Description: In Writer, there's a style called "source text". It makes text monospaced, so that it looks like source code in a text editor. However, in English, "source text" has a different, well established meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_text I suggest the style's name should be changed to "monospaced", "typewriter text", or something else with less potential to confuse users and translators. Steps to Reproduce: 1. In Writer, open the Styles menu. Actual Results: There's a style called "Source Text". Expected Results: The style is named less confusingly. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: N/a
BTW "Source Text" is a Character Style. I'm updating the report title. I support the idea of changing its name to something less programmer-oriented. I would note that there are two similar (possibily identical) character styles "Source Text" and "Teletype". I could not find the difference between them. Maybe we could rename "Source Text" to "Monospaced" as suggested by the OP. Let's also hear the opinion of the UX team.
I agree that this name is a bit misleading. No only from the native speaker PoV but also since we do not provide code highlighting which would be required for source code (see also bug 94954; haven't found quickly the other tickets where this request was resolved WF). But we provide a number of CS as better alternative to direct formatting (and introduced the "Formatting (Styles)" toolbar for this purpose), see also bug 90068. So having Monospace as an option makes sense. However, when it comes to naming we label the CS in respect to the use case. Like Emphasis (italic) or Strong Emphasis (bold). Finding some good use case would be nice (maybe Source Code). Stuart, any idea? We do have many CS that look like not needed such as Teletype. But I'm afraid removing is not so easy. Same is true for the name, by the way and "Source Text" is used at filter/source/docbook/docbooktosoffheadings.xsl and "Teletype" in extras/source/templates/styles/Simple/styles.xml. Maybe it's possible to clean-up the auxiliary files too (the Teletype thing is the "Simple" template). Mike, what do you think?
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2) > Maybe it's possible to clean-up the auxiliary files too (the Teletype > thing is the "Simple" template). Mike, what do you think? I am afraid I didn't completely understand, but I believe that it would be possible to replace the two style names with one new (of your choice), if needed. I would say "do it, and resolve fallouts as they come".
As near as I can figure we have three identical Character Styles Source Text Teletype User Entry Are those used in any delivered templates? Yes. Wading back through bug 90068 point was made that something included as a style should convey a specific meaning. In that context all three of the duplicates provide an obvious meaning/intended use. But are all three needed (i.e. common enough usage) to merit inclusion on our list of predefined character styles? And continued presence in delivered template documents? Really, how relevant is Teletype in today's vernacular, not very. But then "User Entry" for any fielded user input, or "Source Text" for any representation of source code rendered to document canvas (primarily for its monospacing) are both relevant usages. Dump "Teletype", and rename "Source Text" to "Source Code" style name that conveys the idea. The alternative of dropping them all and replacing with "Monospace" also works for a default, but we loose some richness and symbology. Why should we think to choose monospace to render source code to screen or document page? But have to consider to what extent they're in our default templates and the impact a removal would have on existing documents.
Created attachment 182084 [details] Character styles - New design suggestion Hello everyone! I'm a new volunteer for the UX team. I'm a native English speaker and a new user of LO. I came across this option and thought that the "Source Text" was a bit vague for a new user and for someone with no relevant knowledge of the term. I have to agree that renaming it would be a good way to resolve this, but at the same time I do agree that the name should also be related on what it's purpose or use. In the first place, if I'm not mistaken, the purpose of the "Character Style" option is to give users an idea of what that style are commonly used for or it's purpose. With this in mind, I think the best name suited would be either "Source Code Style" or "Typewriter Style". These are my vote. But at the same time, I think this would not entirely diminish the problem of familiarity or vagueness of the terms. So, I would like to suggest a way to represent these styles in a way where new users will understand it instantly. Please refer to the attachment. Thanks!
We discussed this topic in the design meeting. I like "Typewriter" but "Monospace" might be more clear for the users. Anyway, the suggested modification is welcome.
(In reply to tristan from comment #5) > So, I would like to suggest a way to represent these styles in a way where > new users will understand it instantly. Please refer to the attachment. Hello Tristan, welcome to the trenches of LO bug triage... You're suggesting using an extra representative character for the character style. That's interesting, especially if the user has set the style bar to not list the style names as previews of the style itself. But - shouldn't your suggestion be a different bug than the suggestion to rename?