Closed
Bug 1246313
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
refresh code mirror colors for better contrast
Categories
(DevTools :: General, defect)
DevTools
General
Tracking
(firefox49 verified)
VERIFIED
FIXED
Firefox 49
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox49 | --- | verified |
People
(Reporter: hholmes, Assigned: hholmes)
References
(Depends on 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(4 files, 9 obsolete files)
I think it would be nice to update a lot of our variables.css colors to be brighter and have higher contrast.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
A look at the direction I'd like to go.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
Starter patch, matches the screenshot
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•9 years ago
|
||
Did some work to make sure the colors pass AA.
Attachment #8716528 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8716533 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•9 years ago
|
||
One thing I'm uncertain about is that I'm definitely flattening the number of colors used in the tools (going from ~5 to ~3, across the markup view to the tools).
This patch is 80% subjective, 20% quantitative (or, 80% making something that I think looks good, 20% making something that passes AA). Anyone have opinions/reasons for why we removing the overall number of colors we're using would be a bad idea?
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•9 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8743374 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•9 years ago
|
||
A comparison of the three (current + proposals) different inspectors.
I don't think this is impacting the Style Editor negatively, but also not sure how to gauge that?
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•9 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8743444 -
Flags: review?(ntim.bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•9 years ago
|
||
I haven't touched the Firebug theme at all (was under the impression that we wanted the Firebug theme to ship looking as much like Firebug as possible) but Gabe's proposal might work well for it.
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•9 years ago
|
||
Rebased with today's fx-team
Attachment #8743542 -
Flags: review?(ntim.bugs)
Updated•9 years ago
|
Attachment #8743444 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8743444 -
Flags: review?(ntim.bugs)
Comment 12•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8743542 [details] [diff] [review]
high-contrast.patch
Review of attachment 8743542 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I think all I had to say about this was in our IRC conversation:
11:59 PM <ntim> helenvholmes: about the markup refresh, the changes look great ! a few comments though
12:00 AM <ntim> in the debugger, I would love to see `var`, `for` have a different colour than the object names
12:01 AM <ntim> all JS keywords
12:01 AM <•helenvholmes> ntim: yeah, it occurred to me after I flagged you for review that I hadn't looked at the Debugger at all
Attachment #8743542 -
Flags: review?(ntim.bugs) → feedback+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•9 years ago
|
||
Hey Brian, I know you're kinda busy, but would you be willing to check out this patch?
It doesn't look fabulous in dark theme currently because it assumes the background colors will change with Bug 1205330.
The box model colors are unchanged as Gabe's changing those over with Bug 1128209.
Attachment #8743389 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8743542 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8744943 -
Flags: review?(bgrinstead)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•9 years ago
|
||
Forgot the "r=bgrins" flag in the commit message.
Attachment #8744943 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8744943 -
Flags: review?(bgrinstead)
Attachment #8744944 -
Flags: review?(bgrinstead)
Comment 15•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Helen V. Holmes (:helenvholmes) (:✨)(pls ni?) from comment #13)
> It doesn't look fabulous in dark theme currently because it assumes the
> background colors will change with Bug 1205330.
Sounds like this is dependent on 1205330 then?
Depends on: 1205330
Comment 16•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8744944 [details] [diff] [review]
high-contrast.patch
Review of attachment 8744944 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One general thing that needs to be fixed - syntax highlighting for DOM nodes in the console isn't matching the inspector (try executing document.body in the console). In that case it's adding a class 'console-string' instead of 'theme-fg-color6' so we should change the class that's being added here: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/devtools/client/webconsole/console-output.js#3129. We should also check text content colors in that case to make sure it matches what you see in the markup view.
::: devtools/client/themes/light-theme.css
@@ -100,4 @@
> .theme-fg-color2,
> .cm-s-mozilla .cm-attribute,
> .cm-s-mozilla .cm-builtin,
> -.cm-s-mozilla .cm-def,
cm-def has been removed and not added anywhere. is this intentional?
@@ +177,4 @@
> border-color: var(--theme-splitter-color);
> }
>
> +.devtools-sidebar-tabs tabs {
There's already a rule doing just this in the file (search for .devtools-sidebar-tabs tabs)
::: devtools/client/themes/variables.css
@@ +87,5 @@
> --theme-highlight-lightorange: #d99b28;
> --theme-highlight-orange: #d96629;
> --theme-highlight-red: #eb5368;
> --theme-highlight-pink: #df80ff;
> + --theme-highlight-gray: #e9f4fe;
If a new variable is being added (especially one that seems generally useful like a gray) then we should add it in all themes so it can be used safely by tools
@@ +132,2 @@
> --theme-highlight-purple: #5b5fff;
> + --theme-highlight-lightorange: #39cf65; /* todo */
What are the todos for? Still working out colors?
