https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153106
--- Comment #27 from ady <adylo811...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #26) > LO has a design mailing list in Yes, and the meeting was for the 15th according to the list. > 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. UX is no longer CC'ed. > > > 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) If I had a sample file that triggered the original request, I would had imitated the conditions in my 4 screenshots (same font type and size, same cell size, same zoom factor). But we don't have it, IIRC. There is no real method for me to objectively compare, unless I can reproduce the effects with the current (LO 7.5) indicator vs the newly proposed one. > > 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. Both statements seem either incorrect, or we are using different terminology. > > 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. These go against "solving" the original problem. > > 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. Please carefully re-read the 2 topics (and now a third with the request to make the comment indicator more prominent, in some sense going partially against the original "problem". I have already explained this in detailed multiple times. The triangle was supposed to be smaller, not bigger, and the scaling shouldn't had been part of the "solution", because of the negative consequences and because it still doesn't solve the original issue. We don't seem to be trying to solve the original problem anymore. In comment 25 I proposed a real solution from the POV of users. It is also proposed as one alternative in the other topic. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
