Re: [libreoffice-design] Feedback needed: rendering of grid in LibreOffice applications.

Hello everyone,

in this message:

1. A meta-note and a semi-apology.
2. The drawing grid - aspects of how we might indicate it
3. Partial history of how we've dealt with this
4. Bottom line / tldr



1. A meta-note and a semi-apology.
---------------------------------------------------

I'll start with a word to Tamas. I am sorry for putting you in a 
situation where you've started working on a change, thinking it was all 
good and accepted, then someone suddenly tries to "put the breaks", 
claiming otherwise.

However - it's better that objections and reservations come up at this 
stage, rather than at an even later stage, like a release. Of course 
it's best if they come up even earlier, when the idea is first discussed 
and before coding work has been invested... but that can't always be 
guaranteed. On a personal level - if I had been aware of this issue 
earlier, I would have said something.

Anyway, the upside of these situations is that we get more eyes and 
minds on an aspect of our UI (and UX) and this often leads to a better 
eventual result, even if the road taken is longer.


2. The drawing grid - aspects of how we might indicate it
---------------------------------------------------

Now, to the question at hand: The grid, in Draw and Impress. I would 
list the following important questions or dilemmata about it:

Q1: How visible/prominent should the grid be?
Q2: What graphical will make up the grid indications? Dots, Plus-signs, 
diamonds, lines (dashed or otherwise)?
Q3: Should the grid indicators at grid line intersections be the same as 
along grid lines?
Q4: Should the grid become more prominent as we zoom in - and how?


Before getting into these questions, it should be said that even though 
bug 120897's title is about Q2, its (factually incorrect) opening 
comment indicates it is also about Q3 and Q4. And such changes are 
likely to have an effect on Q1 as well.


About Q1:

While some want the grid to very very prominent and noticeable, so that 
they know exactly where things are on the grid - others prefer it to be 
subtle, faded, so that you notice it only with a little mental effort 
and it doesn't otherwise distract you, and clash with the actual drawing 
elements you put on the page.

The "pro prominent grid" folks may say: "If the grid bothers you, you 
can just hide it"; but the "pro subtle grid" folks would retort: "If you 
need better visibility for a grid line, just place a few rulers". So, 
both sides can mitigate the extent to which the opposite choice bothers 
them.

I personally would not like it if the grid were much more prominent. I 
work with the grid on - and I like that its elements are at their 
current level of subtlety (at least at zoom 100%). I believe this 
perspective was not taken into consideration so far, with some assuming 
that everyone wanted a more prominent grid.

About Q2:

I won't survey the space of all possibilities here, but:

* We currently (26.2) have dots on gridlines, and +'es (crosses/pluses) 
at intersections of gridlines.
* Bug 120897 proposes either all-crosses, including at 
non-intersections, or making the grid more dense so that that there is 
no need for indicators at non-intersections (see the screenshots at bug 
120897).
* Powerpoint has diamonds at zoom 300%, and diamonds/dots at zoom 100%.
* Sketch has full grid lines, not periodic indicators.
* WPS copies MS Office

Personally, I think that using +'s at non-intersections is jarring; and 
I would not appreciate making the gridlines denser at 100%.

About Q3:

There are two-and-a-half options here:

Different indicators at intersections:

+---+---+
|   |   |
+---+---+
|   |   |
+---+---+

Same indicators always:

+++++++++
+   +   +
+++++++++
+   +   +
+++++++++

and - no indicators except at intersections:

+   +   +        + + + + +
                 + + + + +
+   +   +   or   + + + + +
                 + + + + +
+   +   +        + + + + +


when choosing the the third option, we either make the grid lines denser 
(to catch what were previously non-intersections, as intersections), or 
significantly reduce the number of indicators.

And whichever of the options we choose, this affects 
prominence/visibility of the grid. It should also be said that the 
specific choice of indicator effects whether or not it makes sense to 
differentiate intersections from non-intersections: Pluses literally 
tell us that two lines intersect; and dashes as indicators tell us that 
we're looking at a single line; but if we go with dots or diamonds, for 
example, it's a different story. In that case, a differentiation could 
be slightly-bigger-diamond vs slightly-smaller diamond. I believe MSO, 
which uses diamonds, does not differentiate intersections.


About Q4:

Currently, we just draw the same grid indicators, for our grid lines, at 
each zoom level. We could, in principle do one of two things (at least):

* We could make the indicators larger at higher zoom levels; and this 
enlargement could either be just like drawing objects, or sub-linear, so 
that the indicators at still small, just a bit larger to indicate we are 
zoomed in.

* We could increase the density of indicators along existing grid lines

* We could draw indicators at more lines, perhaps less-prominently than 
the main indicators, at half-grid-resolution, or at grid subdivisions - 
rather than at full grid resolution.

Note that the first option, once you zoom in enough, means that we still 
might not see grid indicators whatsoever, or very few of them.


I personally think we should add indicators along lines - and see if 
that's good enough for us. If people then also think we should take 
additional measures at higher zoom levels - I wouldn't oppose, but I 
would also not ask for that myself.


3. Partial history of how we've dealt with this
---------------------------------------------------

The matter of grid prominence, and comparison with other apps, came up 7 
years ago, in this bug:
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117348

the bug poster concluded that a necessary (and sufficient?) measure to 
take would be to make the grid indicators darker.

The matter was discussed in one of our design meetings:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Meetings/2018-10-24

the results then were:

* Accept the dark-grid-indicators proposal
* File bugs opened regarding a bunch of other possible changes: Changing 
the grid color to blue; have dot indicators "depending on screen 
resolution"; and using "zoomable pluses" (so, a combination of switching 
to + indicators and increasing grid indicator sizes with zoom).

It was not decided that making the grid gray was insufficient; the 
additional bugs were about additional options to be considered. When the 
bug regarding "zoomable pluses" was filed, the opening comment states 
that "This idea is supported by the design team." - a much stronger 
statement than the design meeting minutes.

In that discussion, nobody seems to mention the interest of _avoiding_ 
and overly-prominent / distracting grid. Perhaps this was because, at 
that time, the grid was even less prominent than it is today - with 
lighter gray color and not many indicators - so it was not on people's 
minds.


4. Bottom line / tldr
---------------------------------------------------

I think that:

* The discussion 7 years ago was sufficient for the bug they had at hand 
- but not sufficient for making more fundamental changes to the grid, 
like "zoomable pluses". Particularly, it did not take the countervailing 
interest/need in keeping the grid subtle, especially at 100% zoom, into 
account.

* The 'zoomable pluses' proposal, as reflected in Tamas' "POC 2" 
screenshots - are an undesirable change, in my opinion, especially in 
100% zoom. See: 
https://bug-attachments.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=203694 
The grid becomes too prominent, too distracting, and I find the pluses 
at non-intersections aesthetically displeasing.

* I suspect we may be able to find consensus if we opt for an increased 
prominence at higher zoom levels and same-or-similar prominence at 100% 
zoom level. Or we may not - I don't really know how everyone on this 
list feels about the grid.

* If we don't reach consensus - we should probably give users some level 
of choice between a more-prominent or less-prominent grid indication. We 
already offer many grid options (under Tools > Options > LO Draw > 
Grid), but those are about the grid itself and its effect on behavior, 
not about how it's drawn. At the very least we could add a toggle or 
two-value radio group, "subtle" vs "prominent" or whatever we'll label 
it; or we could allow control of other aspects of grid drawing, like 
shapes, like density of grid lines drawn (relative to the grid 
subdivision), line/strike width etc.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy