After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 104913 - Font doesn't return to normal size when choosing a theme that doesn't specify a font
Font doesn't return to normal size when choosing a theme that doesn't specify...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: gnome-control-center
Classification: Core
Component: [obsolete] theme-manager
unspecified
Other All
: Low enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Control-Center Maintainers
Control-Center Maintainers
AP4
: 113048 153249 324053 335527 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-01-31 15:52 UTC by Calum Benson
Modified: 2006-04-20 17:27 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: Unversioned Enhancement



Description Calum Benson 2003-01-31 15:52:18 UTC
I guess this maybe isn't a bug so much as a side-effect of the current
non-role of fonts in themes, but it's certainly a regression, so here goes...

If I select a large print theme, choose to apply its big font, and then
select the default theme again, the font stays big.  This just feels rather
unexpected, and it's not immediately obvious that the solution is to go and
change your Fonts preferences (rather than restart all the affected apps
which is what I did the first few times before it dawned on me!)

In the pre theme-manager days this "just worked"; a theme that didn't
specify a font size used the default font size instead, but I guess things
have changed a bit since then... but maybe there's a case for having an
"Apply default font" button for themes that don't specify a font, instead
of just hiding the "Apply suggested font" button?
Comment 1 Calum Benson 2003-02-26 13:57:31 UTC
In order of my personal preference, three other possible solutions to
this might be:

- Add a Revert button to the dialog, that reverts the theme and fonts
to the values they were set to when you opened the dialog.  This way
you can always get back to a sane state without having to visit any
other dialogs.

- Save current font settings as part of saving a custom theme.  Then
at least you'll have the option of getting a sane font back (by
pressing the Apply Font button) when you choose one of your saved
themes, if not when you choose a 'standard' theme.

- Automatically apply default system font and size when selecting a
theme that doesn't specify fonts.  However, if you don't normally use
sans/serif/monospaced as your fonts, this still won't give you the
fonts you really wanted and you'll still have to visit the Fonts
dialog afterwards.
Comment 2 Rajkumar 2003-02-28 07:30:24 UTC
Jody/Jrb, your comments here will help me to try out a feasible
soultion ...

Thanks.
Comment 3 Calum Benson 2003-04-03 13:04:42 UTC
Updating status_whiteboard field to reflect A11Y team's assessment 
of accessibility impact.
Comment 4 padraig.obriain 2003-05-23 15:07:09 UTC
*** Bug 113048 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Rajkumar 2003-05-26 05:51:40 UTC
I have changed the severity since it's an enhancement rather than a
bug.

Thanks.
Comment 6 Rajkumar 2003-06-16 05:37:31 UTC
Hi,

A friendly ping to the maintainers for their comments on the above
given proposals:)

Thanks.
Comment 7 Andrew Sobala 2003-06-16 10:20:22 UTC
Changing severity, priority and version.
Comment 8 Calum Benson 2003-06-23 13:15:23 UTC
Hrmm, slightly disappointing that an accessibility feature regression
has been lowered in priority... think we need some patches here to
convince them otherwise guys :)  I guess part of the problem is we
still haven't really decided whether dialogs generally should have
Undo, Revert or Default buttons, which could provide a solution here. 
Although even with one of those, behaviour would still be less
efficient than 2.0.
Comment 9 Andrew Sobala 2003-06-23 18:02:56 UTC
> slightly disappointing that an accessibility feature regression
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^

Woops, didn't realise it was a regression. Increasing priority again :)
Comment 10 Calum Benson 2003-06-23 18:14:23 UTC
Cheers :)  Just to clarify, functionally it's a regression from 2.0,
but the 2.2 theme-manager was always designed to work this way AFAIK,
hence some apparent confusion over whether it's a bug or an
enhancement request...
Comment 11 bill.haneman 2003-06-26 11:18:39 UTC
the crux of the problem I believe is that the font specification was
removed from the gtkrc files (since it overrides the Font capplet
specification).  That change occurred to make the fonts from the
Themes consistent with what happenned in the Font capplet, it was bad
for the user to find that, when using certain themes, the Font capplet
"didn't work".

but that leaves us with the problem that the themes which suggest
fonts actually change the Font setting, i.e. if you go from the Theme
capplet to the Font capplet you will see that the actual font size in
use has been changed.  That's consistent, but since this means that
the only "default system font" there is has been changed, there's no
clean way to revert.  IOW, applying a suggested font changes your font
pref and themes without suggested fonts don't have a way to revert.

