Don't see the need to make the scales identical. And while you may think of percentage it might be confusing for those who know what PNG compression levels exist.

https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/shared/01/image_compression.html?DbPAR=SHARED#bm_id171534531349525

(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1)
> Don't see the need to make the scales identical. And while you may think of
> percentage it might be confusing for those who know what PNG compression
> levels exist.
> 
> https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/shared/01/image_compression.
> html?DbPAR=SHARED#bm_id171534531349525

The major complaint... the one scale you move the right for highest quality the other one the left. That's my 'core' objection. The different scales is difference.. and 'surely not' out read.. 

Grading systems kind weird. (being maximum, 1 being lowest). Which can also be fixed by labels.. 

So don't really care about the approach taken to make this more comfortable. if I have to scratch after my ears every time well what was the logic again.. well that's not a good omen.

So I'm not giving in, yet. 

How it can be improved if you dislike my proposal something else.. Firs question is, how is the user experience.. does this find 'logical/ natural. So you can work with it on the automatic pilot. Or does it disrupt the automatism. And is it useful to do that or simply un-intuitive.

One is compression the other quality. Still NAB for me.

(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3)
> One is compression the other quality. Still NAB for me.

There is a 'common' aspect here.. set compression high.. and will usually get bad quality. The but you can define compression based on quality or by compression itself.. but well my take

(In reply to Telesto from comment #4)
> There is a 'common' aspect here.. set compression high.. and will usually
> get bad quality. The but you can define compression based on quality or by
> compression itself.. but well my take

You don't get bad quality if you set compression to 0 as opposed to 9. You get exactly the same quality for all compression levels.

(In reply to Tomaz Vajngerl from comment #5)
> (In reply to Telesto from comment #4)
> > There is a 'common' aspect here.. set compression high.. and will usually
> > get bad quality. The but you can define compression based on quality or by
> > compression itself.. but well my take
> 
> You don't get bad quality if you set compression to 0 as opposed to 9. You
> get exactly the same quality for all compression levels.

oops, PNG being lossless format. 

Why is compression that prominent; as it has so little influence. Why does same position in the dialog used for 'different things'

Why doesn't the dialog show what the optimal compression level is.

Similar story different program: https://www.howtogeek.com/203979/is-the-png-format-lossless-since-it-has-a-compression-parameter/

(In reply to Telesto from comment #6)
> (In reply to Tomaz Vajngerl from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Telesto from comment #4)
> > > There is a 'common' aspect here.. set compression high.. and will usually
> > > get bad quality. The but you can define compression based on quality or by
> > > compression itself.. but well my take
> > 
> > You don't get bad quality if you set compression to 0 as opposed to 9. You
> > get exactly the same quality for all compression levels.
> 
> oops, PNG being lossless format. 
> 
> Why is compression that prominent; as it has so little influence. Why does
> same position in the dialog used for 'different things'
> 
> Why doesn't the dialog show what the optimal compression level is.
> 
> Similar story different program:
> https://www.howtogeek.com/203979/is-the-png-format-lossless-since-it-has-a-
> compression-parameter/

It's not about being optimal, it's about choice. Do I want my 16GB library of PNG files to have the fastest load rate and least compression per image, or for each image to take longer to load because their compression rates are high?  That's not a call anyone can make or should make for anyone else. 

Personally, I go middle of the road, and the default compression rate of 6 in LO is fine for me.

(In reply to mwtjunkmail from comment #7)
> It's not about being optimal, it's about choice. Do I want my 16GB library
> of PNG files to have the fastest load rate and least compression per image,
> or for each image to take longer to load because their compression rates are
> high?  That's not a call anyone can make or should make for anyone else. 
> 
> Personally, I go middle of the road, and the default compression rate of 6
> in LO is fine for me.

PS. not for removal. However I find it confusing having exact the dialog layout (slider concept) at the same position representing different things

For lossy compression formats the scale is sometimes label 'compression' sometimes' quality. There is a 'relation' between file-size and quality. More quality large file size

For lossless formats there is no 'quality' aspect involved. It's all about compression. Which has more to do with processing speed (compressing/decompressing). 

Currently there are two file formats using the system. But well, maybe WEBP joins the club 

I still think there should a gui wise distinction between Compression and Quality.. And the 'sliders' should show - as a label - the default value (as reference) what's seen as 'default advised setting'.

Thank you for reporting the bug. 

I can confirm the bug present in

Version: 7.0.3.1 (x64)
Build ID: d7547858d014d4cf69878db179d326fc3483e082
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3 Build 9600; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win
Locale: nb-NO (en_US); UI: en-US
Calc: CL

Version: 7.2.0.0.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: 761a672d62df1891b9f4f367a499b220ab2b33fa
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3 Build 9600; UI render: Skia/Raster; VCL: win
Locale: en-US (en_US); UI: en-US
Calc: CL

In order to simplify the png related UI questions, the bug #147550 proposes :
- to hide the png compression force
- and to silently set the maximum png quality.

Of course in comment #10, you should read (In reply to Jérôme from comment #10)
> - and to silently set the maximum png quality.

Of course, you should read "set the maximum png force".

Dear Telesto,

To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.

There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.

If you have time, please do the following:

Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/

If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
 
If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.

Please DO NOT

Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not 
appropriate in this case)


If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/

2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword


Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa

Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team

MassPing-UntouchedBug