Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Platform font settings stink; allow user to override | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | David J. Orme <daveo> | ||||
| Component: | UI | Assignee: | Kim Horne <eclipse> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | enhancement | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | billy.biggs, ed.burnette, lists, xjhuang | ||||
| Version: | 3.0 | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||
| OS: | Linux-GTK | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
David J. Orme
Created attachment 12821 [details]
Screen shot showing the problem
In this screen shot, the view and editor title bar fonts are the correct and
desired fonts. Notice how the view contents do not respect this setting.
With default fonts this huge, Eclipse is only barely usable at 1280x1024...
David, Eclipse doesn't have a font settings for views, only for editors. The font taken for views is the default font of your platform (this is by design). In that case, I request that JDT use the platform font settings by default, but allow the user to override them if needed or desired. Renaming, reopening, and setting severity to "enhancement". Of course, I understand this means that it'll have to wait until post-3.0. Thanks for the clarification. Moving to Platform/UI since this should be honored by all views. I dont know if there is any plan for the workbench to get into the business of overriding the default font. The overhead (and grief) of setting the font on every control would be prohibative. It seems to me (from a user's point of view) that if we're going to allow some fonts to be overridden, we should allow all fonts to be overridden. It also appears to me that from a UI point of view, we already have a good UI with which to implement this in the font/color page of the preferences page. It's just a matter of doing it. Your complaint seems to be more about the platform fonts themselves. Maybe there should be a bug against KDE to make it easier to change application font settings? Well, to really break it down, they may actually be 3 issues here: 1) The user has no clue what is a SWT custom control and what is a platform control. Therefore, to say that the user can only change the fonts on custom controls but not on platform controls makes no sense to the user because the user shouldn't have to care what is what. 2) It appears that the fonts that are being chosen for the controls in the UI are the fonts GTK applications use in dialogs, not on main screens. I have no idea how rich the GTK font settings are and can't check right now because I don't have a GTK box available at work. But somebody should check and make sure we're picking the right system fonts to work with if that hasn't been done already. (I'm saying this because no other GTK application suffers from such a space wastage. Maybe this is an inevitable consequence of some other decision we have to stick with, but I'd like to be sure.) 3) Yes, there might be legitimately a component of this request that should be forwarded on to GTK's upstream maintainers, but that's a separate issue from those I identified above, especially the first one. But I think that even if #3 is true, it doesn't negate #1 and #2. :-) I've changed my KDE fonts now and everything looks nice and is really usable. I still think there's a problem when I have to go 2 places in order to change my fonts in Eclipse. It should either all be done through KDE or none, IMO. I believe most applications that are text editors or renderers can change the fonts used when they render, but few let you change the settings for standard widgets. For example, I can change the font settings for web pages rendered in Mozilla through their preferences dialog, but I must use the GNOME font manager to change the font size in the bookmarks sidebar. Furthermore, I believe it is already "all done through KDE", since Eclipse defaults to using your system font settings. *** Bug 66247 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 70192 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 70179 *** Why did this get dup'd to a bug on surrogate characters? It seems more related to bug 49548 . Brainfart on my part I suspect Resolving as suggested. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 49548 *** |