Description: The watermark created in an exported PDF file is garish and unprofessional-looking: Loud color, too large, and vertical orientation. Prefer grey, smaller footprint, and diagonal lettering. I need watermarks on my document, but am embarrassed to send out documents that look like a caterpillar puked on them. Sorry for the negativity, but I'm guessing most people feel the same way. Steps to Reproduce: 1.Export to pdf and choose watermark function. Actual Results: Functionally, works fine. Visually, bleh. Expected Results: Produce a professional-looking watermark that I am not embarrassed to send to clients. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: [Information automatically included from LibreOffice] Locale: en-US Module: TextDocument [Information guessed from browser] OS: Linux (All) OS is 64bit: yes
Created attachment 171298 [details] Screenshot with watermark via PDF options (left) and document function (right) Agreed, this vertical green text is not a watermark. But diagonal text might not cover everything, and maybe people like to change the font. And if we bring all the options from the document's watermark function into the PDF dialog it clutters unnecessarily So I wonder if removing the "Sign with watermark" option from the PDF dialog is the better way.
Miklos, Samuel: What do you think?
Adding watermark at a pdf export level is public API, so you can't just remove it, I fear. Mass-converting a long list of documents to PDF with some custom options is a popular use-case of our public API. Why not just bring the default look of that PDF watermark closer to what we generate via the UI? I think that's a fair request.
Fair enough and much better than what we have. The default is Liberation Sans, 45°, #C0C0C0 (grey). Font size is adjusted to fill the whole page without wrapping. Don't know if the angle is inverted on pure RTL documents. Could imagine a button that opens the watermark dialog from PDF options to change the appearance.
Looks duplicate to me. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 54053 ***