentioned that this specific issue is *separately* questionable. Fair enough. (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #5) > I struggle with the "always". Think about the Developer Tools in browsers. They never filter things out because you've opted for less UI items. (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #11) > Please think about Style Inspector again. It is *not* a "UI", it is an > information tool. Exactly this. When enabled/disables CJK or CTL in Tools > Options, they would assume the UI would not cater to use of such langauges; but - they would not assume that "reality will be hidden from them", so to speak. Thus * When voluntarily opening a document with CJK/CTL content, they would expect to see this content, not to have it hidden. * When using a inspection tool, they expect to inspect the actual state of the document, not to have it censored. That's why Telesto - a capable and knowledgeable user, who was specifically looking for the font settings in the Inspector, thought they were missing (in bug 150406), and it did not occur to him that LO might be hiding this information. > Additionally: the current implementation was created *defensively*, in the > process of the tool creation itself - without really taking target audience > users' needs into account Yup. Now, it's true in general than the project doesn't do a lot of user surveying (if any), so that's not specific to the Style Inspector, but nobody asked the RTL, Hebrew or Arabic Telegram group members for input about this. (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #10) > Western users do not know what CJK/CTL means and don't care. Western uses-of-style-inspector, who want to inspect the styles of documents with CJK/CTL content _do_ care and likely do know. And if the document don't have CJK/CTL-specific properties, then it doesn't matter anyway. Now, if you were to keep CJK/CTL-specific properties _collapsed by default_ in a subtree, then - ok, I guess that could make sense, maybe. But not hiding them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
