https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168624
--- Comment #7 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Clark from comment #6) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #5) > > First, a question What are "proofing languages"? I don't see those anywhere > > in Tools > Options. Do we have a feature involving those? > Yes, we do. We call them "default languages for documents". Users will not know what "proofing languages" are. Nor will they realize setting these languages affects support for language groups. > For a comparable, see recent versions of Microsoft Word. > > Like us, Word has the exact same trichotomy with all of the same issues, and > they also have CTL/CJK features hidden dependent on configuration. Despite > that, they successfully migrated their configuration away from what we > currently have toward something like what I'm describing. They did this > years ago, and I've never seen or heard anyone complain about it. That's because you don't need to configure anything on MS Office. RTL-CTL support "just works". I'm not sure if it's enabled on all systems, or whether they use some heuristic though. > I'd argue a lot of the problem re: bug 164250 is the fact that our user > interface is too deeply nested, too expressive, and asks the user to read > too much. That's true, but your suggestion would exacerbate the situation even further. > I'm having a hard time thinking that this situation could be > improved by spreading things out even more or adding labels and warning > messages that we already know people don't read. If more paths through Tools | Options suggest that you need to enabled RTL-CTL, or CJK, support, then you are more likely to notice that suggestion. And the more clear the suggestion is, the more likely you are to understand and follow it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
