Description: In version 6.3 the sheet tab bar in Calc takes up significantly more screen estate than in did in previous versions, due to using a larger font and significantly more padding around the text. This is probably good for visually impaired people but by using space that would be more productively used by viewing data it is a downgrade for those of us who are not. There should therefore be an option to use the old, compact style of tabs for those that want it. Steps to Reproduce: N/A Actual Results: N/A Expected Results: N/A Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: I upgraded from a 6.2 "still" release to the 6.3.2.2 "fresh" release. I don't know at which point the change to the excessively large tabs was made, but the release notes say 6.3. None of my system settings have changed between LibreOffice versions.
This change was done to solve bug 124572 and well appreciated. The font should be UI default and padding gives room for icons. Don't think we should clutter the options with a "compact view".
So because some people want something that offers some benefits to some people but disadvantages others (by wasting valuable screen estate 100% of the time) it gets implemented for everybody. But when those people are disadvantaged ask for an /option/ to revert to how things were previously they get denied because it would take up screen estate very occasionally? Really?
Created attachment 155438 [details] Old (top) vs. new (bottom) appearance of sheet tabs in Calc (both Gtk3) It was hard to identify the selected tab (bold font), icons were not themed, and it looks quite crammed to me without vertical margins. The new tab has too much space at right for protected tabs and while we could make it 1 or 2 pixels smaller it looks much cleaner as it is. But open for discussion.
I prefer the old style of tab: it should be an option. I agree that the new style takes up too much space vertically, has no demarcation of tab boundaries (other than the active sheet) unless adjoining tab labels are formatted differently, and has too much space surrounding tab text, limiting the number of tabs to view when there are larger number of sheets, which forces additional navigation between tabs using the arrows instead of just being able to click on the tab. Likewise I note that the formula bar has an increased default height, again eating into available workspace to view. It might also help to be able to move a toolbar to the right of the Help menu item where there is plenty of free space.
Created attachment 155526 [details] Calc 6.3 (left) versus Calc 6.2 (right) 1920*1080 I am against offering an option to use the old design of the sheet tab. It's a waste of developer time to offer such a thing for minor benefits for a minority of users that should have no problems to adjust their workflow slightly. The benefits to users with impaired vision should supersede these ones. Furthermore, the issues pointed out are minor at best. As you can see in my attachments of Calc 6.3 versus Calc 6.2 at 1920*1080 and 1366*768 the differences to data visualization are minimal. Also the differences to number of tabs that are visible in both cases are minimal as well. At 1920*1080 I can still only see fully 47 rows. The 48th row was cut-off in 6.2 and is slightly more cut-off in 6.3 but still reachable if someone wants to select directly with the mouse. At 1366*768 I can only see 29 rows in Calc 6.2 and I can only see 29 rows in 6.3. There is no difference in data visualization with the old design and the new design. As for the number of visible sheet tabs: At 1920*1080, in 6.2 I could fully see 27 sheets in 6.2, and I can fully see 27 sheets in 6.3. The 28th sheet is still clickable in 6.3, so there's no forcing of having to use the arrows to navigate because there's loss of visualization of a sheet tab. At 1366*768, in 6.2 I can fully see 19 sheets and in 6.3 I can fully see 19 sheets. The 20th is not selectable in 6.3 but can still be picked in 6.2. These trade-offs were considered when coming up with the new design and were deemed acceptable considering the benefits for visually impaired users and to update the UI. I am against changing vertical and horizontal padding because I don't agree that the current design has severe impacts on anyone's workflow. I also could not find a difference in the default height of the formula bar as mentioned here. However, I do agree that a better visual separation between inactive sheet tabs should be considered.
Created attachment 155527 [details] Calc 6.3 (left) versus Calc 6.2 (right) 1366*768
As soon as you give a sheet a useful name in 6.3 additional spaces are inserted around it and the tab takes up more horizontal space. Those who use large numbers of sheets will find that the number of tabs they can access is reduced by the added character padding, with more tabs lost the shorter the names they devise. There is also no question that there is more vertical space taken up by the new regime. It is quite wrong to compare a default presentation with assumptions about how users employ font size, row height and zoom and toolbars/icon fonts to optimise the display of their sheets. It really seems to be the height of arrogance to suggest that code which already exists should be denied to the many users who appreciate what it offers. All we need is the option to use it.
