Open
Bug 178852
Opened 22 years ago
Updated 16 years ago
flag selection is really bad for accessibility
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Attachments & Requests, enhancement)
Tracking
()
NEW
People
(Reporter: timeless, Unassigned)
References
(Depends on 1 open bug)
Details
there's a spec somewhere which says not to do this:
<a
href="something1">link</a>, <a href="something2">link</a>, <a
href="something3">link</a>, <a href="something4">link</a>, <a
href="something5">link</a>, <a href="something6">link</a>, <a
href="something7">link</a>, <a href="something8">link</a>.
The reason is that it's not good for screen readers or typeahead or voice input.
we're doing the equivalent:
... [{empty}|{minus}|{plus}]
... [{empty}|{minus}|{plus}]
... [{empty}|{minus}|{plus}]
instead we could do:
[no <review>|<review>-|<review>+]
[no <super review>|<super review>-|<super review>+]
[no <approval>|<approval>-|<approval>+]
[]s mean listbox
| is the list sep
{} means a literal symbol
<> mean some replacable string -- which i replaced.
I'd suggest abandoning -/+ and using 'granted' and 'rejected'. i think they
should always work.
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
timeless, please clarify. I have no clue what you're talking about here. The
summary says "attachment status" but the description sounds like you're
describing flags, and I don't even follow where the list of links is you're
talking about...
Updated•21 years ago
|
OS: Windows 2000 → All
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: attachment status selection is really bad for accessibility → flag selection is really bad for accessibility
![]() |
||
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 240763 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
![]() |
||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Severity: major → enhancement
Updated•19 years ago
|
QA Contact: mattyt-bugzilla → default-qa
![]() |
||
Updated•18 years ago
|
Assignee: myk → attach-and-request
sorry, there are two flag classes flags for bugs and flags for attachments.
if i was talking about attachments, it'd be something like this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317544#a0
but i'm pretty sure i wasn't.
the problem is, imagine you're a screenreader and you see this:
Flags:
approval
approval3.2
blocking3.2
approval3.0
blocking3.0.6
approval2.22
blocking2.22.6
approval2.20
blocking2.20.7
documentation ()
documentation3.2 ()
documentation3.0 ()
documentation2.22 ()
documentation2.20 ()
testcase ()
needsinfo ()
try reading that in any useful way. it's hard, it's painful. the screen reader advice is basically that you shouldn't have blobs of togglable stuff that run together and won't be easy to read.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•