Only step 1,5,10 should be allowed for better visual guidance at metric settings. Currently the ruler often shows uneven numbers, if set to mm (i.e. 4,8,12 ..., step 4) on every zoom change. These look visually confusing. On the Ruler, numbers ending with 0 or 5 should always be be prefered. Only on high zooms every number (step 1) should be displayed.
Do you use the grid ? I think that the more clear is to use the cm as unit and a grid step which is a subdivision of this unit (1 or 0.5 cm for example). Set status to NEEDINFO, please set it back to UNCONFIRMED once the requested data have been provided. Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. JBF
(In reply to comment #0) > Only step 1,5,10 should be allowed for better visual guidance at metric > settings. Currently the ruler often shows uneven numbers, > if set to mm (i.e. 4,8,12 ..., step 4) on every zoom change. Under Debian 7 x86_64 running v4.3.0.2 Build ID: 14ed55896fdfcb93ff437b85c4f3e1923d2b1409 there does appear to be greater change in the displayed ruler marks when zooming for millimetres than any other unit. I mainly use points so I expect to see multiples of 18 or 36, which is exactly what I do see (at 1:1 scale), unless I zoom out, where the multiple becomes larger. For those using metric measurements as a unit (e.g., kilometre, metre, centimetre, millimetre) at a scale where the sheet width numbers in the tens of units, this would seem a reasonable request. Confirmed. Status set to NEW. Summary amended for clarity. Does seem more like an enhancement request than bug though.
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** 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 on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (4.4.1 or later): https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System 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) http://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: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for your help! -- The LibreOffice QA Team This NEW Message was generated on: 2015-07-18
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** 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 on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (5.1.5 or 5.2.1 https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System 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) http://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: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug-20160920
(In reply to Gerhard Mesenich from comment #0) > Currently the ruler often shows uneven numbers, if set to mm (i.e. 4,8,12 > ..., step 4) on every zoom change. These look visually confusing. I see the ruler adopting based on the zoom level and it works fine to me with mm and i dont find it confusing. 100%: 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 140%: 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 180%: 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 250%: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 > On the Ruler, numbers ending with 0 or 5 should always be be prefered. Only > on high zooms every number (step 1) should be displayed. Limiting it to numbers with 0 or 5 at 140% through 250+% zoom levels doesnt make sense to me. @Regina: whats your take?
(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #5) > 100%: 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 > 140%: 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 > 180%: 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 > 250%: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 440%: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 If you have a page size that makes millimeter necessary, for example 10x10 cm, you start with a zoom level of 220%. Talking about A4 pages the better choice is centimeter with 100% zoom - and there you get the 5mm steps up to a zoom level of 130%. Work perfectly for me too. We also provide meter or foot and with this setting you will not get any label for average page sizes. Having fix steps makes no sense.
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** 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 http://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://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
Nothing changed in LibO behavior since 2017. Tested with 6.2.0.0.alpha0+ from 2018-09-12. I'm adding the keyword 'needsUXEval' despite most of the UX members are already in the CC list. It seems the discussion hasn't finished. My opinion: As a technician I understand the bug reporter's wish for steps in 5 and 10 and for example to see 10 in favor of 12. Owen also said that in comment 2. But it should be handled practical and the ruler should show the maximum numbers that helps the user and also looks good and clear. Maybe the actual system comes from the imperial/US measurement system where this is handled in another way than in the metric world. 120 % shows 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. (mm) at an A4 page. 80 % shows 7, 14, 21, 28 (weird mm numbers in my view) Can the algorithm be adapted to show 10, 20, 30 in for example the 80 % view?
If we always have 5 steps between the guides the ruler has much white space on high zoom levels, which is avoided by the adjustment to less distances. Not sure that we really want this behavior.
Maybe a developer can say what's possible or not.
We discussed the request in the design meeting and agree to favorize steps of 1 and 5.
Dear Gerhard Mesenich, 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 http://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://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
Changed importance form Trivial to Enhancement.