Design/Meetings/2012-08-18

Attendees

 * alexanderW
 * Astron
 * Mirek2

Topics

 * ESC call
 * Gallery
 * Template repository
 * Download page
 * Insert menu
 * Rename "File" to "Text file"
 * OLE objects
 * Dysfunctional items
 * Gallery
 * Fonts
 * Options

Log
[18:00] hi everyone [18:00]  hi [18:00] ah ... good. youre here too. hi [18:01] I guess we can get started right away [18:01]  Yes [18:01] right. [18:01]  Options? [18:01] could you update us on the ESC call? [18:01]  Fonts [18:01] astron? [18:01] yes. [18:02] okay. uhm, since we didnt do any chat last week, heres a summary of the one from last week: [18:03] * 3.6 didnt turn out as well as it should have, mostly due to issues with updated user profile directories – spell check wouldnt work for many people etc. [18:03] there are some policy changes, like not encouraging people to purge their profiles all the time in bugzilla [18:04] okay, then i discussed very shortly the possibility of a design repo – but i will need to further this on the list so we can get it [18:04]  okay [18:04] alright [18:05] hang on there as i recollect... [18:06] right, bjoern had pitched an update for the gallery contents and there was some discussion about that on the ml – it would be great if we could find someone to lead such an effort... [18:07] do we really want to keep the gallery, though? [18:07] right, jakub wrote back that hed rather use CC (again) [18:07]  Probably no opencliparts integration for version 4, right? [18:07] mirek: for now, yes. [18:07] alex: no. [18:07] for now, sure [18:07]  I think we should remove the toolbar icon for the gallery [18:08] yes, I think so too [18:08] alex: but we could have someone look through open clipart to find maybe two mb of clipart or so to bundle..? [18:08] we probably wouldn't bundle [18:08]  yes, that could be a good short-term solution [18:09] what do you mean "we wouldnt bundle"? [18:09] (@mirek) [18:09] sorry, I misread what you wrote [18:09] carry on :) [18:10] okay. so lets discuss the specifics of the clipart stuff after i finished recapping... [18:10]  IMHO we should remove gallery, bibliograohy tool and that sources icon from the toolbar. [18:10]  alrigh [18:11] okay, björn has set up a new template repository. i hope hes coordinated with you, alex a bit. but essentially he needs something he can make a release on, so he can slip it into ubuntu [18:11]  Would that be packeged for ubuntu, seperate from libo? [18:11]  *packaged [18:12] yes. but it would be in the ubuntu install cd, i believe [18:12] but it is that way today too, even though the templates dont come from a different repo [18:12]  I'll ask him about the types of templates he'd need [18:13] hes packaged yours for now already. [18:13]  yes [18:14] anyway...thanks to kendy, windows toolbar will be almost fixed for 3.6.1 (there are no dividing lines between content and toolbar for _vertically-docked_ toolbars ... sad, but maybe there will be a better fix 3.6.2) [18:15] also, bjoern has created design easy hacks, available from the easy hack wiki page. would be good if you could look at them (hevant done that yet either) [18:16] okay, and then there was the idea by mmeeks (?) to bundle adobe's source sans font – which is good and all, but i opposed that because it doesnt have cyrillic/greek support, hence the idea of the font wishlist [18:17] so, then... on to last week... [18:17] there was an idea to somehow suggest 3.5.6 alongside 3.6.0 on the download page... but subtler than before [18:18] right, and i gave a little update on the fonts wishlist. [18:19]  Open Sans looks really great [18:19] it does. and its actually optimised for windows too... contrary to what i feared. [18:20] sorry... i thought you were speaking about source sans [18:20] I really like Open Sans as well [18:20] but yes, open sans is pretty cool [18:20] and it has good language support. [18:21] but well, source sans is also quite nice. [18:21]  would the website team handle the download page? [18:21] well, i guess. i pondered the idea of making an html mockup, but i dont actually ever wanted to work on the website... [18:22] how much do they want to change it? [18:22] anyway, i didnt yet. [18:23] well, the idea is just that 3.6.0 was unable to do spell checking for many, so they wanted to pitch the very stable 3.5.6 a bit more on the main download page. [18:23] <alexanderW> II could imagine having a pastel green box at the top stating: We also offer a more stable version that has been tested for 1/2 a year [18:24] but there are other things that need changing: i. e. you should just be able to click that huge green area and be downloading instead of having to aim at the text inside it [18:24] <alexanderW> not that green used for the download buttons, but brighter [18:25] <alexanderW> haven done anything in html for quite some time, but can't one set a picture as href? [18:25] <alexanderW> *haven't [18:25] alex: i think it is fine that 3.6.0 is presented as the best choice on the download page – we just need more stable .0 releases. so, i would put that box _below_ the green button [18:26] <alexanderW> Probably [18:26] also, we somehow need to get more people to test prereleases, so that would be another goal (to reach more stable releases). [18:26] ok [18:27] <alexanderW> hm, the prereleases are announced on fb, twitter and g+ I think [18:27] <alexanderW> and many blogs [18:27] sure. but the main website is still the most visited place [18:28] <alexanderW> I see [18:28] anyway. if either of you want to take that – would be fine. [18:28] <alexanderW> So should we make a sketch of how we would imagine this to look like? [18:28] good idea. christoph did something like that some time ago. [18:29] (you can steal some ideas, but probably shouldnt use his entire design) [18:29] is it a plan to only change the Download screen, or can other parts of the website be affected? [18:30] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards/Download_Page [18:30] mirek, i would keep it as simple as possible for now. [18:30] ok [18:32] (im coming from the perspective of not wanting to spend too much time with the website – thus the suggestion) [18:32] astron247: is there anything wrong/inapplicable with christoph's design? [18:33] since you're saying that we shouldn't use his entire design [18:33] not per se. but i think we should generally give people the latest stable, i think [18:33] -i think [18:33] and the wording could need some help [18:34] yes [18:34] and I think the navigation is better in the current version [18:34] you mean the three-tiered menu? [18:35] I prefer the current menu over the 3-tiered menu [18:35] i agree [18:37] okay, anything else from the esc call? [18:37] <alexanderW> WHo will work on this? [18:37] haha. yes. hows your html/css/js? [18:37] mirek: i wrote "thats it" some time ago :) [18:37] <alexanderW> a bit html [18:37] oh, sorry, didn't notice [18:38] mirek: at least i hope i wrote that. [18:38] I probably won't work on the website [18:38] at least not in the near future [18:38] okay, so since i have to do with html/css all the time at work now... i might try, no guarantees. [18:39] what are you working on, btw? [18:39] you said you were doing some documentation for SuSE, right? [18:40] http://sourceforge.net/p/daps/svn/1775/tree/trunk/daps/contrib/layout/ [18:41] the wip folder contains my work-in-progress for the css/html that would be used... [18:41] ok, seems interesting [18:41] and im using open sans :) [18:41] <alexanderW> :) [18:42] and flat icons ... [18:42] :) exactly what I would've done [18:42] (but its fine, there are only few icons and the flat ones just fit in better with suse website [18:42] ) [18:43] ok [18:44] oh. and then: mirek, did you hear the thing about canonicals typography workshop at all? [18:45] I heard it was cancelled, but it will be part of uds [18:45] is there more? [18:46] well, i didnt want you to be completely uninformed about that, in case youre interested [18:46] sure [18:47] alex wrote something about it on the last meeting, though [18:47] oh... last week was a chat? [18:47] <alexanderW> yes [18:47] yes [18:47] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Meetings/2012-08-11 [18:47] <alexanderW> we simply workled on the options [18:47] <alexanderW> *worked [18:47] sorry about the selfcentredness here... [18:48] <alexanderW> It's okay [18:48] there's nothing to apologize for [18:48] anyway, im pretty interested in the workshop and will apply for sponsorship some time soon. [18:49] alright [18:49] <alexanderW> Unfortunately I have no idea whether I'll have time [18:49] when is the next UDS? [18:49] <alexanderW> 30. oct [18:49] <alexanderW> around that time [18:50] and where? [18:50] copenhagen [18:50] <alexanderW> copenhagen [18:50] frist!! [18:50] <alexanderW> *first [18:50] :) [18:50] <alexanderW> :) [18:50] that was deliberate [18:50] <alexanderW> of course... [18:51] no, really, i actually had to retype it. [18:51] <alexanderW> Sure, why not [18:52] <alexanderW> I send a mail to the list dealing with cleaning up the menus [18:52] I saw it [18:52] <alexanderW> Did you read it already? [18:52] just now? [18:52] yes [18:52] <alexanderW> two hours ago [18:53] it's funny that you recommend turning on icons in the menu bar, which is an option we've ruled against [18:53] <alexanderW> oops [18:53] right. didnt