https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168624
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Clark <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #7) > Users will not know what "proofing languages" are. "Proofing languages" is what Microsoft calls them in their own user interface. This wording seems clear to me, and I'm not aware of any confusion among Office users about this, so I felt comfortable borrowing the terminology here. Please feel free to suggest an alternative. > Nor will they realize setting these languages affects support for language > groups. The whole point of this metabug (bug 164250) is that users don't know what language groups are and don't realize they need to do anything to affect support for them. This is an argument in favor of the change, not an argument against it. > That's because you don't need to configure anything on MS Office. RTL-CTL > support "just works". This isn't true. Certain things may work automatically for certain OS regions, but coming from en-CA, even with RTL and CJK input installed I always have to add proofing languages manually (or install a language pack, which just does it for you). https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/language-accessory-pack-for-microsoft-365-82ee1236-0f9a-45ee-9c72-05b026ee809f The real difference isn't that Office gives a better user experience automatically. What Microsoft has done is spend decades training their users to expect a bad experience until they install a language pack. We're being held to a higher standard. > I'm not sure if it's enabled on all systems, or whether they use some > heuristic though. RTL/CTL and CJK features are all hidden by default. They are enabled by configuring a relevant proofing language (and/or a language pack). > That's true, but your suggestion would exacerbate the situation even further. I disagree. My suggestion will consolidate 5 difficult-to-explain user interface elements into a single easy-to-explain one. > 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. If enough people looked through Tools | Options, I doubt bug 164250 would be much of an issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
