https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153106
--- Comment #23 from ady <adylo811...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #22) > (In reply to ady from comment #21) > > > I disagree with that. On the contrary, I see it as a problem if the > > > comment > > > indicator does not draw your attention. > > > > Yes, if that were to be a problem. > > It has definitely been a problem: bug 56677. But the "fix" was insufficient > in my opinion. Things have certainly not gotten to the level of visibility > of MS Excel, and in absolute terms - it's really not good enough. You are mixing different issues; it is all about comment indicators, but still different issues. I have never had a problem with not seeing a comment indicator (someone that has "less than perfect" vision), but I'm not going to claim that my case is the same as for everyone else. Being able to distinguish the comment indicator doesn't have to be about scaling. It might be about contrast, or about other peripheral information on screen. I still think that the comment indicator should not be a distraction, much like "stop" o "speed limit" signs on the road should not be a distraction; they are to be seen, but not the main thing to be focused on. If a user wants more, the comment themselves can be all shown, and then users can hide them again and keep working (2 clicks, than another 2 clicks). The difference with making the comment indicator to scale with zoom is that the user has no control, no influence anymore. For someone like me that has to use the zoom features of Calc and of the OS all day long, it will be either to accept the scaling, or to hide them for good (_not_ just 2 clicks). > > > There is no report claiming that the comment indicator cannot be seen. > > There is now: Bug 154080. Again, different issue. The original report that brought all this was "It is hard for some users to read the content when the comment indicator is there". The answer should had been to either: * modify the cell's size; or * use a different alignment, or alignment attributes; or * change the font type; or * change the font size; or * hide the comment indicator; or * use the built-in zoom, which is the fastest, more flexible and easiest of all these; or * a combination of all the above. Instead, after 7 (or more) years and multiple duplicates and who knows how many forum posts, in which no reply was about any of the aforementioned alternatives and we only see screenshots, not actual files. suddenly someone decided to scale the comment indicator, without pondering the negative consequences. Has anyone noticed that no users have yet confirmed that scaling the comment indicator was what they wanted? Where are the sample files with specific fonts types, font sizes, cell sizes, alignment attributes and zoom factor to test with? They do not know the zoom exists; otherwise they would had used it instead of opening a bug report, simply because it takes (much, much, much) less time to use the built-in zoom than to write the report. > > > The user should be able to see it, but it > > should not be "the main thing"; that would be distracting. > > It _needs_ to distract - while not interfering with the visibility of the > actual cell contents. Perhaps we are just using different terms. I disagree. A speed limit sign should not be distracting; you only need to be aware of the info it provides. And, the comment indicator is not the problem; lack of knowledge about the use of the built-in zoom feature is. > > > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #20) > > > There are (at least) two usability considerations/problems regarding > > > comment > > > indications: > > > > > > 1. On one hand, it's a problem when comment indicators hide content. A non issue. As with any other spreadsheet software that shows additional info on the main area, use the zoom, to either see more details, or zoom out to see the big picture. Or, use any or all the alternative settings I mentioned above. Is there a claim that all default values for cell size, font type, font size, alignment and zoom factor are all ideal for each and every case for each and every user? Users sometimes need to alter the default settings; we don't "report" that the default setting "doesn't work for me" when there are alternatives. And, please keep in mind that these are settings in the hands of the user; whereas the indicator being scaled with zoom is not. > > > 2. On the other hand, it's a problem if comment indicators are not > > > clearly-visible, as I might inadvertently miss them Which was not part of the report. This was also not the goal of the patch. If that were to be the intention, then it would had been connected to a different report, and the pros and cons of it would had been different. There is not even a mention of pros and cons in this case, and the concern about clear visibility of the comment indicator (which I don't share at all, but OK) can be thought as being _against_ the initial report (i.e. "the comment indicator is bothering me, and I have no clue what to do and no one has explained to me any of the alternatives"). > > > > > > Bug 91415 was opened regarding the first usability problem, not the second > > > one. Also, bug 91415 did not ask for any changes at high zoom levels - it > > > regarded the situation without playing with the zoom level. We agree; the comment indicator being scaled with zoom should had not been a "solution", especially to a non-issue. > > > > That sounds as if the request explicitly said "I cannot use the zoom feature > > to solve this" > > A bug was reported in the behavior without the user applying zoom. Whatever > changes in the behavior when zooming in or out cannot resolve the bug. I don't think the patch is a solution for the original user's problem. If there had been a proposal to the reporter(s) to use the zoom and report back with feedback, they would had said "you know what? I'm OK with this zoom feature and the comment indicator is not a problem anymore, works for me, you don't need to do anything". > > > The reason users do not mention zoom in bug 91415 is > > because they are simply not aware that the zoom feature resolves the > > problem. > > No, that's not the reason, and no, it doesn't resolve the problem. ... which > is also why the patch should not have included scaling at different zoom > levels - because zoom is irrelevant to the bug. If users knew that there is a 2 to 6 seconds solution for a once in a while minor inconvenience, they wouldn't even bother opening a report. But I do agree that the patch scaling the comment indicator is not the solution for that non-issue. > > > There is no physical way to > > _simultaneously_ see more details and to see "the big picture" in the same > > UI. That's the reason to use zoom. > > Of course there is. More than one way even. The use of the triangle shape > rather than the dot/small square is one such way. One can think of others. Again, you seem to be mixing matters. Or perhaps you didn't realize yet that the triangle thing was the "extra", not the main. The initial patch was to scale the indicator, and the triangle was supposed to make it less prominent when zooming in. The triangle, turns out, is bigger than the original square, so it contradicts the intention. Thus I wonder, how the scaling and/or the bigger triangle solve any of the original (non-)issue? They don't, while they have negative consequences. > > > I could take almost any cell, with a clear visible text and indicator, scale > > the zoom factor to, say, 20%, and show how it is an inconvenience. > > It doesn't matter what happens at zoom 20% nor at zoom 500%. Both cell > contents, and comment indicators, must be clearly visible at zoom 100%. > > (or rather - it does matter, but not in the context of bug 91415.) My point was/is that the original claim that "users can't read the content of the cell" is not accurate, by far. I presented a logical explanation as to how to use a feature that is there exactly for the kind of situations the users were reporting. The claim would had been valid, only if there was no zoom feature. I was explaining the solution/reply that should had been given several years ago already. We, users, have been replied with similar answers many, many times. You can search and read the replies about the formula bar content not being clear enough. since some other users/devs think that the formula bar is perfectly readable (under their conditions, context, eye's powers/capabilities), the popular answer (since the UI scaling went away) has been "use the OS's zoom and or the OS's text scaling features". Again and again users explain that such actions were not good enough, because there are additional consequences and those are not positive. In contrast, here I am saying that the answer to the "indicator vs content" problem should had been to use the built-in zoom feature, and/or any of the additional items that I mentioned above, which don't have negative consequences (because they are the hand of the user, and are already available and they don't affect any other program nor the entire OS/DE). How is that inadequate? It isn't. The thing that is not adequate, IMNSHO, is to scale the comment indicator as an answer to the non-issue. "Do something to solve a non-issue while generating negative consequences". > > Anyway, I don't understand why you're arguing with one of the people who > agrees with you. In fact, you're undermining your own request for back-out > by claiming that what happens at different zoom levels has bearing on 91415. Maybe because the initial patch was not about the triangle, but about the scaling? In both cases, the area of the comment indicator gets bigger, not smaller; it covers more, not less, and the zoom feature is now less effective to solve the original problem than it was before. I am being clear; I am providing logical reasons to being against the committed change. I am talking about a specific change that was pushed to solve a specific report. If we are going to discuss a different problem, lets first agree here that the relevant change doesn't – or rather, "don't", because there is the triangle shape and the scaling – solve the report it was supposed to solve. If there is a problem for some users to even notice that a comment indicator is present, then lets discuss _that_. I don't have such problem, but I don't oppose logical discussions and I don't claim that my situation is the same as for everyone else. But _that_ was not the reason for the change to scale the comment indicator, nor the bigger triangle shape. There was no reason, other than someone (or several people) thinking that scaling the comment indicator would solve the problem. It doesn't, and users of Calc with enough experience know that at some point or another, some artifact might bother the clear reading of some cell. There are solutions in place already (e.g. for "###", expand the width of the column, among other things, including the zoom factor). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
