Design/Meetings/2012-09-15

Attendees

 * AlexanderWilms
 * Astron
 * Mirek2

Topics

 * ESC call
 * Getting more people on the team
 * Design tools
 * Font repository integration
 * Font analysis

Tasks

 * Astron: Streamline the Tools page.
 * Alex: Ask about the Ubuntu font.

Log
[19:37] hi alex [19:41]  hi [19:41]  Astron should come online in a few minutes [19:42] great [19:42] what have you discussed so far? [19:42]  Nothing, actually [19:42] alright [19:42]  Me and him were both late [19:43] :) I know [19:43] Astron attended the call this week, I suppose? [19:43]  Yes [19:44] ok [19:44]  * UI / design update (Astron) [19:44]         + gradient-fill for cells: [19:44]                  + review: better for whole areas rather than cells [19:44]                  + interoperability issues ? [19:44]          + borders query: [19:44]                  + we have to pick sensible default options / settings [19:44]          + Android icon underway with Alex's help [19:44]          + work ongoing improving icon themes too [19:44]          + options reduction ongoing interest [19:44]  AI:	+ new git repository needed for UI stuff 'original-artwork' (Norbert) [19:45]  LO is crashing on me all the time now :/ [19:46] <alexanderWilms> Do we have an agenda for today? [19:48] hm... we should finish the font and Options analysis [19:49] <alexanderWilms> Should we start with the fonts? [19:49] sure [19:50] how soon is Astron coming? [19:50] did he say anything? [19:51] <alexanderWilms> 19:29:52 [19:51] <alexanderWilms> afk for then next ten mins [19:51] ok [19:52] is it ok if I take this time to read through the last chat? [19:52] <alexanderWilms> Sure [20:07] == astron247 [~frootzowr@dslb-188-106-203-066.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design [20:07] hi again [20:09] <alexanderWilms> hi [20:09] have you discussed anything yet? [20:09] <alexanderWilms> nope [20:09] okay. [20:09] <alexanderWilms> Mirek's reading the log [20:10] well, then ill start with an overview over this weeks esc call... [20:10] I'm back [20:10] but go ahead [20:12] * we discussed the gradients in cells idea again [20:12] * i didnt have any input on michael stahls border ui question (yet) [20:12] * norbert will open a libreoffice-original-artwork repo [20:13] * there's apparently a bit of interest in the options rework (did anyone start developing on that..?) [20:13] that should be it. [20:13] michael asked if were "happy". are weß [20:13] ^ß^? [20:14] <alexanderWilms> happy? [20:14] japp [20:15] <alexanderWilms> Did he specify in what way? [20:16] it was quite a general question. i guess he mean to ask if we need some of resources. dunno, though. [20:16] i kind of replied that were too few core people (i.e. 3) [20:17] I agree [20:17] do you think we should work on promotion? [20:18] the elementary project, for example, designs purely on deviant art [20:18] which means that they have a good design audience [20:19] <alexanderWilms> Couldn't hurt [20:19] i am kind of wary of deviant art (i dont really like the site) – but yeah, it somehow does get a high-quality artistic audience [20:20] is there a way to embed externally-hosted image files on the wiki? [20:21] that way, we could have an audience on DeviantArt, but still have images available on the wiki without duplication [20:21] i dont think there is a way to do that yet [20:22] do you think it's something worth pursuing? [20:22] it might also lift some hosting weight off Document Foundation's shoulders... [20:22] <alexanderWilms> I think the time's better spent improving LO [20:23] <alexanderWilms> I'll be back in a few secs [20:23] ok [20:25] okay. how far were you with two with the options discussion? [20:26] as far as you can see on the wiki [20:26] ah right [20:26] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Analyses/Global_Options [20:27] == alexanderWilms [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] [20:28] about getting more designers, perhaps it would be worth the effort to clean up the wiki a bit... [20:28] e.g. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Visual_Elements has a lot of rough edges [20:28] == alexanderwilms3 [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design [20:29] back [20:29] yeah, its quire a lot on this page [20:29] alexanderwilms3: what I wrote: [20:29] [20:28] about getting more designers, perhaps it would be worth the effort to clean up the wiki a bit... [20:28] e.g. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Visual_Elements has a lot of rough edges [20:29] ^quire^quite [20:30] most, if not all, the pages have a "This page is still under construction - so please ask any open questions on our Design mailing list." label [20:31] perhaps we should look through them sometime [20:32] the label is right. we'd need to do something like that... [20:33] after we finish the current projects, though, probably... [20:33] right [20:33] that sounds a bit like "never" though [20:34] :) well, we could start now if it's something that either of you would like to do [20:35] I would prefer to work on fonts and options now, though [20:35] just noting what it sounds like. hopefully we can use the cofnerence for some discussions on what needs to e done [20:35] yes [20:35] btw. i recently tried to find this page: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/User_Experience/Tools [20:35] and couldnt find any links to it... [20:36] (i am pulling this out of my browsers history right now) [20:36] yes, sorry, we decided to remove the links on the account of it containing a ton of tools that we don't actually use [20:36] the page could be quite daunting for people who want to get involved [20:37] is the page useful to you? [20:37] hm, i specifically knew the colourblindness filters were listed thers [20:37] ^rs^re [20:38] and also, we do use a number of those tools. (and should use more of them) [20:39] we use Gimp and Inkscape, which are mentioned on the Design team homepage [20:41] which tools do you think we should use more? [20:41] right. i personally also use pencil and git and would like to use the wiki help pages at some point [20:42] the fidelity matrix could be a useful self-evaluation tool (although ive never used it and dont really plan to) [20:43] I think the fidelity matrix is too complex and subjective to use [20:43] a mockup's fidelity is usually visible from a mockup anyway [20:43] we mention pencil on the homepage [20:44] yeah, but havign the exact status might help against a few people jumping to conclusions about the readiness of a design early [20:45] == alexanderW [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design [20:45] == alexanderwilms3 [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] [20:45] anyway, i wont try to argue for the fidelity matrix to much. while there are a few nice ideas i think its rather overblown (as you said, too) [20:45] having an expiry date is also a nice idea but i am not usre it that useful [20:46] ^usre^sure [20:47] well, for us, the tentative design should really be the highest fidelity we have [20:47] and the proposals' fidelity doesn't really matter much [20:47] well i kind of share christophs concerns that thats not always useful [20:48] what is not always useful? proposals? [20:48] (i mean high-fidelity mockups) [20:49] alright... [20:50] anyway, I would like to streamline https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/User_Experience/Tools [20:50] because for the most part it will look different on different platforms and configurations... [20:50] okay. ill take this as a task then. [20:51] you'll take care of it? [20:51] yes. [20:51] ok, great :) [20:51] oh, and please remove the introductory paragraph at the top [20:51] right. [20:52] anyway, could we do the font analysis now? [20:52] yes. that sounds good. [20:52] ok https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Wishlists/Fonts [20:53] <alexanderW> Should we vote for each font? [20:53] btw, we might also want to consider https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards/Font_Repository_Integration now [20:53] I wouldn't vote, but rather discuss [20:54] as for the font repository -- I visited Kendy on Tuesday, where I proposed the whole idea [20:54] it would probably integrate with Google Web Fonts [20:54] oh nice [20:54] since that's probably the biggest FOSS online repository out there [20:54] but are you sure that fonts should really always be installed into users systems? [20:55] they would have an option [20:55] (also: i think not all google web fonts are under an opensource license -- but maybe im wrong there) [20:55] I think they are [20:55] about having the option: yes. but i would just download them and cache them for later usage [20:56] <alexanderW> Is there something like ~/.fonts on Windows and Mac OS? [20:56] I had the same conversation with Kendy [20:56] dont think so [20:56] <alexanderW> Or should they be installed system-wide? [20:57] i think thats what the mockup File:Fonts.png wants to tell us, no? [20:57] hard disks have a lot of space, and given how many open-source fonts get used in documents, it's unlikely to make a huge dent in your storage [20:58] yes. [20:58] plus, most users already tend to use about 10 of the plethora of fonts they have installed by default (not that that's an excuse) [20:58] <alexanderW> It would save the fonts locally. Either sytem-wide or per user [20:59] I would save them system-wide [20:59] <alexanderW> Would require root privileges [20:59] i think it should just cache them in ~/.local/.libreoffice. installing them would seem to be too much hassle for just viewing a document [21:00] it's not just viewing a document [21:00] it's also editing it [21:00] for shared documents [21:00] i know. [21:00] but if you got the fonts cached why wouldnt you be able to work with them too? [21:01] maybe the info bar could help here again though. [21:01] it could show font download progress and offer to install the whole family [21:02] (because if youre just viewing a document you probably will only install the bare necessities) [21:02] I would like