Issue 22536 - add configurable printdirection
Summary: add configurable printdirection
Alias: None
Product: gsl
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 3.2.1
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: AOO PleaseHelp
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
Depends on:
Reported: 2003-11-17 12:25 UTC by jhartmann
Modified: 2013-02-07 22:41 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description jhartmann 2003-11-17 12:25:06 UTC
At the moment one can only chose between portrait and landscape, while it's
impossible to chose the print direction of landscape - it's always right-to left
so that the bottom of the print is printed to the left side (where the
page-binding normally takes place).

This may be appropriate for private users printing single pages, but neither for
multiple-page prints (some of them portrait and some landscape, e.g. for tables)
since one has to turn around the landscape pages manually so they match the
binding (noone binds them at their foot 'cause that's hard to read), nor is it
appropriate for business users (workgroup or enterprise printing) since many
businesses (and government agencies) either print on punched paper or use
automatically binding printers.

So what would be needed is either a switch for the user to chose between
right-to-left or left-to-right print-direction (including the possibility to set
this seperately for right and left pages) or, as a fast workaround, the changing
of the standard print direction to left-to-right (to match the standard binding
of non-duplex prints).
Comment 1 frank 2003-11-17 13:23:32 UTC

this is implemented. Have a look at the page styles under the stylist
and the respective pages in the Help system.

Comment 2 frank 2003-11-17 13:24:54 UTC
closed worksforme fits better, but known it's set to invalid. So see
it more like worksforme.

Comment 3 jhartmann 2003-11-17 16:54:41 UTC
No! It's not implemented. (One can only select "landscape" but not its

Please reopen it.

Either read carefully what I'm talking about or, if this doesn't match
your semantics, please leave your fingers off issues you just don't catch.

Comment 4 frank 2003-11-18 09:37:19 UTC
How rude !

Be carefull, you never know who is working on this Issue !

Such harsh comments can lead to a total ignorance of your person and
your Issues.

Comment 5 frank 2003-11-18 09:52:02 UTC
If you think I've missunderstood your Issue, so maybe you ask yourself
What have I done wrong in my description ?

So be more precise and add a document that shows or shows not what you
want. If you describe your problem in a better way, maybe people
understand what you want.

For now I think the feature you want is implemented. Convince me that
it is not.

Comment 6 jhartmann 2003-11-18 17:48:58 UTC
How could your ignorance be bigger than it is now: not reading, just
closing an issue you didn't really read what it's about, and than
still --in full ignorance-- insisting "it's implimented" when you know
that you fell short of meeting the topic.

You're just spamming. And I, as the Issue-opener, cannot even dispose
your spam.

Hi dude, I tell you what is implemented.

1) One can chose between portrait and landscape.
2) One can chose if a page style template (and so its
protrait-/landscape-setting) is applied to only right pages, only left
pages, right and left pages or both but mirrored (which means that
page margins are mirrored; has no effect on portrait or landscape).

But I'm talking about chosing the print-direction for landscape:
either left-to-right (head left, bottom right) or right-to-left (head
right, bottom left) - or, as a short-time-workaround , about changing
that (default) print-direction from right-to-left (how it is now:
page-binding at table-bottom) to left-to-right (binding at the top of
the landscape-print).

There is nothing what even could be mixed up with this. So how ever
often you might use the word "implemented", there's just not point
about it.

Creating a document to show what I mean? Are you kidding? EVERY
document shows it. Everyone knows from experience that
document-binding generally takes place at the left of any document.
(Just open any book or magazine.) And everyone who prints any
OOo-document (e.g. a table or chart) as landscape will notice that the
top of his print (e.g. the table top) is printed to the right side of
the page. So this clearly means that the binding-side (left) is at the
bottom of the landscape-print.

So now tell me where a feature to change this already "is implemented".

Not I have to convince you of that I don't talk about something what
"you thing is implemented" (while you don't tell _WHAT_ the hell this
is _YOU_ are talking about).

Maybe _YOU_ have to convince anybody that you're being serious about

Well, just tell me: _WHAT_ is implemented? (Which buttons, checkboxes,
... shall I select for getting OOo to print landscape from left to
right, that is top of landscape on the left side of the page?) No?
Come on ...

And please stop spamming.
Comment 7 jhartmann 2003-11-18 18:16:14 UTC
Reassining to a VCL guy.
Comment 8 Joost Andrae 2003-11-19 12:03:29 UTC
JA: Reassigning this enhancement issue to the default owner of
enhancements. Stefan Schaefer is neither responsible for deciding on
enhancements nor he's responsible for implementing the application
specific printing features.
Comment 9 jhartmann 2003-11-19 20:36:24 UTC

Well, it's not really application-specific (although spreadsheet is
most effected by this just because most landscape print are spreadsheets).