someone else have a similar idea a few months ago? [18:53] yes [18:53] <alexanderW> I think that was a complete overhault [18:53] though I prefer Alex's idea [18:53] <alexanderW> *overhaul [18:54] <alexanderW> Having icons is actually inconsistent, but a lot better imho [18:54] alex: overhauling the menu sorting is really easy. its just some xml file [18:54] <alexanderW> I assumed that [18:54] I suppose it's a good idea in the short run, but in the long run, I would like to see toolbars become more powerful, making it unnecessary to use the menubar [18:55] <alexanderW> I didn't remove or add anything, just reordered it [18:55] but I realize that's a long way to go [18:55] I like the idea [18:55] <alexanderW> that would be a rather quick solution [18:55] yes [18:55] I would prefer a more accessible Insert toolbar, though [18:56] in the long run, at least [18:56] about icons in menus [18:56] it's complicated [18:57] okay, so there are three things from my side: [18:57] #1 inserting a picture is really the no 1 thing i do with insert [18:57] #2 comments are also very important to me, but i usually do that by keyboard [18:57] #3 "fields" must be very important to lots of people... [18:58] sorry for not following the discussion... but, for practical reasons (number of icons) we shouldnt put icons in our menus [18:58] on menu icons: they make sense when you don't have key functionality in the toolbar and have it in the menu; on the other hand, they go against most OS principles [18:58] that, too [18:58] astron247: I don't think we need an icon for every menu item [18:58] <alexanderW> ok, so that's mostly a personal preference [18:59] <alexanderW> #1 We could move the inser picture entry to the top [19:00] <alexanderW> #2 ? no idea [19:00] <alexanderW> #3 Put it into the top group? [19:01] hm not sure about #3 either. [19:01] me neither [19:02] also, "frame" logically belongs into section one, i think... even though few people ever use [19:02] it [19:02] in that case, so does "file", doesn't it? [19:03] no..? [19:03] why not? if insert>picture belongs up there? [19:03] ah, right ... picture belongs to the bottom, logically [19:04] (i would say) [19:04] well, we're getting to the exact same menu we have now [19:04] yes. [19:04] btw, https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/8/80/Cleaning_up_Writer_Insert.png seems to be missing some items [19:04] == alexanderW [~alexander@dslb-088-078-121-142.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] [19:05] like scanning functionality or audio/video [19:05] == alexanderW [~alexander@dslb-088-078-121-142.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design [19:05] right, it lacks the picture submenu and a/v [19:05] <alexanderW> sorry, the connection dropped [19:05] thats fine [19:05] alex, where would you put audio and video? [19:05] I don't think you missed anything [19:06] (in the insert menu) [19:06] <alexanderW> ah, I did remove somthing [19:06] <alexanderW> this entry [19:06] accidentally or deliberately? [19:06] +scanning +the object dropdown menu [19:06] <alexanderW> Deliberately [19:06] okay... [19:07] <alexanderW> the scanning/picture menu entry should actually stay the same [19:07] <alexanderW> the menu items from 'object' were moved into the main menu [19:08] where is OLE object? [19:08] did you rename it to "Document"? [19:08] <alexanderW> I renamed it Document, can you insert anything else with it? [19:08] <alexanderW> yes [19:09] ugh... i just opened the horizontal rule item and was welcomed to the nineties [19:09] well, I wouldn't really say drawings are documents [19:09] <alexanderW> indeed [19:09] right [19:09] I would like to get rid of that dialog [19:10] make it into an extension, perhaps, Mozilla-style? [19:10] well, just like the clip art dialogue, it could profit fro msome professionalism. [19:10] <alexanderW> But should we present users with the term OLE object? [19:11] is it useful, though? can't people simply use shapes for the functionality? [19:11] frankly, I find the "Insert File" name confusing [19:11] right, those are just shapes [19:12] it sounds like it could insert any type of file, stand as a way to insert any media, including pictures [19:12] <alexanderW> agree [19:12] but all it does is insert a text file [19:13] while we're at it, I think it'd be great to have one "Insert File" or "Insert Media" button instead of Insert Picture, Insert Movie/Sound, and Insert File [19:14] anyway, I would propose renaming "Insert>File" to "Insert>Text File" [19:14] or at least something along those lines [19:14] trying to insert a zip file through insert file... libo offers me to repair it... and i can