Issue 42967 - Don't understand semantics of check-box to control whether Sequence Input Checking is or is not Restricted
Summary: Don't understand semantics of check-box to control whether Sequence Input Che...
Alias: None
Product: Internationalization
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: 680m79
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: jjc
QA Contact: issues@l10n
Keywords: oooqa, usability
Depends on:
Blocks: 41707
  Show dependency tree
Reported: 2005-02-17 07:33 UTC by samphan
Modified: 2013-08-07 15:03 UTC (History)
5 users (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 samphan 2005-02-17 07:33:42 UTC
The dialog 'Tools->Options->Language Setting->Complex Text Layout' has two
options (check-boxes) in the 'Sequence checking' section - 'Use sequence
checking' and 'Restricted' When you enable 'Use sequence checking' check-box,
the 'Restricted' check-box is available.

The 'Use sequence checking' is understandable. It is to enable the sequence
input checking feature. However, the 'Restricted' option is not understandable.
What will it do to the sequence checking feature? What happen when sequence
checking is restricted and when it is not? The OOo help doesn't help either.

What does it mean? Please make it clearer in the dialog box and help page.
Comment 1 arthit 2005-02-20 19:36:05 UTC

The textual descriptions on the dialog + their positions make it not clear about
the purpose of setting.

Does this for a "ui" component? (Instead of "l10n")
Comment 2 arthit 2005-02-20 19:55:03 UTC
Proposed solution 1:

use radio buttons, like this

Sequence Checking
( ) not check  ( ) basic check  ( ) strict check

(note: Solaris 9 use these terms ..
level 0 (passthrough), level 1 (basic check), level 2 (strict) )

Optionally, if in the future there's a MS Office's
"Type and Replace"-equivalent feature,
it can be something like

Sequence Checking and Replacing
( ) not check  ( ) basic check  ( ) strict check
[ ] insert or replace an existing character to make a valid sequence

where the "insert or replace" checkbox will be enabled only if
the 2nd or 3rd radio button is selected.
Comment 3 jjc 2005-04-24 16:59:56 UTC
Trying it in the latest snapshot confirms Arthit's guess: "restricted" means use
WTT 2.0 strict checking rather than WTT 2.0 basic checking.

The simplest improvement would be to replace "Restricted" by "Strict" and fix
the help file.  That's not ideal because I don't think we can expect users to be
familiar with WTT 2.0, so a non-technical explanation of basic vs strict is
needed. I would suggest something like this.  Basic checking is enough to ensure
that the characters in the document can all be displayed: it just checks that
the sequence of characters in each cell is valid.  Strict checking catches
additional illegal input sequences spanning multiple cells, which involve
leading or following vowels.

Maybe a better question is: why offer the user a choice between basic and
strict?  I think 99% of the time a user would want strict checking. In the other
1% they can simply turn off input sequence checking.  Word always does strict
input sequence checking.
Comment 4 Martin Hollmichel 2005-05-22 07:31:59 UTC
set target to OOo Later.
Comment 5 jjc 2005-09-17 10:33:20 UTC
Block 42661 because this change ("Restricted" to "Strict") should be made when
the UI support for sequence error correction is added.
Comment 6 falko.tesch 2005-09-27 13:43:24 UTC
FT: James and I agreed on renaming it to "Strict" and having it turned on per
default. That's given the current broken implementaion of "Strict" gets fixed.
Therefore I remove the dependency on issue 42661 (which again is solved in 48117)

FT-James: I hand this back to you since the other dependency is to the
Thai-related tracking bug. And I don't think that such relation makes any sense.
For me I consider this issue as fixed/closed.
Comment 7 Martin Hollmichel 2005-12-09 10:05:02 UTC
mark as fixed as ft suggested.
Comment 8 ace_dent 2008-05-17 21:54:16 UTC
The Issue you raised has been marked as 'Resolved' and not updated within the
last 1 year+. I am therefore setting this issue to 'Verified' as the first step
towards Closing it. If you feel this is incorrect, please re-open the issue and
add any comments.

Many thanks,
Cleaning-up and Closing old Issues
~ The Grand Bug Squash, pre v3 ~
Comment 9 ace_dent 2008-05-17 23:59:11 UTC
As per previous posting: Verified -> Closed.
A Closed Issue is a Happy Issue (TM).