<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Page orientation of User page size is not determined correctly" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106890#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Page orientation of User page size is not determined correctly" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106890">bug 106890</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:tietze.heiko@gmail.com" title="Heiko Tietze <tietze.heiko@gmail.com>"> Heiko Tietze</a> <pre>(In reply to csongor from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=106890#c7">comment #7</a>) > I still think that the current behaviour is very annoying, counter-intuitive > and not understandable for most of the users therefore it should be changed. That's vastly exaggerated :-). At maximum it's a minor inconsistency. > I think my proposed idea would be totally clean, not confusing and easy to > implement. The following steps should be done. > - the Width and Height fields should be kept as they are now > - the Orientation radio button should be replaced by a text that displays > portrait/square/landscape if w<h, w=h, w>h, respectively > - there should be a "Swap Width and Height" button beside the two input > fields. That complicates a simple interface way too much. What you ask for is an automatic adjustment of portrait or landscape depending on user settings. Would have the drawback of unintentional behavior in case you define landscape first and manipulate the values later. I wonder if all this trouble is a language related thing. Would you still request the enhancement when the options have more generic terms and the function is called "flip"? (Not voting for this change, just as an example.)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>