The amount of space above and below paragraphs, as well as the indentation on both sides of a paragraph, can be specified either in absolute terms (e.g. pt, cm) or in _font-size-relative_ terms, using the "ic" unit. This is a very useful feature IMNSHO, as, when using it, one can "scale" the paragraph's content using the font sizes, without having to readjust the margin sizes all the time. However - there is absolutely no chance that users will realize this possibility even exists. It is only if they know apriori that the "ch" or "ic" unit exists, that they may consider using it. I say we should somehow make the choice between absolute and relative sizes for these values - and perhaps most importantly the side margin sizes - discoverable, possible for the user to notice and consider.
AFAIK, you get ch units only if CJK is enabled and is the default in this case. I see no need to make this more obvious for anyone. Jonathan, what do you think? Besides, the term "relative" is not suited here since we can specify font size, for instance (or entirely?), in hierarchical relation via percent.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > Besides, the term "relative" is not suited here since we can specify font > size, for instance (or entirely?), in hierarchical relation via percent. I'm not following. Font-relative spacing is relative to the font size even if that font size itself is defined relatively to something else. > AFAIK, you get ch units only if CJK is enabled and is the default in this > case. I see no need to make this more obvious for anyone. Let's put CJK and even RTL aside for a second. Don't you agree that it is useful to users to know that they can use either fixed-size spacing or font-size-relative spacing? If not, can you explain why users would rarely be interested in font-size-relative spacing?
At time of writing, only paragraph first line, before-, and after-text indentation can be specified in font-relative units. The units supported are 'em' (which is applicable to all languages) and 'ic' (from CSS, defined as the width of U+6C34 '水' in the current font). Word 'Ch' and LO 'ic' are exclusively intended for CJK typesetting. Other users should be guided to use LO 'em'. (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > AFAIK, you get ch units only if CJK is enabled and is the default in this > case. I see no need to make this more obvious for anyone. Jonathan, what do > you think? I think we need to take a UX mulligan on Ch. Everything about it seems to be broken at the moment. e.g.: CJK enabled doesn't make Ch a default unit. There's a checkbox in the UI that says "Enable char unit", but it doesn't seem to do anything. The only way to get Ch units in the UI as far as I can tell is by setting Ch as a default measure, but this makes Ch show up in a lot of nonsense places, too. It looks like the GUI was originally programmed to ape what Microsoft Word does with the Japanese language pack, but it's dead code, and much of the breakage seems intentional because it was generating user confusion. At this point, it's probably best to assume we have no support for this stuff and decide how a greenfield UX should work. While discussing, we should keep in mind that 'ic' and 'em' will most often be mixed with e.g. cm within the same document. We should also try to find a way to reconcile the fact that CJK users are accustomed to Ch/chars, with how confusing that name is to non-CJK users.
(In reply to Jonathan Clark from comment #3) > I think we need to take a UX mulligan on Ch. Everything about it seems to be > broken at the moment. Ok, forget about ic and ch for now. I should have phrased the opening comment using "em".
(In reply to Jonathan Clark from comment #3) > The units supported are 'em' (which is applicable to all languages)... I can enter 2 in or 2 cm or 2 pt or 2 pc etc. in the spin edit and it is converted into the unit which is set-up via tools > options > writer > general. I guess the same works for ch. But never seen em anywhere, what is it? My proposal for some UI/UX improvement is in bug 72662.