[Keyboard] Shift Key for Caps Visual improvement

VERIFIED FIXED in Firefox OS v2.0

Status

Firefox OS
Gaia::Keyboard
VERIFIED FIXED
4 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: Carol, Assigned: rudyl)

Tracking

(Blocks: 1 bug)

unspecified
2.0 S5 (4july)
ARM
Gonk (Firefox OS)

Firefox Tracking Flags

(feature-b2g:2.0, b2g-v2.0 verified, b2g-v2.1 verified)

Details

(Whiteboard: [p=1])

Attachments

(4 attachments, 1 obsolete attachment)

(Reporter)

Description

4 years ago
Created attachment 8437582 [details]
screenshot.png

Shift Key for Caps status is not obvious.
(Reporter)

Comment 1

4 years ago
Created attachment 8437583 [details]
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
Flags: needinfo?(rlu)
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.
Flags: needinfo?(rlu) → needinfo?(chuang)
(Reporter)

Comment 3

4 years ago
Hi Rudy,
It's #2b95aa.
Thanks!!
Flags: needinfo?(chuang)
Carol, thanks for the update.
Whiteboard: [good first bug][mentor=RudyL][lang=css][mentor-lang=zh]
Blocks: 983043
Mentor: rlu@mozilla.com
Whiteboard: [good first bug][mentor=RudyL][lang=css][mentor-lang=zh] → [good first bug][lang=css][mentor-lang=zh]
Created attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

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

Thank you.
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: ui-review?(chuang)
(Reporter)

Comment 6

4 years ago
Created attachment 8442569 [details]
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.
Attachment #8437583 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Flags: needinfo?(rlu)
Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

Patch updated.
Carol, please help ui-review it again?
Attachment #8442044 - Attachment description: Patch V1 → Patch V1.1
Flags: needinfo?(rlu)
Whiteboard: [good first bug][lang=css][mentor-lang=zh]
(Reporter)

Comment 8

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

Hi Rudy,
UI looks pretty good! Thanks!
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: ui-review?(chuang) → ui-review+
Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

Tim, could you please help review this CSS-only change?
Thank you.
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: review?(timdream)
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: review?(timdream) → review+
Assignee: nobody → rlu
Mentor: rlu@mozilla.com
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
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.
blocking-b2g: --- → 2.0?

Comment 11

4 years ago
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

4 years ago
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!
blocking-b2g: 2.0? → ---
feature-b2g: --- → 2.0
Flags: needinfo?(ofeng)
Flags: needinfo?(chuang)
(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

4 years ago
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. :)
(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.)
Flags: needinfo?(ofeng)
(Reporter)

Comment 16

4 years ago
Hi Stephany,
I looked at the patch and the revised UI is correct. that's why I gave it a +.
Thanks!!
Flags: needinfo?(chuang)
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.
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: ui-review?(ofeng)
Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

Good job, ui-review+ for it!
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: ui-review?(ofeng) → ui-review+
Great, thanks for the review/ui-review.

Landed to Gaia master,
https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/commit/0326a79d1be2355c0f6ea9c221e524eab444c684
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
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.
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: approval-gaia-v2.0?
Whiteboard: [p=1]
Target Milestone: --- → 2.0 S5 (4july)
Comment on attachment 8442044 [details] [review]
Patch V1.1

low risk, polish change approving for uplift.
Attachment #8442044 - Flags: approval-gaia-v2.0? → approval-gaia-v2.0+
v2.0: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/commit/59b9628bda16557eb45178fcc011e91ec4d594cc
status-b2g-v2.0: --- → fixed
status-b2g-v2.1: --- → fixed

Updated

3 years ago
status-b2g-v2.0: fixed → verified
status-b2g-v2.2: --- → verified

Updated

3 years ago
status-b2g-v2.1: fixed → verified
status-b2g-v2.2: verified → ---

Comment 23

3 years ago
Created attachment 8528889 [details]
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

Updated

3 years ago
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.