I am not sure this is the end of the world however, it's annoying, but
 realize that this is no more inconvenient that having to go to the
Font capplet to set your font preferences in the first place (the
original proposed solution which was deemed bad for low-vision users).
  To restate: at present if a user wants to apply a "large print"
theme, s/he can do so with one click including the application of the
large font.  This is a convenience function without an Undo, which
though perhaps not idea from a usability POV is still better than no
convenience function at all.  I am not ecstatic about it either, but
it's worth keeping in mind that the current workarounds (e.g. don't
apply the suggested font, or go to the FOnt capplet to revert) are
pretty much what we'd have to do if the convenience feature weren't
there.  The existing compromise works for low-vision users since they
mostly don't need to revert the font size back to "small/default"
unless they turn on a screen magnifier or something like that.

Comment 12 bill.haneman 2003-06-26 11:21:31 UTC
This is "kinda sucky" but I really don't think it's a "stopper",
lowering 'AP' priority to "AP3".  Maybe usability folks or other folks
feel strongly that it's broken, in which case the regular
prio/severity field above might be upgraded.
Comment 13 Calum Benson 2003-08-07 16:18:43 UTC
Apologies for spam... marking as GNOMEVER2.3 so it appears on the official GNOME
bug list :)
Comment 14 bill.haneman 2004-07-20 11:08:12 UTC
This is, by the way, not really a regression.  Can we close this as WONTFIX?  I
don't see any way of addressing the issue without massive changes to the way we
track the user's desktop settings.
Comment 15 Calum Benson 2004-10-21 16:53:15 UTC
Apologies for spam-- ensuring Sun a11y team are cc'ed on all current a11y bugs.
 Filter on "SUN A11Y SPAM" to ignore.
Comment 16 Kjartan Maraas 2005-02-01 23:43:27 UTC
Still no change.
Comment 17 bill.haneman 2005-02-02 10:28:08 UTC
I don't see a way of addressing this issue unless we introduce some kind of
cascading/tiered font configuration - as it stands, all we can do is 'replace'
the font size(s) when selecting a LargePrint theme.  This of course erases any
memory of the previously-configured font sizes.

But I don't see it as a major problem, frankly - if a user selects a
'LargePrint' theme and opts-in for the font size changes, I don't see the
'revert font size' behavior as anything but a convenience feature.
Comment 18 bill.haneman 2005-02-02 10:34:23 UTC
by the way - in the absence of new inspiration for a fix, I would vote closing
as NOTABUG, on the basis of the logic that it's not a bug if "applying a font"
setting replaces the previous font settings destructively.  Alternatively, we
could downgrade this to an RFE (severity==enhancement, priority==low), which IMO
it is.
Comment 19 Brent Smith (smitten) 2005-07-21 16:09:33 UTC
*** Bug 153249 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20 Luis Villa 2005-07-21 16:15:28 UTC
Blah. I'm not thrilled by this, but I think Bill's last comment is basically
right. I'd lean towards WONTFIX/CANTFIX, though.

[The real right answer is comprehensive integration of a undo/redo framework,
but if one ever gets written, I'm guessing this will get caught then.]
Comment 21 Brent Smith (smitten) 2005-07-21 17:51:46 UTC
*** Bug 169108 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 22 Sebastien Bacher 2005-12-14 17:02:23 UTC
*** Bug 324053 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 23 Calum Benson 2006-04-20 17:27:01 UTC
*** Bug 335527 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***