I change the selected component to GSL. (Although component=printing
seems to be appropriate, it's to implement in VCL, even on Windows
since the OS's printing architecture doesn't offer this.)
Comment 10 jhartmann 2003-11-19 21:02:37 UTC
Um jeden Rest an Mißverständnissen unter den deutschsprachigen
Issue-Verfolgern auszuräumen, füge ich ausnahmsweise eine deutsche
Beschreibung bei:

Für jede Seite (oder jede Seitenvorlage) kann man wählen, daß sie im
Querformat gedruckt wird. Bisher aber bedeutet dies immer, daß der
Kopf einer solchen Seite (also bei Tabellen z.B. der Tabellenkopf) auf
der rechten Seite des Blattes gedruckt wird, während der Fuß der Seite
links landet. Ändern kann man dies bisher nicht.

Das hat zur Folge, daß der Fuß (das Ende) einer Querformat-Seite immer
auf der Papierseite landet, wo das Papier gewöhnlich gelocht,
geheftet, geklebt, gebunden, ... wird. Viele Firmen und Behörden
drucken auf vorab gelochtem Papier oder benutzen Drucker mit
eingebauten Hefter (d.h. mehrseitige Drucke kommen fertig geheftet aus
dem Drucker). Aber auch Otto Normalverbraucher hat ein Problem mit dem
bisher immer von rechts nach links gedruckten Querformat, weil er bei
mehrseitigen Drucken, die aus teils hoch- und teils querformatigen
Seiten bestehen, die querformatigen per Hand umdrehen muß. Denn
Querformatseiten, die am Fuß (am unteren Ende z.B. einer Tabelle oder
Graphik) gebunden bzw. geheftet sind, sehen erstens unprofessionell
aus und sind zweitens nur umständlich les- bzw. betrachtbar. Nicht
ohne Grund sind in so gut wie allen guten Brochüren, Handouts usw.
querformatige Seiten so gedruckt und eingeheftet/gebunden, daß man sie
bequem anschauen kann, also so, daß der Kopf (das obere Ende) links,
auf der gebundenen Seite, gedruckt ist.

Was OOo fehlt, ist also eine Möglichkeit, auszuwählen, _WIE_ herum
Querdruck geschehen soll. Entweder so wie bisher (von rechts nach
links), was beim Duplex-Druck auf den linken Seiten Sinn macht (weil
die von rechts gebunden sind), oder eben von links nach rechts, was
für alle anderen Seiten die einzig sinnvolle Variante wäre.

Falls es im UI aufwändig wäre, diese Wahlmöglichkeit einzubauen, wäre
als Interimslösung sinnvoll, vorerst einfach die
Standard-Druckrichtung für Querformat-Seiten von Rechts-nach-Links auf
Links-nach-Rechts zu ändern. Denn die meisten Drucke sind Non-Duplex
(und auch beim Duplex-Druck würde sich dadurch zumindest nichts

Jeder, der ein paar Seiten im Querformat druckt, und diese auf der
linken Papierseite (da, wo OOo im Moment das untere Ende der
Querformate hindruckt) heftet/bindet, wird beim blätternden Betrachten
dieser Querformate bemerken, wie umständlich, um nicht zu sagen
komisch, das ist ...

Ich hoffe, das ist anschaulich genug beschrieben.
Comment 11 peter.junge 2003-11-20 08:34:59 UTC
@jhartmann: SSA is defenitely the wrong owner to do the
implementation. PL would be right. Due to we all work for StarOffice
none of our delvelopers (e.g. SSA and PL) would do anything without a
written specification. That's the job of Bettina (BH), she is the
right owner.
@Bettina: I totally agree with jhartmann that this a must for
Enterprise customers. I don't think if it fit's in OOo 2.o roadmap but
we should consider to imlpement it as soon as possible after that
Comment 12 jhartmann 2003-11-20 10:24:34 UTC
@Peter: Well, thanks.

@Bettina: Can I help anyhow? (Same for <a
Comment 13 peter.junge 2003-11-20 12:57:15 UTC
OOPS, forgot to align QA Contact. Comments were still posted to the SC
mailing list. Changed title as well.
Comment 14 ace_dent 2008-05-16 02:56:11 UTC Issue Tracker - Feedback Request.

The Issue you raised has the status 'New' pending further action, but has not
been updated within the last 4 years. Please consider re-testing with one of the
latest versions of OOo, as the problem(s) may have already been addressed.
Either use the recent stable version:
or consider trying the new OOo 3 BETA (still in testing):
Please report back the outcome so this Issue may be Closed or Progressed as
necessary - otherwise it may be Resolved as Invalid in the future. You may also
wish to search for (and note) any duplicates of this Issue that may have
advanced further by checking the Issue Tracker:
Many thanks,
Cleaning-up and Closing old Issues as part of:
~ The Grand Bug Squash, pre v3 ~
Comment 15 bettina.haberer 2010-05-21 15:01:34 UTC
To grep the issues easier via "requirements" I put the issues currently lying on
my owner to the owner "requirements". 
Comment 16 jhartmann 2010-10-12 04:28:28 UTC
still valid