<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - The option to print text in black, secretly also affects PDF export" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113866#c11">Comment # 11</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - The option to print text in black, secretly also affects PDF export" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113866">bug 113866</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:h.k.ghost@gmail.com" title="xghost <h.k.ghost@gmail.com>"> xghost</a> <pre>(In reply to Regina Henschel from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=113866#c7">comment #7</a>) > I disagree here: > If I use "Export to PDF", then I expect, that the PDF looks like the > document on screen. > "Export to PDF" is no printing. Printing is always in regard to a special > printer. But the resulting pdf-file can be printed to varies printers having > different properties. > "Export to PDF" is no printing, because it allows embedding the document, > security settings, signatures and watermark. > It is a setting in section "print". Such setting should not influence other > exports. For example, if you select "Brochure" in the printer settings, I'm > sure, you still want the pdf to have the normal page order. I agree. I also understand Heiko Tietze's point about not wanting to duplicate the Print settings/UI in the PDF export UI. It seems (to me) like a fundamental part of the issue is that some have coupled two different concepts/ideas: 1. printing a document in a printer; and 2. exporting a document in one format X to another format Y To me, printing implies an actual physical printer and physical paper whereas exporting implies more of a transformation (i.e. format conversion). For example, GIMP can "export" its .xsd files into other formats such as .png, .jpeg, etc. and I think that makes sense. None of those involve printing a document. (In reply to Heiko Tietze from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=113866#c6">comment #6</a>) > the question is rather if users understand that exporting a PDF is printing. I would say yes. I disagree. I think that was more of an unintended coincidence where it simply turned out well and/or people figured it out in most cases, at least until a more obscure issue like this one comes up, rather than it being an instance of actual conscious understanding and awareness. For example, I see the "Export to PDF" option more like a "Convert my current document to a PDF file" and not as a "Print this document to a PDF". In other words, I had always interpreted "export" as a synonym for "convert" or "transform" rather than for "print", which tends to imply the use of an actual physical printer. Thus, when it became clear that the options meant for my printer were actually affecting the options for my exports/conversions, it stood out as a very awkward and unexpected thing. The idea of calling it "Print to PDF" I think will blur an important, even if subtle, conceptual distinction and may cause more problems than it solves. I think the idea of printing and exporting should be decoupled more explicitly, as they're (IMHO) two different/separate concepts that should not be thought of as being one and the same thing. To me, that'd be similar to saying that a dog and a cat are the same thing simply because they both have hair, 4 legs, and a tail :) In fact, this very issue caused me a *lot* of extra work during my MS Project report, especially with code snippets that I had painstakingly highlighted with different colors in the original document, but would always get rendered in black in the PDF I was exporting it to... I had to spend a significant amount of time/effort working around the issue by replacing all the code snippets in the document for TextBox objects just to get the syntax highlighting to show up correctly, among other details and issues I won't go into. Needless to say, it was very frustrating. I didn't report this at the time, because I didn't have time to go around discussing things, and I think this will be the case for most people who do end up running into this kind of situation. (In reply to Heiko Tietze from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=113866#c6">comment #6</a>) > The alternative to duplicate all these options for PDF sounds much more awkward to me. I agree. My comment there was more about getting the conversation going, rather than seriously requesting that everything be duplicated. I'm more interested in the conceptual distinction that leads users to expect certain specific and different behaviors.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>