10655 - unclear what it means to set background color

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 7992

(Core :: DOM: Editor, defect, P3)

Description

[buster]

from Bijal:
After selecting a row of text, I decided to change the background color.  After
I choose a color, the selected text as well as additional text had it's
background changed.  When I clicked on any part of the document, the background
color also changed for that particular row.  When I tried to scroll up/down, the
whole document had the new background color.

steve's comments:
I think setting background color applies only to the entire document, not the
selection.  If this is true, then the current UI is very unclear.
If nothing else, there is a redisplay problem with background colors.

Comment 1

[bijals (gone)]

I agree that background color should apply to the whole document and not just
a selected piece of text.  However, the behaviour I experienced did not change
the whole document and did not apply to only the selected text area.

I recommend making the background color only apply to the whole document/page.
Therefore, it does not make sense to expose this feature directly on the
toolbar.  What do you think?  The rest of the buttons/icons on the toolbar apply
to a selected text item.

Comment 2

[Charles Manske]

Here's the design:
When the selection is table cells, rows, or the entire table, or the caret is
within one cell, then the background color is set on just the table element(s)
(bug 7992 covers implementing that.)
When not in a table, it is supposed to change the color for the entire page.
It should do that now but there's a refresh bug (1886) which is why it isn't
happening. Setting background color for just the selected text requires CSS
and thus isn't appropriate for the initial mail editor. We have had
frequent requests for making it easier to change the page background color,
which is why I put it on the toolbar.
If it acceptable to set the page background as described, then mark this
as a duplicate of 1886.
is why

Comment 3

[Charles Manske]

Since there were not negative comments about my question, I'll consider the
design OK -- implementing as described is covered by bug 7992

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7992 ***

Comment 4

[sujay]

verified in 9/14 build.