only forcefully close it now without damaging the zip file... [19:14] <alexanderW> sounds good [19:14] <alexanderW> I inserted an mp3 [19:15] <alexanderW> took a while [19:15] i can imagine [19:15] <alexanderW> but then the open file dialog should only allow text files [19:15] anyway, ive successfully inserted a makefile [19:16] <alexanderW> great, a makefile should have nice formatting, too [19:16] would it be ok to rename it to "text file", then? [19:17] absolutely [19:17] <alexanderW> I think so [19:17] <alexanderW> What about the picture entry [19:17] <alexanderW> keep the split into from file/scan [19:17] or text document maybe? [19:17] <alexanderW> ? [19:17] sorry stil on the previous topic [19:18] I would keep the split for now [19:18] i mean "name it 'text document...'" [19:18] I would name it text file [19:18] text document might sound a bit more like what OLE object can do [19:18] <alexanderW> Well, if you can insert txt files I'd stay with file [19:19] on that note, I think we should keep calling OLE object OLE objects [19:19] <alexanderW> what does that stand for? [19:20] <alexanderW> Object Linking and Embedding [19:20] yes [19:20] I believe "Document" would confuse current users of OLE objects [19:20] especially since it doesn't just handle LibreOffice text documents [19:21] and, frankly, I don't think it's functionality that newbies really need to be aware of [19:22] it's not something that would help you create a good printable document [19:23] and the UI is pretty strange [19:23] <alexanderW> it was in a submenu before [19:23] haha... i tried to browse for a plugin to insert and libreoffice crashed [19:23] <alexanderW> same here [19:23] <alexanderW> better hide that 'feature' [19:23] <alexanderW> Should we hide the JS functionality, too? [19:25] does it malfunction as well? [19:25] <alexanderW> I don't think so [19:25] I wouldn't hide any features that work [19:25] mirek: do you use 3.6.0 proper right now? [19:26] no [19:26] I should, I know [19:26] and I'll get to it, I hope [19:26] :) i am also still using 3.5 here... [19:26] :) [19:26] <alexanderW> 3.61 :) [19:26] (and a self-built version of master) [19:26] <alexanderW> *. [19:26] I've had a chance to look at 3.6 on Windows 8 beta [19:27] the text on the splash screen is misaligned [19:27] and hard to read [19:27] hm, im asking because 3.5 only complains about the plugin manager being missing. [19:27] mirek: yes, thats bug... [19:28] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52268 [19:28] yes [19:28] <alexanderW> hm, a hello world alert doesn't work [19:28] <alexanderW> just a green rectangle [19:28] alex: you need java for javascript to work – libo uses mozillas ancient rhino js engine that was written in java [19:29] <alexanderW> awesome [19:29] <alexanderW> I think I have java installed and selected in libo [19:29] <alexanderW> strange [19:30] <alexanderW> so, should we keep this in the menu? [19:30] if it's dysfunctional for the majority of users, then no [19:30] otherwise, yes [19:30] <alexanderW> dunno about the majority of users [19:30] most users probably have java installed. [19:30] (except on ubuntu) [19:30] :) [19:31] it'd be nice if LibreOffice could tell people that they need java installed [19:31] <alexanderW> it does [19:31] really? [19:31] I don't mean on startup, but when one is trying to use a java-dependent feature [19:32] <alexanderW> when you start it without java installed it tells you that somefunctionality will be missing [19:32] <alexanderW> ah [19:32] <alexanderW> no, not in such a detailed way [19:33] in any case, I suppose we should leave it in for now [19:33] right [19:33] <alexanderW> okay [19:34] <alexanderW> Keeping the old insert picture menu? [19:34] yes [19:34] <alexanderW> Or renming it to media and merging? [19:34] <alexanderW> *renaming [19:34] I would love for that to happen, but it would need design and developers [19:34] we could start a design process, if you'd like [19:35] <alexanderW> what exactly would need to be designed? [19:35] this dialog could also carry Gallery functionality [19:36] that way, we'd have all the "Insert media" features in one place [19:36] <alexanderW> maybe insert media [19:36] <alexanderW> > From File [19:36] <alexanderW> > From gallery [19:36] <alexanderW> > scan picture [19:36] that seems to complex [19:36] +o [19:37] I would prefer a dialog that would provide all of these options [19:37] but for now that would be a good place for the gallery, i think [19:37] mirek: nice thinking [19:37] <alexanderW> and remove the gallery from 'ttols'? [19:37] yes. [19:37] <alexanderW> qmirek: in the long run maybe [19:37] yes [19:37] but merging "Insert