MicrosoftWHY NO CHOICE?!
Horribly implemented...why not give users a choice?! That way everyone could be happy.
(Make sure to review an example of disruptive side effects at the end.)
Initial feedback here (are there more "official" places to log it?) clearly shows that some are quite unhappy and practically begging for mercy.
Monospacing might have been an inspired idea...upon initial release, decades ago. But we've used it for decades since. As such, this Johnny-come-lately idea is destructive for many.
Did you stop and think for a minute about legacy users and legacy formulas?
Really, did you consider whatsoever that you've now destroyed the manual formatting of millions of equations across millions of users? Millions of person-hours of work...cast aside.
This is not user-centric behavior. This is a my-way-or-the-highway approach.
And please don't use self-imposed limitations on number of program Options as an excuse. "Formula font" should have always been an option.
In fact, I looked for it before embarking upon complex formulas years ago, ironically looking for Courier or other monospaced font. But that was 1000s of formulas ago...too late now!
ALSO (another bad example within this recent release):
You folks did it again...same flawed approach on another "feature": Page Down. Now the old screen bottom row becomes the new screen top row upon selecting Page Down.
Was: Top of page (rows 1-45 displayed in my case), page down (rows 46-90), page down (rows 91-135), etc.
Now: Top of page (rows 1-45), page down (rows 45-89), page down (rows 89-133)....
Can you imagine any potential downside to legacy users? (My status-on-each-page approach is now broken and alternatives are messy.)
Is there a separate place to log this Page Down feedback?
Again, another example of imposing a potentially disruptive mandate instead of providing user customization. Option approach: "Repeat bottom row at top after Page Down" (check yes/no).
SUMMARY: I don't understand the tops-down, product-out mentality here. Who is advocating for legacy users and their legacy files? The answer appears to be: no one.
Please reconsider this implementation and strive for a best-of-both worlds approach. Give us the option. Don't turn this into haves ("like it!") and have-nots ("hate it!").
Finally, I considered cut-pasting some mangled examples. It's too much work and too discouraging. Instead, an illustration:
Example illustrating two key flaws:
= IFERROR(IFS(AND(This_was_years_ago, Someone_thought_through_it, Legacy_users_were_considered, User_choice), "Happy",
OR(Arbitrary = TRUE, Willingness_to_change = "Low"), "Sad"),
“Flawed approach”))
With the new font, the outcomes ("Happy", "Sad", "Flawed approach") aren't vertically aligned. Also, the AND/OR conditions text rolled over since the font spacing is now greater.
Now imagine this 10x worse with 1000s of examples.
Please fix this.