Attachment #8744944 -
Flags: review?(bgrinstead)
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Brian Grinstead [:bgrins] from comment #16)
> ::: devtools/client/themes/light-theme.css
> @@ -100,4 @@
> > .theme-fg-color2,
> > .cm-s-mozilla .cm-attribute,
> > .cm-s-mozilla .cm-builtin,
> > -.cm-s-mozilla .cm-def,
>
> cm-def has been removed and not added anywhere. is this intentional?
Kinda—wanted it to just inherit the unstyled body-copy-color. I redeclared it to be more obvious that was my intent.
> @@ +177,4 @@
> > border-color: var(--theme-splitter-color);
> > }
> >
> > +.devtools-sidebar-tabs tabs {
>
> There's already a rule doing just this in the file (search for
> .devtools-sidebar-tabs tabs)
:+1:
> ::: devtools/client/themes/variables.css
> @@ +87,5 @@
> > --theme-highlight-lightorange: #d99b28;
> > --theme-highlight-orange: #d96629;
> > --theme-highlight-red: #eb5368;
> > --theme-highlight-pink: #df80ff;
> > + --theme-highlight-gray: #e9f4fe;
>
> If a new variable is being added (especially one that seems generally useful
> like a gray) then we should add it in all themes so it can be used safely by
> tools
Done!
> @@ +132,2 @@
> > --theme-highlight-purple: #5b5fff;
> > + --theme-highlight-lightorange: #39cf65; /* todo */
>
> What are the todos for? Still working out colors?
This is me being bad at rebasing—I didn't mean to affect the firebug theme at all (with the exception of now adding the --theme-highlight-gray). I think I fixed it?
Attachment #8746616 -
Flags: review?(bgrinstead)
Comment 19•9 years ago
|
||
Is it intentional that the Debugger and the Style Editor looks less colourful now ? The inspector definitively looks better though.
Comment 20•9 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8746616 [details] [diff] [review]
high-contrast.patch
Review of attachment 8746616 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Code changes are fine with me. This should wait to land until Bug 1205330, correct?
::: devtools/client/themes/light-theme.css
@@ +225,5 @@
> color: black;
> }
>
> +div.CodeMirror span.CodeMirror-matchingbracket {
> + color: blue;
Is this meant to be actually blue and not --theme-highlight-blue / --theme-highlight-bluegrey ?
Attachment #8746616 -
Flags: review?(bgrinstead) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Tim Nguyen :ntim from comment #19)
> Is it intentional that the Debugger and the Style Editor looks less
> colourful now ? The inspector definitively looks better though.
Yep, this is intentional.
(In reply to Brian Grinstead [:bgrins] from comment #20)
> Comment on attachment 8746616 [details] [diff] [review]
> high-contrast.patch
>
> Review of attachment 8746616 [details] [diff] [review]:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Code changes are fine with me. This should wait to land until Bug 1205330,
> correct?
Yes, that would be preferable! The AA enhancements would be moot in the dark theme without that bug getting applied too.
> ::: devtools/client/themes/light-theme.css
> @@ +225,5 @@
> > color: black;
> > }
> >
> > +div.CodeMirror span.CodeMirror-matchingbracket {
> > + color: blue;
>
> Is this meant to be actually blue and not --theme-highlight-blue /
> --theme-highlight-bluegrey ?
Ah, this is unintentional—I've removed it in the above patch. (Otherwise, should all be the same.)
Attachment #8744944 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8746616 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8747146 -
Flags: review+
Updated•9 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → hholmes
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 22•9 years ago
|
||
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 23•9 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
status-firefox49:
--- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 49
Comment 25•8 years ago
|
||
This bug was about to implement variables.css colors to be brighter and have higher contrast as Description. I have seen the feature being implemented with latest Beta 49.0b3 on Windows 7, 64 Bit!
The bug's fix is verified on latest Beta 49.0b3
Build ID 20160811031722
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0
[testday-20160812]
Updated•8 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Updated•6 years ago
|
Product: Firefox → DevTools
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•