https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153727
--- Comment #21 from ady <[email protected]> --- If I may (until the OP replies) (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #20) > We discussed this topic in the design meeting. > > a) some comments here are towards resolving as NAB > The UI should be kept clean; however, at least based on the number of > requests the desire is clear Browsing bug reports about the formula bar, we can find reports and/or requests for: * more vertical space * bigger font size * smaller font size * different font type * possibility to scale/zoom IMO, different users have different needs and different ways to express what they (think they) need. I would say that, in one way or another, users want the content of the formula bar to be more clear (to read and/or to edit). The only way to make that happen for most users is to provide flexibility in order for users to modify the formula bar according to their own context, limitations and needs. > > b) add an option to tools > options > calc > view > This would be a simple solution but likely not usable as the needed font > size in the formula bar depends on cell content. Plus, it inflates the > options dialog further. I'm not sure I understand why the font (type/size) for the formula bar depends as much on cell's content. There is indeed some relation, but the change doesn't seem _that_ extreme. When a cell uses, for instance, a mix of Western/Latin languages with RTL and/or CTL languages, the differences in resulting font sizes, while notable, are expected to be manageable by using a _slightly_ different font size in the formula bar. We are not talking about having to change from size 9 to size 18 just to compensate for the different resulting sizes between English letters and RTL/CTL glyphs. A user might decide to use a slightly-bigger font size in the formula bar, and another would choose a slightly-smaller one. Another user might think that using a bigger vertical size input window would be better for his context, while the font stays the same. And a fourth user picks a mono-spaced / fixed-width font for the formula bar with a slightly-bigger size just because the formulas are too long and he is trying to catch some typo by comparing adjacent cells with similar formulas in rapid sequence. I'm not saying that option "b" is the "right" one (it might or might not be). I'm just saying the sentence (relating the cell content to the formula bar font) here is not as clear as you might think. Perhaps it was clearer during your meeting(?). Or maybe I am misunderstanding or missing something. If that's the case, would you please enlighten me? > > c) have some kind of interaction on the control, could be a drop down with a > couple of font sizes or some ctrl+wheel response specifically on the control > This possible solution was not prioritized as it would be hard to figure out. That sounds as having (part of) the options directly on the UI, instead of (or in addition to) having them in the "tools > options > calc > view" dialog. With "hard to figure out", do you mean for developers to code? Or do you mean for users to be aware / to know how to use? If you mean for devs to figure out how to achieve this, I would guess that, from the POV of users, having the full options sooner would be preferable than having to wait who knows how much time just in order to have a partial control. If having the options as part of the dialog would not be enough, I would guess users would let you know. Again, users' POV only, and a guess only, so evidently the UX team has to balance additional factors. If you meant hard for users to figure out, then this would be just another item (of many) that would be less known by users, until it isn't. > > d) follow the selected cell's font (maybe all attributes not just the size) > Needs some work to make it working reliable (multi-selection) but will > always end up in a jumping UI; was removed for bug 127066 I already mentioned it, somewhere: having the content of the formula bar, or the formula bar itself, changing constantly on each movement from cell to cell is a terrible idea. For comparison, imagine having the "find next" button changing places each time you click on it – not just in LO, think about your web browser. This point "d" is much worse than that. Users' nightmare. > > e) follow the zoom factor on the sheet > Not necessarily what users expect; but would be a straight-forward solution, > easy to understand One thing is to have a zoom factor for the formula bar by itself (i.e. independent), and another one is to directly follow the same zoom factor as the main area. The latter is probably not a good idea for most use-cases Imagine a user having to zoom out in order to see the "big picture" of the main area of the worksheet. That doesn't mean that the content of the formula bar is not needed during that zoom-out. The formula bar would end up very small, and the content would not be readable at the moment. Imagine having to zoom-in to see more details in the main area. This is more common than you would think for visually-challenged users. The formula bar might end up occupying too much of the screen. It would be similar to having a freeze area of too-many rows for that zoom factor, in which almost no other rows are seen on screen, except for the freeze ones. Even if the zoom ratio wouldn't be 1:1 in comparison to the main area, the behavior would trigger users to complain, because users have different context, different circumstances and different needs. > > f) show the content somewhere else (or in a tooltip) > Was not welcome as a good solution. I'm not sure users want a second (or third, or fourth) place to read the content of the formula bar. If users need to edit the content of a cell, we either use F2 directly on the cell (mostly for simple editions of simple short content, but it could vary), or we use the Formula Wizard to review/edit arguments, or we edit directly on the formula bar. Whichever the case, we need clarity and consistent methodology (and I would add flexibility too). In the context of this RFE, I am not seeing how a tooltip would really help. Perhaps in some other context (which does exist), a tooltip with the possibility of setting font type and font size might help, but in this RFE, it doesn't really solve the issue, IMO. > > The question is what issue exactly should be resolved. Make more content > visible in the formula bar (the bar has an expander to show almost a novel) > or make it better readable. Please elaborate the issue. The formula bar is already expandable vertically. Currently, it is not possible to make the content more readable, which means that the font type and the font size for (the content of) the formula bar need to be adjustable. Some (fewer) users think that the font size is currently fine; but _many_ reports have been closed with "just use the OS's zoom features", or (much) worse "just change the OS's font scaling", as if this would have no effect on absolutely anything else. Hopefully others can provide feedback too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
