Bug 69654

[Gervase Markham]

Jouni Heikniemi wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>Imagine a screen reader. "What's this page about?", asks the blind user.
>>"This is Bugzilla", replies the reader, when it should really be
>>replying "Bug 12345" or "Search for bugs".
> 
> Actually, while what you say is true, I disagree. If you click a link on
> some page and end up on something called "Bug 34567", you're pretty much
> baffled. 

Well, presumably you wouldn't be baffled if the preceding page had 
explained what was going on, and why it had that particular link as part 
of it :-)

> While it's true that when navigating inside Bugzilla the first
> really interesting heading is the page title, I still don't think we can
> skip the heading describing the particular installation.

You mean "This is Bugzilla"? As I said, that's not guaranteed to be 
there - it could be an image. In fact, it was an image in the default 
install up until a year or so ago. As it happens, I don't like what 
we've replaced it with, and when we get a logo sorted out, I'd be up for 
returning to an image. But the point is, it's transient - so not a good 
choice for our H1.

> Screen readers have all sorts of problems, 

That was merely one concrete example ;-)

>>Normally, there's a "wrapper" page which includes the fragments it wants
>>to make up the compound page; it will just have to make sure it also
>>includes the relevant css files.
> 
> The problem here is that it's potentially hard for the wrapper pages to
> know all required css file references. It takes quite a bit of work to
> figure out which style sheets could be necessary in all possible parameter
> combinations. For example, if some new popup-based UI feature gets checked
> in and used in several pages (like our current user selector), it can be
> potentially hard for all pages to include exactly the proper combination
> of css files.

I don't see this as being an issue in practice, to be honest.

>>I'm not so keen on a single file, just from a maintainability
>>perspective. If you have some odd CSS interaction, would you rather look
>>through 20 rules to see what's weird, or 200?
> 
> 20, of course. But if it's 200 in ten files or 200 in a single file, the
> difference isn't that great. I'd still pick 200 in ten parts, but mostly
> I'd rely on DOM inspector to see where the bug is before I fire up my text
> editor at all.

Assuming the bug manifests itself in Mozilla...

Gerv