https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153106
--- Comment #11 from ady <adylo811...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #10) > Do I understand that the commit, that is asked to be reverted, does not make > things worse or better for your use It makes things worse, not better. And this is not just my use case; it is that those users with the original request as in Bug 91415 are simply unaware of the usage or existence of the zoom feature. The zoom feature's whole purpose is to allow changing the clearance distance between screen artifacts. If you cannot read clearly, if the lines that form a character are "too-crowded", if two independent items on screen are "too-close" to each-other, use a higher zoom factor: the lines and other items look more distant between each-other and you can distinguish between them. Being visually challenged, I don't have a choice but to be aware of this feature, and I'm thankful for it. This is one of the things that can be seen in attachment 185187. Using a higher zoom factor, the cell's content grows, while the traditional comment indicator remains as it was (i.e. relatively smaller). This is a good thing. The other thing that can be seen in attachment 185187 is that the comment indicator newly introduced (for LO 7.6alpha+) is not better than the traditional one. I can argue, based on those screenshots, that it takes more screen area, not less, and by scaling it, users are less able to distinguish things apart, since the clearance distance is not higher/better (precisely because of the new scaling). The comment indicator will no longer be relatively smaller when zooming in (or at least not as much), so the main purpose of the zoom feature is lost for this item, while the original problem is not completely gone. Additionally, IIUC this change requires more graphic resources. Please someone clarify this for me: What exactly is the positive consequence or advantage of scaling the comment indicator? Isn't the built-in zoom feature already available and already solving the original problem? > > And that better use of zoom will help people with the use of the old version > of the indicator? Yes. In LO. In AOo. In any spreadsheet program since they use GUIs including zoom features, it has been this way. For those users that are aware of this feature, there is no reason to request to solve this non-issue. > > You know that explaining features in documentation, has it's limitation in > effect.. ;) As an example, we see complaints about Cal's accuracy of calculations several times a year, every year. The typical reply is "read this or that wiki page, or help page, or...". For almost every little thing that users don't know yet, we are instructed/hinted/pointed to some document, or to some ask.lo.org, or to some email, or... Nothing new. As another example, there have been many requests to allow changing the font type and font size in/of the formula bar, or even of the whole UI in LO. The formula bar can be a _real_ permanent problem (I know it is for me). Yet, since the time the built-in option to scale the UI was gone, the answer has been "use your OS's scaling and zoom features". In the case of the comment indicator, with a minor and temporal issue for some user in some circumstance, users will be happy to know that there is a simple solution already available (in addition to being able to hide all the comment indicators, also already available). Having an adequate documentation about the built-in zoom features in Calc – bug 153108, although it is a bit vague ATM – and use-cases for it, will help users be aware of it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.