https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154756

Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needsUXEval

--- Comment #10 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to ⁨خالد حسني⁩ from comment #9)
> Like Regina said, this is not a bug. Rotated horizontal text in the middle
> of vertical text is by far the most common and what users of vertical text
> expect. 

I'll first note that the question of users' expectation is a bit tricky,
because if we have chosen a certain default - existing users would expect that
default, because they're used to it. We have had a somewhat similar discussion
about the request to make "tabbed UI" the default: Many argue that it's what
users expect - but they only expect it, if at all, if they're used to Microsoft
Office.

My point is, that if we don't allow separate control of text direction and
glyph orientation, then it is a literal mistake to offer an orientation option
which is nothing but rotation. If you offer rotation, you need to say that's
what it is. And it is inconsistent when LTR text will just be rotated while CJK
text will not.

The conflation of text block rotation and text orientation is not limited to
just in the dialog UI. Here:

https://help.libreoffice.org/6.2/en-US/text/scalc/guide/text_rotate.html

they are mixed up.

To get another point of reference, I checked what happens in CSS. Well, it has
two related properties:

* writing mode: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/writing-mode
* text orientation:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/text-orientation

if we offered _both_ of these together, I wouldn't mind the choice of default
as much, because the outcome would be clear. Otherwise, either the default
should change, or the labels should explain things better.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to