the whole process to be frictionless [21:02] instead of install i mean download [21:02] mirek: what do you mean? [21:04] I don't want there to always be a distraction when a user needs to work with a document with a non-installed font [21:04] the user should be busy working on the document, not picking which font to download [21:05] the best thing to do is to always have a good default [21:05] what do you think of as a distraction= [21:05] ==? [21:07] being indecisive myself, I know that getting a choice between keeping a font on the disk or keeping it temporarily would take me some time [21:08] each time [21:08] I think this is better to handle with a good default [21:09] anyway my idea would be: [21:09] * download the necessary fonts automatically when the user views or edits a document that uses downloadable fonts (show a progress bar for the download maybe) [21:09] * showing an infobar that offers you to install the font families used in the document (which of course you could close) [21:10] <alexanderW> Sounds good to me [21:10] mirek: it wouldnt be so much keeping them temporarily as it would be keeping them around just for libreoffice [21:10] (you could cache them indefinitely) [21:10] isn't it better to just install them then? [21:10] they would take up as much disk space [21:11] and the user wouldn't be bothered with a complicated choice [21:11] no, because doing that by default would always annoy the user with a password prompt for the admin/root account [21:11] are you sure there's no way around that? [21:12] <alexanderW> Would be a security risk if there was a workaround, don't you think? [21:12] there is. you could install a background service that always starts with root privileges as firefox/chrome do for updates on windows [21:13] alex is right in that its hard to secure and also, it would probably not integrate with linux package managers [21:13] well, in any case, offering a password prompt is less of a distraction than offering a choice [21:13] choices can take a lot of time to make [21:13] ??? [21:13] a password entry is automatic [21:13] you can just ignore the infobar [21:14] dismissing the infobar is also a choice [21:14] you can keep it open and ignore it :) [21:15] the actions in the infobar should, imho, also be availabe somewhere else in the UI [21:15] still, ignoring it is a choice [21:15] uh no [21:15] many people will just not see it at all [21:16] if you feel like the infobar will be undistracting and invisible, what's the point of even having it? [21:16] if the user won't notice [21:17] right. so, there are people that dont notice anything that happens on their screens. [21:18] and those can safely ignore the infobar [21:18] I disagree [21:18] in any case, that is not the point [21:18] (and still enjoy their document with glorious opensource fonts) [21:19] right. [21:19] i would like to argue with ux-control then... [21:19] that doesn't really make much sense to me: why would the user take notice enough of the first infobar to download the fonts, but not enough to notice the following one? [21:20] the download would happen automatically. all that first infobar would display is the prgoress and a maybe a canel button [21:20] +c [21:21] I've discussed this with Kendy as well -- we can't do automatic download, since we don't know the connection speeds & costs [21:21] ^prgo^prog [21:21] otherwise I would agree with you [21:21] well, thats what the cancel button is for [21:22] no, I don't think LibreOffice should download things automatically without permission [21:23] <alexanderW> So maybe infobar with a caption 'Requires additional fonts' [21:23] <alexanderW> A button leading to Fonts.png [21:23] <alexanderW> the mockup, I mean [21:23] downloading something without permission is a pretty big ux-control violation, imho [21:25] hehe. you wanted to install the fonts without express permission five minutes ago :) [21:26] well, they would be on the disk anyway, only in different parts [21:27] the only difference would be that the fonts could be used by different applications [21:27] sure. but the different parts of the disk do count [21:27] I think there's a big difference [21:28] for example [21:28] for one, you need no special rights, for the other, you need admin rights [21:28] (and the fonts are suddenly instaleld for all users [21:28] ) [21:28] a number of people use a portable internet connection [21:29] which tends to have a data limit [21:29] that can usually be detected. [21:29] simply opening a document to have your limit automatically crossed has to be pretty annoying [21:30] I don't think we could detect it accurately enough [21:30] i agree, we shouldnt autonatically download while on 3g [21:30] so, you say, that not showing the documents right the first time round is the sane default then? [21:31] it doesn't apply just to 3G, though [21:31] astron247: yes, because... [21:31] a) the document will load incorrectly at first anyway; it will take time to download the fonts [21:32] b) in most cases, we probably won't be able to download all the fonts, so we will need to inform the user and he will need to make the proper decision then [21:34] <alexanderW> [Download additional fonts required to display this document correctly?     (Yes...) (No) X] [21:35] <alexanderW> Like this? [21:35] sure, we can do this. but it also means the feature is completely worthless to everyone who doesnt see the info bar. [21:35] (~60% of people?) [21:36] thus, its not really worth pusruing then [21:36] in cases where we aren't able to download the fonts, either because they were not found online or because the person is offline, we should still show the infobar [21:36] astron247: the feature is more than just an infobar [21:37] 1) it will allow users to install fonts from Google Web Fonts as well (for his own documents, not just for compatibility) [21:37] okay, but the infobar will be the primary vehicle [21:37] 2) the functionality in the infobar should be accessible from elsewhere in the UI [21:38] <alexanderW> A button leading to the dialog? [21:38] btw, it's not even decided that we should use an infobar; it's just a part of my proposal (which I plan to expand) [21:39] but the infobar makes lots of sense (unlike a modal alert like in alex's proposal) [21:40] I actually planned to add something similar for the "More info..." button [21:40] a dialog where the user could choose which fonts to download [21:40] <alexanderW> After seeing Mireks proposal I thought it'd make more sense to show his infobar at first and acess the dialog trough it [21:40] a modal alert is fine, as long as it doesnt pop up automatically. that exactly is the beauty of infobars [21:41] alex: +1 [21:41] yes -- that's what I plan to add as well [21:41] although i am not completely sure we really need as much control as the modal alert offers [21:42] agreed [21:42] <alexanderW> no checkboxes in front of each font? [21:43] well, thats a case where making a decision doesnt make sense to the user [21:44] "hum... why do i need to pick now if all those fonts are needed for the document?" [21:44] I would have a checkbox in front of each font, just because, as someone mentioned on the list, there could be a font that someone really doesn't want [21:44] but I would select all by default, of course [21:44] <alexanderW> Why would one want a specific font? [21:44] <alexanderW> *wouldn't [21:44] <alexanderW> scratch that [21:44] <alexanderW> Why would one not install a specific font [21:44] no. its a good question [21:45] yes, good question [21:46] and there's two answers: [21:46] a) the file is too large (maybe 30% of people will want to decide based on that) [21:46] b) they dislike the font (maybe 1% of will know and dislike the font already and actually care about fonts too) [21:46] as someone mentioned on the list, there's a possibility that some of the fonts aren't even used in the document [21:46] how would that happen? [21:47] (i havent read tha) [21:47] +t [21:47] the font is part of a style, but one that's not actually used in the document [21:47] also: how would the user know which fonts arent used in the document beforehand? [21:47] actually thats a question libo can solve, but the user cannot [21:48] <alexanderW> Yes, LO should only offer used fonts [21:48] alright, I suppose I agree [21:49] in any case, we got really sidetracked [21:50] <alexanderW> at least we have some kind of vision now [21:50] this is something we should discuss after we have all the proposals at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards/Font_Repository_Integration [21:50] right now, we should really get through https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Wishlists/Fonts [21:51] okay. [21:51] we can agree on open sans, i guess? [21:51] yes [21:51] <alexanderW> yes [21:51] do we want to include all weights or just bold and regular? [21:52] <alexanderW> all :) [21:52] yes, all [21:52] (if youve worked with more extensive font families, you might know that it can be a bit confusing occasionally...) [21:52] <alexanderW> Include ALL the weights [21:52] okay... then "all" it is [21:53] :) great [21:53] <alexanderW> It is, but I think it's worth it [21:53] I think so as well [21:53] <alexanderW> Open Sans Light and then making it bold for example [21:54] <alexanderW> Can't libreoffice group them as one entry and list the available weights in the font dialog? [21:54] not yet. you should open a bug for that i suppose [21:55] anyway... okay... "ubuntu" is a tough call, i guess. most other linux vendors will hate shipping that ... for it unfortunately bears the name of their competitior... [21:55] <alexanderW> alright [21:55] I don't think other linux vendors will mind [21:55] it's a quality FOSS font [21:56] <alexanderW> Maybe ask Michael, Caolan etc? [21:56] okay. [21:56] carrying it should be an advantage for any Linux distro [21:56] ok, ask, but I don't think it's a problem [21:57] + i personally am not convinced by it - it's a bit too quirky to work with it, i think (just an opinion) [21:57] + it is really extensive, especially the arabic support