Re: [libreoffice-users] Feature Request - Categories for special characters

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 21:59:04 +0000
jonathon <toki.kantoor@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/16/2013 08:17 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> > > Taking, thorn, for example, with the current setup, one knows to
> > > look in the Runic range.
> > You might, but that doesn't mean everybody does.
>
> Only if one has paid absolutely no attention to how glyphs in the font
> are organized. Even a thirty second scan shows that it is ordered by
> writing system.
That assumes, among other things, that the user knows what thorn is. As
an example, let's say the user wants to write a small section about
mathematical sets, and needs the intersection symbol. I just tried to
look that up in the special characters dialog, and had absolutely no
idea where it was. And the list was simply too long to search through
by brute force. Luckily, one of the subsets is helpfully named
"Mathematical Operators". Makes it very easy to find. But why are there
no "Engineering Operators" or "Electrical Operators"? Now what do I do
if I need one of those?

Yes, I realise why there are no such categories defined within unicode,
that's not my point. My point is if that's what I'm looking for, it
would be handy to have such a subset.

> > > when the sub-range is at the whim of a programmer, it could be
> > > literally anywhere.
> > Sure, but the assumption is that it is easier to find a glyph by
> > usage than by name
>
> The issue you fail to recognize is that the same glyph can be used in
> any number of different fields, to represent very different concepts
> and meanings.
You are mistaken. I don't fail to recognise that. I am fully aware of
that. And there is nothing stopping the same unicode character being
included in multiple filters.

Perhaps you don't fully understand how the proposed system works.

> > > The claim is that the  current filters are inadequate. Thus, the
> > > need to dummy it down, so that it is less efficient, more time
> > > consuming, and awkward to use.
> > Why on earth would I want to make it *more* complex if it is too
> > difficult as it is? I can see you clearly don't understand the
> > suggestion.
>
> Take a look at the problems created by the various types of indexing
> methods used for Chinese dictionaries, and why each of those indexing
> solutions is touted as being the best, and thus only system that
> should be used.
Not knowing anything about this, I won't comment. But you tell me, why
exactly is my system "more complex"?

> > > But because less glyphs are displayed, Joe Sixpack thinks it is
> > > easier to use.
> > Exactly. So useful for Joe Sixpack, if not for you.
>
> Less glyphs displayed means more pages have to be viewed to find the
> appropriate glyph. Which means that in the long run, it will be even
> more awkward for Joe Sixpack.
Only if it's not in the  filter he thinks it is in. Chances are he has
at least some idea of what purpose it serves, and so will be able to
find it in an aptly named filter (or think of them as a collection). If
he truly has no idea where it might be, then there is probably no help
for him, short of some sort of sketch-and-search, which would be one
smashing great idea, but is probably technically unfeasable.

> Do that as a user-installable extension.
Sure. No reason not to. That would be a first step. Although I don't
see why it couldn't be part of the core LO, but no, it wouldn't have to
be.

> What happens when the ohm symbol is not in the set of "Electrical
> Symbols"?  Joe Sixpack is even more lost than under the current setup.
Well, then he either needs to do an exhaustive manual search, or
download a more complete filter/collection. Or amend it himself.

> > And if your font is webdings or whatever, and the character for ohm
> doesn't look like an ohm, then you will get a pumpkin, or whatever,
>
> Then you are back with the mess that fonts were, before most software
> incorporated, and  could utilize Unicode.
That has nothing to do with this idea, that problem exists all on its
own. You try webdings in the current Special Characters dialog and tell
me that the problem would be purely in my extension.

> What happens when the programmer omits glyphs because s/he thinks that
> they are so rare/obscure that they will not be useḍ?
As I stated, download a more complete filter/collection, or make one
yourself. Chances are that any offical ones would be fairly complete to
start with, but the whole point of my system (which is just how I
envision the OP's enhancement idea) is that it would be extensible.

I really should have called it a collection, rather than a filter, that
might have avoided some confusion.

Paul

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted