https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168624
--- Comment #9 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Clark from comment #8) > "Proofing languages" is what Microsoft calls them in their own user > interface. 1. The fact Microsoft does something is not in itself an argument for us to do it. 2. I don't remember MS doing that in their user interface. > This wording seems clear to me, and I'm not aware of any > confusion among Office users Please don't call Microsoft Office "Office". Anyway, I use Microsoft Office often, and like I said - I've never heard that term either. So it's not confusing by virtue of behing unheard of. > about this, so I felt comfortable borrowing the > terminology here. Please feel free to suggest an alternative. You're the one suggesting a change to the UI. These are the default languages used for the 3 different language groups. I would, however, support changing the section label name to something which better clarifies that, if you have a suggestion. > 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. No, it's not. You're suggesting a change while the trichotomy is still in effect - when users are forced to deal with it. A change which half-pretends it does not exist is not an improvement with the current state of affairs. > 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). Hmm, proofing _tools_. I vaguely remember there was some kind of extra product called "Office Proofing Tools". Does that still exist? How many people use it? > The real difference isn't that Office gives a better user experience > automatically. It seems you mean Microsoft Office. Don't call it Office please. > 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. Don't know what you mean. Whenever I installed MS Office (which admittedly is not recently), I did not install any language pack, but RTL-CTL worked. > RTL/CTL and CJK features are all hidden by default. They are enabled by > configuring a relevant proofing language (and/or a language pack). I don't think so. > > 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. A complex multitude of harder-to-explain options. And of course, ease of explanation does not matter, because users typically don't wait for explanations. There are self-evident things, and there are complicated-looking things which most users tend to skip. > If enough people looked through Tools | Options, I doubt bug 164250 would be > much of an issue. We're talking about Tools > Options - and the users who do use it for some thing or the other, in this bug. Naturally, people who don't open Tools > Options will not be affected by the change, neither for better nor for worse. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