> It really seems to be the height of arrogance to suggest that code which > already exists should be denied to the many users who appreciate what it > offers. All we need is the option to use it. Instead of name calling you could probably provide attachments to document your complaints so that they can be addressed. I provided attachments to back up my position. You did not. Arrogant would be if I came here name-calling or insinuating something about your character without providing any useful that could be acted upon.
About how few pixes is this?
Created attachment 155592 [details] 6.3 sheet tab spacing I have uploaded an image that shows my eyeballed estimated of tab spacing white spaces, based on a few of the tabs from the well-known BP World Energy Data resource. Altogether there is over 11 cm of whitespace in displaying 9 tabs, with bigger spaces for tabs with longer names. This includes additional space lost at the left side of the screen through the larger icons. Pedro may like to know I was working on this when his latest comment was posted.
Created attachment 155593 [details] Screenshot with LibO 6.2 (In reply to Libomark from comment #10) > Created attachment 155592 [details] That looks weird. Much less margins with 6.3 and 6.4 here, tested with gen, gtk3, and kde. What OS/DE are you running and what theme have you enabled? I made the screenshot with 6.2.8.2 (same result with master/6.4) under Linux/KDE using Emacs theme for Gtk3 apps; started the application per SAL_USE_VCLPLUGIN=gtk3 /usr/bin/soffice
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > This change was done to solve bug 124572 and well appreciated. The font > should be UI default and padding gives room for icons. Don't think we should > clutter the options with a "compact view". Padding does not give space for icons as a feature. If you look at my attachment above, you will see that the space between tabs "X" and "Y" is narrow. If I protect tab "Y", the width of the "Y" tab increases from 7.7mm to 13.9mm. The protect icon is rather fat (and even looks rude!), and space is also added to the right side of "Y".
I am using the default look with no themes; small icons Karasa Jaga, running 6.3.2.2 (x64) under vanilla Win 7 Pro (not Aero).
(In reply to Libomark from comment #10) > Created attachment 155592 [details] > 6.3 sheet tab spacing > > I have uploaded an image that shows my eyeballed estimated of tab spacing > white spaces, based on a few of the tabs from the well-known BP World Energy > Data resource. Altogether there is over 11 cm of whitespace in displaying 9 > tabs, with bigger spaces for tabs with longer names. This includes > additional space lost at the left side of the screen through the larger > icons. > > Pedro may like to know I was working on this when his latest comment was > posted. So, was it hard to actually provide detailed and accurate info instead of immediately going for name-calling?
Created attachment 155600 [details] Screenshots with W10 and W7 Seems the issue comes from the classic theme on W7 (haven't check W10 if that's still possible). I would just accept it if the effort is too high. Sorry Chris, development resources are limited.
It would already help, if the space before the label text is reduced. Then the "locked" icon goes nearer to the label and the overall length becomes shorter.
So let's fix the padding at the right side. And ideally we can also fix the issue with XP theme - but with low priority.
I think there may be multiple issues here - I use all default themes and icons on Xubuntu Linux 18.04 LTS with a 1920x1080 screen. I don't have the system resources to have multiple versions of LO installed so I am unable to provide comparative screenshots, but the repeated dismissing of multiple complaints as worthless really does not make me feel valued. I thought the point of open reporting of issues like this is so developers could understand the way the software is used by people in the real world and take decisions on what works and what does not based on this feedback? As it is I'm being told that my (and others) input is not at all important because it doesn't match what the developers have decided what people want. Yes, the added space might be useful for some people - good for them. However it is detrimental to others which is why there should be an option. It's not like one option is going to "clutter up" a preferences screen (and why is that a much higher priority than degrading the workspace?).