Issue 45511 - Integral sign too small and not scalable
Summary: Integral sign too small and not scalable
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Math
Classification: Application
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: 680m84
Hardware: All All
: P4 Trivial with 67 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
: 75532 108796 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 105217
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-03-19 21:50 UTC by Matthias Basler
Modified: 2013-08-31 18:21 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
Integrals in practical use + Size comparison with book (12.11 KB, application/vnd.sun.xml.writer)
2005-03-19 21:55 UTC, Matthias Basler
no flags Details
Sample document to show the effect of int symbol for to the line height (10.32 KB, application/octet-stream)
2007-10-10 08:58 UTC, thomas.lange
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Matthias Basler 2005-03-19 21:50:12 UTC
Trying to work seriously with integrals in OOo I find that the integral sign is
just acceptable for a one-line formula. If however I have a formula of two or
more lines height, the integral sign looks "inappropriately" small.
- There is currently no possibility to scale the integral sign.
- Temporarily changing the font size for the integral only does not work either
because of the complex syntax.
Any other idea?

I would prefere if there existed a "large integral" sign slighly larger than the
current one. The new one should be appropiate for two-line formulae as an
alternative to the usual one.

(PS. Also I can't help noticing that the formula rendering looks much clearer in
OOo1.1.3. The infinity sign is almost invisible for me. I'll open yet another
issue if I don't find a duplicate for it.)
Comment 1 Matthias Basler 2005-03-19 21:55:04 UTC
Created attachment 24048 [details]
Integrals in practical use + Size comparison with book
Comment 2 michael.ruess 2005-04-01 14:43:15 UTC
Reassigned to requirements.
Comment 3 30790 2005-12-18 09:43:40 UTC
seems similar to http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26048.
But I agree with matthiasbasler! Limit should be scaleable as scaleable brackets.
I said "should" because, of course, if someone doesn't want this feature he must
be able not to apply it.
So if I write
  int{1 over 2 dx}  int{ {hat 1} over {hat  2} dx}
limits shouldn't become higher. But if I write something similar to
  left int {{x+1} over y + 1} over z dx right int
limit should become higher.

Remember to allow the possibility to add limits!
  left int_a^b  ...  left int from a to b
Comment 4 Matthias Basler 2005-12-18 21:49:38 UTC
Thanks for pointing to this duplicate, "30790". Obvioulsly I am not the only one
having problems with the small integral signs.
I just want to express explicitely that I acknowledge the objection raised in
issue 26048, which is that integral signs should not scale automatically by
contents since this could produce many different integral signs on one line of
formulae - which doesn't look nice. However I believe that the suggestion I made
- having two (max. three) explicite integral sign sizes - does circumvent this
problem and is also easy to use.
In general I consider it important that the user has control over the size (as
all comments so far agree).
Comment 5 lohmaier 2007-03-26 14:40:26 UTC
*** Issue 75532 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 6 thomas.lange 2007-10-10 08:57:18 UTC
We can't just arbitrarily change the font. Something like that needs to be done
when we will get a new font. That should be about the release of OOo 3.0.
Thus I'm changing this target accordingly.

Anyway I wonder if the character is really to small. It is the same size as the
Sigma character for the sum and nobody complained about that.
Also it's size is designed to match the size of the font in a Writers paragraph
if the formula is used in the _same_ line as the paragraphs text (i.e. a short
embedded formula). If the character would be any larger the line height between
the lines with such a formula and the other lines will be noticeably different.
Which I think is surely not wanted.

Also you can easily change this yourself:
You can simply define a new user-defined character, let's say %INT and use that
instead of the keyword int. 
Also you can change the relative size of int, sigma and other operators by
adjusting the value in "Format/Font Sizes: Operators". 

I hope this will help.
I will also add a sample document that will illustrate my issue with the line
height. (It is already a little bit larger as it should be...)
Comment 7 thomas.lange 2007-10-10 08:58:19 UTC
Created attachment 48802 [details]
Sample document to show the effect of int symbol for to the line height
Comment 8 Matthias Basler 2007-10-10 18:24:08 UTC
@tl
As you correctly note, the sign is appropriate (or maybe just slightly too
large) for an integral with a one line formula behind.
My point however was, that I want the symbol to automatically scale according to
the size of the formula behind. If it is a fraction or anything spanning two or
more lines, it should be larger. This is not so much a "font" problem imho.
Comment 9 Mathias_Bauer 2008-04-21 11:30:09 UTC
This enhancement obviously wasn't done for 3.0 (beta is due shortly). Moving to 3.x.
Comment 10 auerrichard 2008-11-21 13:20:52 UTC
As mentioned in the earlier comments, not only the integral sign should be 
scaled, but also the summation and the product signs. (Also the curve integral, 
multiple integrals, the coproducts etc.)
However, I would prefer a one-sided operator instead of the siggested left int 
right int. Then it would be enough to write int {{a} over {b} db}.
And simply scaling the integrator sign isn't enough either. I've tried that 
({size +3 int} {a} over {b} db} and the integral sign doesn't look good - it's 
too fat. It would probably look better if the middle part were 
simply "stretched". You can't stretch the entire integration symbol, because 
then the round parts at the end don't look good anymore.
Comment 11 syalyshev 2009-01-18 20:43:14 UTC
Ver 3.0 pro still gives no possibilty of integral and sum signs scaling. Very
irritating! I wonder if it is so difficult to do? Why square root is scaled from
the beginning and the above said issues still not after so many
years?????????????????
Comment 12 michael.ruess 2010-01-31 10:17:00 UTC
*** Issue 108796 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 13 jbf.faure 2010-01-31 18:12:02 UTC
add me to cc.
Comment 14 guiritter 2010-09-06 17:45:15 UTC
I'd like to add that I also want some enhancement to make scalable integrals. I 
do not think that various differently sized integrals on the same line looks 
wrong, neither think that extra space at a line in Writer would look wrong.

The syntax could be:
left int <?> right none
Of course with support for limits, either above or at the side of the sign.
Comment 15 guiritter 2010-09-10 18:43:57 UTC
Also would like to add:

I went to the Wikipedia article about the integral symbol. It seemed to me that 
the larger version is "more default" than the smaller one, which would seem to 
me that the smaller one is only used to make inline formulas. Therefore, I 
think that the larger (even if not scalable) integral symbol should be 
implemented and used as default, with the small one as optional.
Comment 16 mozartfans 2013-08-31 18:21:25 UTC
Version 4.0 and this is still not fixed. So frustrating..