picture" and "Insert video/audio" is a good first step [19:38] do you think it would be easy to implement? [19:38] although the gallery comes up docked, so it might also makes sense to add it to View [19:39] I'd leave the menu structure for now and focus on toolbars [19:39] given that there are so many inconsistencies and categorical overlaps in the menu structure [19:40] and given that some people use Alt shortcuts to access menus [19:40] and given that a lot of people are just accustomed to the current categorization [19:41] <alexanderW> should we remove gallery, bibliography and the sources icon? [19:42] <alexanderW> from the toolbar shown by default? [19:42] I wouldn't do that right now [19:43] <alexanderW> only gallery? [19:43] I would prefer to do a more intensive toolbar rehash [19:43] later [19:43] <alexanderW> yeah, probably [19:43] that depends on what we want to do with the gallery [19:44] if we update the graphics, remove the unnecessary stuff, and add clip art to it, then I suppose we could keep it there [19:44] we might also want to adopt OpenOffice.org's future gallery for some time [19:45] I mean Symphony's old gallery that's planned for OOo [19:45] sorry, AOO, not OOo [19:46] isnt that the same gallery but with different icons? [19:46] but, as I said, I would prefer to let go of the gallery in favor of a feature-full "Insert media" dialog [19:46] astron247: no, it has a completely different layout [19:46] it's a sidebar instead of a horizontal bar [19:46] okay. [19:46] fyi, ive opened https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53682 [19:48] great [19:48] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53681 [19:48] could you also open one for renaming "Insert File" [19:48] <alexanderW> is it realistic that we can integrate AOO's gallery in 4? [19:49] idk [19:49] <alexanderW> Is that neccesary? [19:49] <alexanderW> We can discuss that with UX I think [19:50] huh? who is ux, except us right now? [19:50] (and the developers on ux) [19:50] ux-advise [19:50] <alexanderW> then I meant the devs on UX [19:50] <alexanderW> There's no seperate team? [19:50] no [19:51] <alexanderW> ok+ [19:51] as I said, though, I'd prefer to integrate the gallery into "Insert media", so perhaps taking Symphony's gallery isn't worth the effort? [19:51] what do you think about the idea? [19:52] <alexanderW> I'd prefer to have it seperate [19:52] good idea. but "insert media" will be easy, but integrating a gallery is hard [19:52] also, insert media is only a file picker [19:52] <alexanderW> otherwise the file manager would need to be integrated into the gallery [19:54] btw, here's what google docs does: http://img.labnol.org/di/stock_photos.jpg [19:54] but, yes, the file manager should be integrated into the dialog, imo [19:54] and, yes, it would be hard to do [19:55] but I would really prefer an integrated "Insert media" experience instead of a gallery sidebar and insert media dialog [19:55] sure. [19:57] so I'm wondering whether it might not be a good idea to start designing that instead of making a lot of effort with Symphony's gallery and ending up with a subpar experience [19:59] so... are we staying with the current gallery or adopting Symphony's? [19:59] in your opinion? [19:59] okay, so michael would have liked to port symphonys sidebars completely to libo for 3.6 already... but i think they probably wouldnt have fit the product [20:00] therefore, it would make sense to design our own gallery, but not right now [20:00] there are too many projects that just end up by the wayside already. [20:00] yes [20:00] alright [20:02] okay. are we through with the insert menu for now? [20:02] yes [20:02] okay, can we quickly discuss fonts, then? [20:02] sure [20:03] how many do you think we should be adding at a maximum? [20:03] and what should we look for in the fonts? [20:03] I wouldn't put a limit on the number of fonts [20:03] I would analyze each font and pick the ones that suits us the most [20:04] we need to have some idea, because we dont want to end up with libreoffice being too huge. [20:04] <alexanderW> I would remove fonts that are currently included that we wouldn't have added with today's standards [20:04] yes [20:04] right. thats another question. [20:04] <alexanderW> DejaVu [20:04] oh really? [20:04] astron247: I don't think we need to worry about minimum size that much, only since there aren't that many fonts to choose from [20:05] <alexanderW> Didn't you critizise it's hinting? [20:05] ah, yes, on windows its not so nice. but it is quite the polyglot, and kind of a standard on open source platforms [20:06] for analysis: language support, hinting, suitability for both headings and