GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 160454
Add document font setting
Last modified: 2006-01-26 13:23:13 UTC
As discussed here: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-December/msg00217.html This blocks on #160453. Patch attached.
Created attachment 34489 [details] [review] Add document font setting to gnome-font-properties
This patch also changes "Terminal font" to "Monospace font".
Ccing usuability to get their opinion on this. The UI freeze for 2.12 is this week.
Cc'ing Bill for accessibility perspective too... can't think of any specific usability objections, other than that I have a hard enough time remembering which font preference affects what without adding another one :/ I think we might need to start thinking about a (redundant) clickable preview area or something for the 2.14 font capplet... (When we originally chose 'Terminal', because that was about the only application that used in those days, I also have a vague recollection that the term 'Fixed Width' came ahead of 'Monospace' in the user comprehensibility stakes... but unfortunately the guys who did that research aren't around to ask any more to verify.)
Well, off the top of my head, Evolution needs monospace for plain text emails, gedit uses monospace by default, and most things that display rich text need monospace, like Yelp or Epiphany displaying this very page. Anyway, the phrase "Terminal font" just sounds weird. "Huh, terminal font? Is that like the very last font?" I'm indifferent on monospace vs. fixed width, although we should probably make note of the choice of words and put it in our recommended terminology.
(Agreed... like I said, 'Terminal font' only made sense in the days when the terminal was really about the only thing that used it.)
Yelp and Epiphany both use 'Fixed width'. Evolution has, apparently, followed Gnome's bad example and used 'Terminal Font'. (Also note Evo's use of header capitalization. Bad monkeys.) I don't think I've ever seen a terminal inside Evolution, really. Allow me to retract my proposal to switch to 'Monospace font'. Let's switch to 'Fixed width font'. And let's actually do it. What's holding this bug up?
Nothing blocks that bug but the patch needs to be updated for the current CVS, then feel free to commit (and mail the corresponding lists according to the strings/UI changes made)
Why not remove the "window manager font" from the UI? It's not a really interesting setting. People that really want to change it can do it using gconf-editor.
Created attachment 58055 [details] [review] updated patch to cvs HEAD
I don't think we should remove "Window Manager Font" from the UI unless the window manager starts using one of the other font styles (for instance Application) by default. Otherwise there will be no way for low-vision users to easily customize their WM font. Putting it in gconf-editor is not very nice to them. We already have poor usability for font size "theming" for low-vision users (typically they must select both a "Large Print" theme, and go into the Font capplet and change each font separately). Let's not make it worse! On the other hand, if there's a proposal to somehow simplify the Font capplet by linking all these different font sizes together (i.e. pick "serif" or "sans serif" for "Desktop" (i.e. apps and WM) and similarly for "Document", and choose "small/normal/large/larger/" etc. with a single combo box, I would be in favor of that (in which case the detailed 'base' settings could be relegated to gconf-only settings). I.E. simplifying is good if it continues to meet the accessibility needs, which include the generic ability to make all relevant fonts bigger, choose a particular Desktop and Document typeface, etc.
My last comment wasn't really clear, because I only address the 'Terminal font' thing, which isn't even the primary subject of this bug. Here's my quick synopsis of my thoughts on the various issues raised here: 1. I don't really understand the accessibility need for 'Window title font'. I mean, we don't have 'Button font'. But then, we do have 'Desktop font', which I actually use, but only to bold the text on the background. What I see over and over in screenshots is that people use 'Window title font' to trick out their desktop, using some cool-looking font for window titles that they'd never be able to tolerate on all their widgets. But hey, tricking out is fun, and we don't want a boring desktop. I'm not saying we should necessarily remove 'Window title font', but if we're crowded and can't think of anything better to do with the font settings, it would be first on my list to cut. 2. 'Terminal font' is a really bad term. Regardless of what we do about any of the other font stuff, it really needs to change to 'Fixed width font'. 3. People do want to use a different default font for long-term reading than for simple widgets. That's why Yelp and Evolution and Epiphany all have font settings. Looking back, I think it was naive to think these apps could go without custom font settings. But having a global 'Document font' setting would mean people would have to use the applications' font settings less often. 4. Venturing out a little further, we have no facility for setting fonts for different scripts, like you see in virtually every web browser. That pretty much guarantees that at least web browsers will have to do their own font thing. But it also means that any other application displaying multiple scripts will be screwed if it doesn't have complicated font preferences of its own. I think pretty much every non-Western Gnome user is going to come across at least Latin text. Given all this, maybe we should open up a wide "what to do with our font settings" discussion. Include the web browser, i18n, and usability people. Maybe come up with something radically different from our current system. Maybe even figure out a system whereby applications could actually safely use small fonts.
Hi Shaun: "1. I don't really understand the accessibility need for 'Window title font'. I mean, we don't have 'Button font'" Yep - but as long as the WM does maintain its own font settings, they need to be supported by the Font capplet for accessibility reasons. That's because users of "large print" need a way to make sure all the relevant text on their desktop is scaled up appropriately. Of course if there are fewer flavors of font settings on the desktop (probably a good idea), then fewer items need to be exposed in order to meet this user need. "Given all this, maybe we should open up a wide "what to do with our font settings" discussion. " I would support this, I agree that the topic could fruitfully be revisited if all the interested parties are involved.
Hi Bill, Sorry, I wasn't clear. Metacity also has a boolean titlebar_uses_system_font setting, which is false by default. If we were to hide this from our font capplet (which I'm not necessarily advocating), we would absolutely want to make that setting true by default. So if you don't go mucking in gconf, Metacity would just follow your normal font setting. How would we go about opening a large discussion? We could do it on the usability list, I suppose. People would start booing us off if we took it to desktop-devel-list. But I would want all the right parties to be involved in the discussion, and I don't think they're all subscribed to usability.
Checked in.