1023164 - [Keyboard] Shift Key for Caps Visual improvement

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia::Keyboard, defect)

Description

[Carol Huang [:Carol]]

Attachment: screenshot.png

Shift Key for Caps status is not obvious.

Comment 1

[Carol Huang [:Carol]]

Attachment: Keyboard_caplocks spec.pdf.zip

Hi Rudy,
Please help revise the UI. See the attachment for Visual spec.
Let me know if you have any question!!thankss

Comment 2

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Carol,

If possible, please help provide the color code for 
Color: #00caf2
Opacity: 50%
,since the background color of the [Shift] is a fixed value.

Thanks.

Comment 3

[Carol Huang [:Carol]]

Hi Rudy,
It's #2b95aa.
Thanks!!

Comment 4

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Carol, thanks for the update.

Comment 5

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Attachment: Patch V1.1

This is purely a CSS style change, so ask for UI review first.
Carol, could you help on this?

Thank you.

Comment 6

[Carol Huang [:Carol]]

Attachment: Keyboard_caplocks spec_0619.zip

Hey Rudy,
Visual UI Updated:
One tap shift key color change to #00caf.

Please help on this! Thank you very much.

Comment 7

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

Patch updated.
Carol, please help ui-review it again?

Comment 8

[Carol Huang [:Carol]]

Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

Hi Rudy,
UI looks pretty good! Thanks!

Comment 9

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

Tim, could you please help review this CSS-only change?
Thank you.

Comment 10

[Omega Feng [:Omega] [:馮於懋]]

It's a major issue in new feature. Nominating as 2.0 blocking.
The visual hints are really important for a large number of users.

Comment 11

[Stephany Wilkes]

Omega, can you clarify if this was in scope for 2.0 feature work? Or is this a new bug because keyboard behavior has regressed or not working as expected? I'm trying to distinguish if this is a bug or an incorrectly implemented feature.

Comment 12

[Stephany Wilkes]

I discussed this bug (and others like it) with Jason in IRC today. This looks like a 2.0 feature that was not correctly or fully implemented to spec, and should not ship as-is as a result (per Omega's comment #10). To that end, I am removing the blocking flag but adding the feature-b2g flag for 2.0, which it looks like this bug should have had as it was on the work list for 2.0. If this is not correct, let me know and we can discuss making it a blocking bug if it was not indeed a feature. 

In addition, I am not sure why the attachment has ui-review+ if the UI is not correct. If the visual hints are not correct, the patch should get ui-review- and only get a ui-review+ (from both Carol AND Omega) when the submitted patch is 100% correct and ready to ship. 

Omega and Carol, please work on the necessary ui-review flag issues here. Thanks!

Comment 13

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

(In reply to Stephany Wilkes from comment #12)
> I discussed this bug (and others like it) with Jason in IRC today. This
> looks like a 2.0 feature that was not correctly or fully implemented to
> spec, and should not ship as-is as a result (per Omega's comment #10). To
> that end, I am removing the blocking flag but adding the feature-b2g flag
> for 2.0, which it looks like this bug should have had as it was on the work
> list for 2.0. If this is not correct, let me know and we can discuss making
> it a blocking bug if it was not indeed a feature. 

This is not a regression, but a new request to change the style of the [Shift]/[Caplock] key.
This came after the feature-freeze date, around 6/9, but I talked about this issue with Omega, and I thought it is Ok to nominate this as 2.0? if this is UX-most-wanted to go in v2.0. So, I suggest that Omega could nominate it.
If this caused confusion, I apologize for that.

> 
> In addition, I am not sure why the attachment has ui-review+ if the UI is
> not correct. If the visual hints are not correct, the patch should get
> ui-review- and only get a ui-review+ (from both Carol AND Omega) when the
> submitted patch is 100% correct and ready to ship. 
> 
> Omega and Carol, please work on the necessary ui-review flag issues here.
> Thanks!

I don't understand this, I asked for ui-review of Carol since this is mainly UI style change.

Comment 14

[Stephany Wilkes]

Sorry for the confusion, Rudy. Your use of the ui-review flag was fine. My confusion was at the seemingly contradictory UX reviews: Omega pointed out a UX issue that was serious enough to block ship, but at the same time, the ui-review flag was + and not -. If a flag is ui-review+, that means that everything is 100% great and ready to ship. In this case, the flag was ui-review+ but Omega was saying everything was not great, so I didn't understand why the flag was still + if there were UI issues. Saying something is a blocker and having a + are mutually exclusive. :)

Comment 15

[Omega Feng [:Omega] [:馮於懋]]

(In reply to Stephany Wilkes from comment #14)
> Sorry for the confusion, Rudy. Your use of the ui-review flag was fine. My
> confusion was at the seemingly contradictory UX reviews: Omega pointed out a
> UX issue that was serious enough to block ship, but at the same time, the
> ui-review flag was + and not -. If a flag is ui-review+, that means that
> everything is 100% great and ready to ship. In this case, the flag was
> ui-review+ but Omega was saying everything was not great, so I didn't
> understand why the flag was still + if there were UI issues. Saying
> something is a blocker and having a + are mutually exclusive. :)

Hi Steph,
Sorry for misleading. The patch is fine (ui-review+), but Rudy told me it can be landing on 2.0 since the request is after feature-freeze date, so I have to do something to nominate it as 2.0. (Maybe I use the wrong flagging I guess.)

Comment 16

[Carol Huang [:Carol]]

Hi Stephany,
I looked at the patch and the revised UI is correct. that's why I gave it a +.
Thanks!!

Comment 17

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

To double confirm, I'll ask Omega to do ui-review for this patch. (Please mark + if you already did ui-r+).

And I'll land it to master first and ask for approval to land on v2.0 since this is just a visual refresh for shift key.

Thanks.

Comment 18

[Omega Feng [:Omega] [:馮於懋]]

Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

Good job, ui-review+ for it!

Comment 19

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Great, thanks for the review/ui-review.

Landed to Gaia master,
https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/commit/0326a79d1be2355c0f6ea9c221e524eab444c684

Comment 20

[Rudy Lu [:rudyl] (inactive after 2015/7/3)]

Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

NOTE: Please see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing to better understand the B2G approval process and landings.

[Approval Request Comment]
[Bug caused by] (feature/regressing bug #): N/A, this is a late visual refresh came after feature freeze.
[User impact] if declined: The original visual for [Shift] key is not that obvious and this visual hint is crucial because we won't change character case for each key.
[Testing completed]: Yes, manually.
[Risk to taking this patch] (and alternatives if risky): Low, only visual style change.
[String changes made]: N/A.

Comment 21

[bhavana bajaj [:bajaj]]

Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

low risk, polish change approving for uplift.

Comment 22

[Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]]

v2.0: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/commit/59b9628bda16557eb45178fcc011e91ec4d594cc

Comment 23

[Elie]

Attachment: IMAG0546[1].jpg

This issue has been successfully verified on Flame 2.0:
Gaia-Rev        99e4594c66aa3738d58b0cb44bd885a87a063b6e
Gecko-Rev       https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g32_v2_0/rev/f91abc6127d9
Build-ID        20141125000201
Version         32.0
Device-Name     flame
FW-Release      4.4.2


This issue has been successfully verified on Flame 2.1:
Gaia-Rev        1bdd49770e2cb7a7321e6202c9bf036ab5d8f200
Gecko-Rev       https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-b2g34_v2_1/rev/db893274d9a6
Build-ID        20141125001201
Version         34.0
Device-Name     flame
FW-Release      4.4.2