small text, ... [20:06] (and admittedly, i dont like its letter shapes too much either) [20:06] me neither [20:06] but perhaps it's important for compatibility reasons? [20:07] yes. its really important there. and as i said, it covers lots of languages [20:07] <alexanderW> ok, so maybe only add fonts at the beginning [20:07] <alexanderW> worry about removing others later [20:07] yes [20:07] <alexanderW> ? [20:08] caolan mentioned some font we ship that did ascii only .. but i cant remember the fonts name [20:09] what was the initial reason for shipping it? [20:09] no idea. [20:09] <alexanderW> StarDivision? [20:10] <alexanderW> being the reaso [20:10] that would make sense, I guess [20:10] no, the stardivision fonts were all licensed from agfa and are proprietary [20:10] (except for open symbol which we need as a wingdings replacement) [20:11] ok [20:11] == br0cc0li [~br0cc0li@36-199.62-81.cust.bluewin.ch] has joined #libreoffice-design [20:11] == br0cc0li [~br0cc0li@36-199.62-81.cust.bluewin.ch] has left #libreoffice-design ["Konversation terminated!"] [20:12] <alexanderW> So that was broccoli [20:12] :) [20:12] never liked it. [20:12] anyway, should we determine the characteristics fonts should have? [20:12] nah... never mind [20:12] yes. a [20:12] <alexanderW> We wouldn't want fonts like this one: http://www.fontspace.com/peter-wiegel/centreclaws ? [20:13] probably not... sorry. [20:13] no, I wouldn't bundle display fonts [20:13] <alexanderW> droid sans seemed nice, but it doesn't have italics [20:13] yes, that really surprised me [20:13] okay, youve seen the table thats on the wiki page already? [20:13] <alexanderW> yes [20:13] yes, but now I can't get to it [20:13] server error [20:13] it was for space reasons on the g1 [20:14] <alexanderW> going offline for a sec. brb [20:14] (the g1 had somewhat tight internal memory, thus they made italics on the fly) [20:15] I'm a bit disappointed, though -- I really like Droid Sans [20:15] i.e. the devices did that, actually not italics just artificial oblique [20:15] also, someone mentioned that it makes a good Calibri replacement [20:15] yes, I understand [20:16] on that note -- do you think we might want to pay to have a Calibri replacement developed? [20:16] perhaps start a Kickstarter campaign? [20:16] if you want to spend lots of money, sure. [20:17] :) would it really cost that much? [20:17] well, ask canonical how much they paid dalton maag... [20:17] I'm not sure how good of a replacement Droid Sans is, but perhaps it could take just some minor adjustments to have the same metrics as Calibri [20:18] hm, yeah, someone could try that. [20:18] in any case, i actually like open sans better – and it is quite similar to droid sans [20:18] me too [20:18] okay... i will go offline in a few minutes sorry. [20:18] ok [20:18] will you be back? [20:19] no [20:19] alright [20:19] anything else before you go? [20:19] == alexanderW [~alexander@dslb-088-078-121-142.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] [20:19] == alexander [~alexander@dslb-088-078-121-142.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design [20:19] hi alex [20:19] and back [20:19] hi [20:19] == alexander has changed nick to Guest29459 [20:19] <Guest29459> oh well [20:20] anyway, criteria: [20:20] * license [20:20] * usefulness on windows [20:20] * italics [20:20] * professional font [20:20] * good text font [20:20] <Guest29459> latin extended is minimum? [20:20] <Guest29459> or also cyrillic and greek [20:21] I would leave latin extended as minimum, but cyrillic and greek as preferred; "italics" should read "bold+italics" [20:21] astron, thoughts? [20:24] alex, you missed it, but astron said he'll be offline in a few minutes a few minutes ago [20:24] so perhaps he's gone now [20:24] <Guest29459> ok [20:24] <Guest29459> yes, bold and italics [20:25] <Guest29459> can LibreOffice make fake italics + bold chars? [20:25] yes. latin extended as minimum [20:25] and yes, it can but it doesnt look good :) [20:25] :) [20:26] also, can you try develop a plan for when we should present the result to the devs later on? [20:26] (ill leave now) [20:26] bye [20:26] == astron247 [~frootzowr@dslb-088-072-174-133.pools.arcor-ip.net] has left #libreoffice-design [] [20:26] bye [20:26] <Guest29459> what result? [20:26] the picked fonts, I suppose [20:27] <Guest29459> okay [20:27] btw, I posted the first part of the irc log, if you feel like you need to catch up [20:27] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Meetings/2012-08-18 [20:27] <Guest29459> thx [20:28] <Guest29459> caught up [20:28] I'm not really sure what Astron means here, though -- I'd present the fonts when we