is a great addition [21:57] <alexanderW> Should I mail them? [21:57] sure, go ahead [21:58] how do you feel about ubuntu otherwise? [21:59] <alexanderW> I like it, it looks a bit special [21:59] yes -- it's unique, yet readable [22:00] okay... so, it is a candidate barring the name being too problematic [22:00] "vollkorn" [22:00] <alexanderW> I hate the name [22:00] I would skip any that have a "no" under Usable under Windows [22:00] <alexanderW> Probably not an issue for non-German users [22:01] i love the name :) [22:01] (vollkorn means "wholegrain") [22:01] <alexanderW> Weißbrot all the way [22:01] :) thanks for the explanation [22:02] I also like the name -- the font really looks like it sounds [22:03] anyway, i really like the font and ... i hope we can reconsider it at some point when theres a new version [22:03] I hope so, too [22:03] ill skip alegreya and neuton [22:03] I like the font as well [22:03] and come to "dancing script" [22:03] I would vote against it [22:04] (which is not usable under small sizes, but likely no script font is) [22:04] I don't think we need a display font [22:04] <alexanderW> For slideshows? [22:04] I would rather bundle well-designed fonts that work under all sizes [22:04] i am half-pro, because we really dont have anything like it currently. otoh, i would never ever use it myself [22:04] <alexanderW> It's similar to oleo script [22:05] <alexanderW> And if it only supports Latin it a no-go anyways [22:05] <alexanderW> or not? [22:05] Roboto, Ubuntu, Open Sans -- they're all incredible for titles, but equally good for long paragraphs [22:06] alex: youre right [22:07] yes [22:07] mirek: none of them are script fonts, in fact theyre all sans-serif [22:08] yes, I simply mean that they can work well in any situation, so I don't think there's a need for niche fonts [22:09] okay. [22:09] "source sans" [22:09] I'm all for it [22:09] me too [22:10] <alexanderW> Same here [22:10] <alexanderW> Astron, what's your take regarding niche fonts? [22:11] i think, theres a place for them. however, some niches are too small to be filled by the default font selection. however, a script font is a niche that i would think would eg be larg enough [22:11] +e [22:12] ok, PT Sans? [22:13] i like it rather much [22:13] <alexanderW> looks a bit like Ubuntu [22:14] <alexanderW> I'm neutral [22:14] really? i dont think so at all [22:14] wait. im retracting that statement. it does look a bit like ubuntu [22:15] <alexanderW> I mean that e.g that the top left of a capital P is a bit rounded [22:15] its not quite as rounded as ff dax or so though [22:15] On first look, I like the font, but I have to say I've never actually used it. [22:16] I would be for it, though. [22:16] <alexanderW> I covers a lot of scripts [22:17] well, two, anyway. [22:17] so yes? [22:18] <alexanderW> I guess [22:19] also, if we could additionally include pt serif, we would have a well-fitting together sans/serif (and maybe mono) family [22:19] yes from me too. [22:19] okay. the PT Sans [22:19] ^the^then [22:20] btw, Astron, how does the OFL version differ somehow from the Paratype version? [22:20] only in license? [22:22] i think the ofl version is slightly updated/deliberately different, but cant say exactly [22:22] ok [22:22] btw, Google Web Fonts lists it under the SIL license [22:22] odd [22:23] if we wanted to integrate this font with the web repository, I hope there would be no problem in using the SIL version, right? [22:24] well, using the OFL version would be preferable to using the custom-licensed versions [22:25] i just couldnt find the ofl versions of pt serif and mono [22:26] I haven't researched font licenses much -- is there something about the SIL or Paratype license that would be undesirable for us? [22:26] or is OFL preferrable just for consistency sake? [22:28] see my note at the bottom of the page about the paratype license [22:28] apparently its not a problem (christian? said that) [22:28] (on the list) [22:30] :) I just realized that what I've been calling SIL is actually OFL, sorry [22:30] https://www.google.com/webfonts has both PT Sans and PT Serif listed as OFL-license [22:30] +d [22:30] you said so [22:31] so... everyone for PT Serif? [22:31] i trust google they know why they write that ;) [22:31] :) [22:32] okay... id like to end it here. ill vote against roboto and for charis... sorry bye. [22:32] == astron247 [~frootzowr@dslb-188-106-203-066.pools.arcor-ip.net] has left #libreoffice-design [] [22:32] let's finish next time? I'd really like Roboto to be included [22:33] I really wonder why Astron's against it [22:33] <alexanderW> dunno [22:34] should we end the chat? [22:35] <alexanderW> should we vote on both remaining fonts? [22:36] I would keep that for the next chat [22:36] I won't let go of Roboto without a good reason :) [22:36] to not include it [22:36] <alexanderW> alright [22:37] <alexanderW> I'm not sure about Roboto, but Charis looks pretty good [22:37] <alexanderW> Could you upload the log? [22:37] ok [22:37] take care [22:38] <alexanderW> sure. Bye