1659870 - "Fit to Page" is perhaps too vague of a label, in new Print UI (maybe we should add "...Width"?)

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Toolkit :: Printing, defect)

Description

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] (PTO until 2/24)]

Perhaps the "Fit to Page" scaling option in our new print UI should include an extra word or two (or a hover tooltip?) that indicates that it only shrinks to fit the page width?

Otherwise: if I'm printing page with a tall-and-skinny image, and I have the "Fit to page" option ticked, I might rightly be annoyed that the image gets truncated when I told Firefox to make it Fit the Page.

Sample page where the content is truncated instead of fitting:
data:text/html,<img src="http://placekitten.com/300/9000">
Sample page where the content is split across many pages instead of fitting:
data:text/html,<img style="display:block" src="http://placekitten.com/300/9000">

In the old print UI, this option was labeled "Shrink to fit page width"[1], which is a more accurate description of what it does. (Very briefly: the assumption is that we can handle overflow in the vertical axis by creating more pages [not always true but usually true], whereas we can't handle overflow in the horizontal axis, so "shrink-to-fit" is explicitly to handle this sort of overflow in the horizontal axis (and the horizontal axis only).

https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/23dd7c485a6525bb3a974abeaafaf34bfb43d76b/toolkit/locales/en-US/toolkit/printing/printDialogs.ftl#29

Comment 1

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] (PTO until 2/24)]

(It looks like this "Fit to Page" string is the wording that we've got in the https://mozilla.invisionapp.com print-refresh overview, which I think means this is a question for shorlander, i.e. is it OK for us to say "Fit to page width" instead, in order to reflect reality & perhaps better-set expectations?)

Comment 2

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] (PTO until 2/24)]

[ni'ing both mstriemer and shorlander for thoughts on this topic & hypothetical change. If we do make a change here, I imagine we want to do it soonish to avoid unnecessary/late-in-cycle localization churn for string changes]

Comment 3

[Mark Striemer [:mstriemer]]

I agree the wording is a little ambiguous and I'm fine with changing it. I'll note that the "Shrink to fit Page Width" (wow with that mixed use of capitalisation) is shown in the "Page Setup..." dialog, and the string that was shown in the print preview was just "Shrink To Fit" [1]. So I wouldn't say the new string is worse, but since we're changing it we should at least make sure it's accurate.

If we want to change this string we should likely try and do that today.

[1] https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/23dd7c485a6525bb3a974abeaafaf34bfb43d76b/toolkit/locales/en-US/toolkit/printing/printPreview.ftl#25

Comment 4

[Stephen Horlander [:shorlander]]

Yeah making it more accurate is a good idea. I was actually a little unclear how it worked in the existing UI and was trying to make "Shrink to Fit" a little more clear. So "Fit to page width" sounds good to me if that's how it actually works.

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #0)

Sample page where the content is truncated instead of fitting:
data:text/html,<img src="http://placekitten.com/300/9000">
Sample page where the content is split across many pages instead of fitting:
data:text/html,<img style="display:block" src="http://placekitten.com/300/9000">

Note: These examples do illustrate that it isn't actually fitting to width. Since that would imply scaling up as well as down.

Comment 5

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] (PTO until 2/24)]

(In reply to Stephen Horlander [:shorlander] (If you're waiting on a response please ping me on Slack or Riot) from comment #4)

Note: These examples do illustrate that it isn't actually fitting to width. Since that would imply scaling up as well as down.

Right; strictly speaking, the behavior is more accurately described as "Shrink [if needed] to fit page width", which is closer to the labeling we had in the old UI, per comment 0. That's obviously a bit longer, though, and I feel like "Fit to page width" is clear enough (and better than "Fit to page")

Comment 6

[Jonathan Watt [:jwatt]]

Attachment: Bug 1659870. Rename print scaling 'Fit to page' to 'Fit to page width'. r=mstriemer

Comment 7

[Stephen Horlander [:shorlander]]

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #5)

(In reply to Stephen Horlander [:shorlander] (If you're waiting on a response please ping me on Slack or Riot) from comment #4)

Note: These examples do illustrate that it isn't actually fitting to width. Since that would imply scaling up as well as down.

Right; strictly speaking, the behavior is more accurately described as "Shrink [if needed] to fit page width", which is closer to the labeling we had in the old UI, per comment 0. That's obviously a bit longer, though, and I feel like "Fit to page width" is clear enough (and better than "Fit to page")

Yeah, I agree "Shrink to fit to page width" is a little much. "Fit to page width" sounds good to me.

Comment 8

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/f8de7129b496
Rename print scaling 'Fit to page' to 'Fit to page width'. r=mstriemer,fluent-reviewers,Gijs

Comment 9

[Razvan Maries]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f8de7129b496