feel like we have picked out the most fitting fonts [20:29] <Guest29459> Maybe we should take a look at the most used fonts on google online fonts [20:29] perhaps we should establish a due date for submitting fonts -- next irc chat, maybe? [20:30] <Guest29459> sounds good [20:30] ok [20:30] <Guest29459> announce it somewhere? [20:30] <Guest29459> and emphasize what the requirements are [20:31] the mailing list is good enough [20:32] next irc chat we should analyze the fonts, then, pick out the best ones, and be done with it [20:32] present it to the developers through both ux-advise and on the ESC call [20:33] does that sound good? [20:33] <Guest29459> it does [20:33] ok [20:33] there's a topic I wanted to discuss: the wiki [20:34] <Guest29459> what in particular? [20:34] right now, we have a lot of outdated pages [20:34] that are of little use to designers [20:34] and might be misleading rather than helpful [20:34] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/User_Experience/Tools [20:34] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Team [20:34] parts of https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Visual_Elements [20:35] <Guest29459> Update them? [20:36] I'm not sure whether it's worth it [20:36] <Guest29459> Wrt the team page [20:36] it's more stuff for a would-be designer to read [20:37] it's best to stay as streamlined as possible [20:37] <Guest29459> Should be low priority I guess [20:37] what do you think about removing them? [20:37] at least from the main menu? [20:38] I feel like if a designer looks at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/User_Experience/Tools, he might be overwhelmed and less willing to help out [20:38] and, let's face it, we don't really use the tools described there except Inkscape and Gimp, which are already described on the homepage [20:38] <Guest29459> the links shouldn't be removed completely [20:38] mentioned, not described [20:40] what would you suggest, then? [20:41] alex? [20:41] <Guest29459> we would need to use them, though [20:41] <Guest29459> have a page with links to mostly superfluous wiki pages [20:41] <Guest29459> yes [20:41] <Guest29459> ? [20:42] isn't https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Category:Design enough for that? [20:44] <Guest29459> didn't think of that [20:45] <Guest29459> so keep them, but remove links [20:45] <Guest29459> ? [20:45] ok [20:46] also, on https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Team, could I move you and astron to the top? [20:46] since you're the most involved right now [20:46] <Guest29459> I guess [20:46] ok [20:47] <Guest29459> Is christoph now an alumni? [20:47] <Guest29459> and the others? [20:47] I'll remove the links to Tools and Team now [20:47] I don't know, honestly [20:47] I think some people still follow the discussions, but rarely take part in them [20:47] Björn wanted to do some icon testing fairly recently [20:48] not sure what the status is on that [20:48] he mentions that Astron is involved on the team design page [20:48] <Guest29459> i see [20:49] <Guest29459> Anything else we'd need to discuss? [20:49] if you'd like to, we could look at options again [20:50] <Guest29459> yeah, a bit [20:50] I'm thinking whether there's anything else... [20:50] any updates on the icons for the template dialog? [20:51] <Guest29459> did't astron mail them to rafael? [20:51] really? are they done already? [20:52] <Guest29459> no idea [20:52] <Guest29459> I assumed it [20:52] ok [20:52] not sure [20:53] alright -- options [20:53] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Analyses/Global_Options [20:53] I'm not sure why "Ask Astron" is under UI colors [20:53] I don't think we've gotten there last time [20:54] also, should I edit or will you? [20:54] <Guest29459> probably you [20:54] alright [20:56] == mirek2_ [4e66c280@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.102.194.128] has joined #libreoffice-design [20:56] <mirek2_> I'm looking through the last chat for UI colors [20:59] <mirek2_> I'm so confused: I can't find macro editing or UI colors in the last chat log [20:59] == mirek2 [4e66c280@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.102.194.128] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] [21:00] <Guest29459> should we leave that point for now? [21:00] <mirek2_> oh, ok [21:00] <mirek2_> from the log, security seems to be the one to ask astron about [21:00] <mirek2_> and UI colors went undiscussed [21:01] <mirek2_> right? [21:01] <Guest29459> possibly [21:01] <mirek2_> at least that's how it seems to me [21:02] <mirek2_> perhaps it was just a misunderstanding? could you check