https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153106
--- Comment #26 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to ady from comment #25) > I thought the meeting was on the 15th, next week. LO has a design mailing list in which the session agenda is announced in advance (hopefully a week or so in advance): https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ but I assure you that in the meeting, it was stressed that we want to reach a resolution which everyone can live with, and it wasn't as though we were saying the final word on the matter. > Regarding the screencast, I'm not sure what I am suppose to look at. Please look at several things: 1. The readability of the text before any zoom, with the triangle. 2. How the triangle "recedes" from the text as you zoom in 3. How the triangle grows as you zoom in - but not as much as the text (and not as much as in your screenshots) and see also my comments below about our compromise proposal. (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #24) > It's clear that zooming out is supposed to make the indicator less > overlapping. Zooming out may not be "supposed to" reduce overlap, but it's clearly _useful_ that it does that. So, as we were thinking about how Heiko's commied scaling triangles look, and how no-scaling triangles look (my position of partial backout of the patch), two things occurred to us: * We could scale _partially_, i.e. the triangle grows slower than the text as the zoom increases. * Even without any scaling, the triangle visibility improves somewhat when increasing the zoom. this creates a spectrum between the two extremes (Ady's request and Heiko's patch) - and we believe it should be possible to satisfy everyone with some point on this spectrum. This is doubly true because, regardless of scaling, the use of triangles already improves visibility _and_ seems to improve readability relative to the square form, at any size. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
