gerv at mozilla.org
Sun Dec 7 23:20:45 UTC 2003
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
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...
More information about the developers