https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Meetings/2012-08-11 [21:02] <mirek2_> would you agree with labeling Security as "Ask Astron"? [21:04] <Guest29459> yes [21:04] <Guest29459> appearance? [21:05] <mirek2_> I would say it's advanced [21:05] <Guest29459> yes [21:05] <mirek2_> ok [21:05] <Guest29459> accessibility [21:06] <Guest29459> keep it, but move 'detect high contrast' to advaced [21:06] <mirek2_> let's go one-by-one first [21:06] <mirek2_> assistive technology tools [21:06] <mirek2_> I'm surprised that's an option -- I would think they should be supported from the beginning [21:07] <Guest29459> can't find that [21:07] <Guest29459> miscellaneous options? [21:08] <mirek2_> oh, you're checking with LibreOffice again [21:08] <Guest29459> yes [21:08] <mirek2_> perhaps you should edit the wiki, since I really have no clue what's new in 3.6.1 [21:09] <mirek2_> what the options look like [21:09] <Guest29459> o [21:09] <Guest29459> ok [21:12] <Guest29459> that's it [21:13] <mirek2_> is "Use text selection cursor in read-only text document" there? [21:13] <Guest29459> yes [21:14] <mirek2_> is "Support assistive technology tools (program restart required)" the only option missing? [21:14] <Guest29459> yes [21:14] <mirek2_> ok :) [21:14] <mirek2_> hm... I'm wondering what a good default would be in this case [21:15] <mirek2_> what do you think? [21:15] <Guest29459> I don't know what this actually means [21:16] <Guest29459> regarding the text sxelction [21:16] <Guest29459> *selection [21:16] <mirek2_> well, I think the blinking text cursor is usually not shown in read-only documents [21:17] <Guest29459> advanced? [21:17] <mirek2_> but it's useful to know where the cursor is in case you select text with a keyboard [21:17] <Guest29459> or is it in order not to lose focus? [21:17] <Guest29459> okay, so keeping it? [21:17] <mirek2_> I'm not sure [21:18] <mirek2_> I would like to open a read-only document before deciding [21:18] <mirek2_> in any case, I would skip it for now [21:18] <Guest29459> yes [21:19] <Guest29459> automatically detect high contrast mode [21:19] <Guest29459> should be default and advanced? [21:19] <mirek2_> yes [21:19] <mirek2_> Allow animated graphics [21:20] <Guest29459> keep? [21:20] <mirek2_> I suppose [21:21] <mirek2_> ok, mark it as generic [21:21] <Guest29459> same for animated text and help tips? [21:21] <mirek2_> help tips I would make unnecessary [21:22] <mirek2_> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Whiteboards/KillOptions#Accessibility [21:23] <Guest29459> okay [21:23] <mirek2_> with animated text, I think the preferable default behavior would be to disable it by default and show an option to enable it when a document with animated text is opened [21:23] <mirek2_> but that would, of course, need some development effort [21:24] <Guest29459> I think that effort isn't neccessary [21:24] <mirek2_> honestly, it bothers me to have this option under generic options [21:24] <mirek2_> I'm frustrated that ODF supports animated text in the first place [21:24] <Guest29459> so going for advanced? [21:24] <mirek2_> no, it needs to be generic [21:24] <Guest29459> animated text is the future [21:25] <Guest29459> [21:25] <mirek2_> :) [21:25] <Guest29459> :) [21:26] <mirek2_> "Use automatic font color for screen display" [21:26] <Guest29459> default and advanced? [21:26] <mirek2_> yes [21:27] <mirek2_> Use system colors for page previews [21:27] <Guest29459> "Use system colors for page previews" [21:27] <Guest29459> keep, since "To remove this, LibreOffice would need more precise detection methods for high-contrast mode." [21:27] <mirek2_> yes, ok [21:27] <mirek2_> so generic, then [21:28] <mirek2_> Use a Java runtime environment [21:28] <mirek2_> generic [21:28] <mirek2_> for now [21:28] <Guest29459> or advanced? [21:29] <mirek2_> ok, advanced then [21:29] <Guest29459> someone merged it with another options pane [21:29] <mirek2_> it's enabled by default if you have Java installed, right? [21:29] <Guest29459> I think so [21:29] <mirek2_> oh, right, forgot about that [21:29] <mirek2_> ok, I'd make all of Java advanced, then [21:30] <mirek2_> Online update [21:30] <mirek2_> I'd mark it as "Contextual", seeing as someone planned to integrate it into the "About" dialog [21:31] <Guest29459> okay [21:31] <mirek2_> on the other hand, I think it fits better under generic [21:31] <mirek2_> we should probably see if the person who wanted to work on it still plans to work on it [21:32] <Guest29459> yes [21:32] <mirek2_> ok [21:32] <Guest29459> I have to go now [21:32] <mirek2_> alright [21:32] <mirek2_> nice chatting with you [21:32] <mirek2_> and enjoy your weekend [21:32] <Guest29459> You too