It's a pain to scroll down again and again to reach the navbar. They should be displayed at the top too (not admin pages nor saved searches, only common links). Moreover, I think the title could have some cleanup, see the link in the URL field. I know some people like it, I also know some people don't. But if we do nothing, we will never improve it. And waiting for AJAX and gandalf's new UI is too long IMO, especially because we will have the same kind of discussion as we may have here.
Created attachment 224451 [details] [diff] [review] patch, v1 Here is an attempt.
Comment on attachment 224451 [details] [diff] [review] patch, v1 i've attached what the patch looks like in IE. i agree with the intent of this patch, however there's some issues with how IE displays the new style. the text size of the header and footer is large, which results in bad layout. while the footer text size problem isn't new, may as well tweak it now. padding is missing from the header div in IE.
Byron, I'm not a big CSS expert, and I can hardly test on IE (I'm using Linux). Could you help me fixing the issues you reported in comment 5?
Created attachment 224863 [details] [diff] [review] globals.css fixes here's a first try at getting it working on FF and IE. patch covers global.css changes only.
Created attachment 224892 [details] [diff] [review] patch, v2 Mixing my patch with glob's one + fixes we made together.
Comment on attachment 224892 [details] [diff] [review] patch, v2 r=glob
Comment on attachment 224892 [details] [diff] [review] patch, v2 So this no longer displays the Bugzilla version? :-(
(In reply to comment #10) > So this no longer displays the Bugzilla version? :-( Right. This is useless and doesn't suit well in the UI. Even b.m.o doesn't display it anymore.
b.m.o. does display it, even if it's relatively small (and right centered). > This is useless It is of critical importance in my opinion, since I can google "Bugzilla 2.18", "Bugzilla 2.20" and see deployment statistics for free. Personally I strongly preffer to keep this information. Also, probably the "Actions:" label should be duplicated at the top of the "toolbar", to keep consistency with the footer.
(In reply to comment #12) > It is of critical importance in my opinion, since I can google "Bugzilla 2.18", > "Bugzilla 2.20" and see deployment statistics for free. I don't see how stats could be of critical importance. Moreover, there is config.cgi for that. > Also, probably the "Actions:" label should be duplicated at the top of the > "toolbar", to keep consistency with the footer. "Actions:" is useless; really. And we already are consistent with links displayed.
> I don't see how stats could be of critical importance. I guess it depends on the personal perspective from which you look at it. We are developers; probably a marketer (if Bugzilla had one) that gathers his data would say otherwise. > Moreover, there is config.cgi for that. It's not usually spidered by search engines.
it's trivial to write a script that looks for bugzilla installs and determines the installed version. polluting the ui isn't the correct way to resolve that problem.
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > So this no longer displays the Bugzilla version? :-( > > Right. This is useless and doesn't suit well in the UI. As an end user who is mildly technically savvy, I like knowing what version a site is using as I use it without having to play tricks to find out. Having the version displayed also allows end users to pester the admin when an upgrade is available in case the admin never logs in to get their update notification ;) > Even b.m.o doesn't display it anymore. We sure as hell do. :) it's on the right-hand size of the blue bar, along the bottom edge, in white text.
How many softwares display their version on every page?
We need the rest of this too much to squabble about little pieces right now.
Checking in skins/standard/global.css; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/skins/standard/global.css,v <-- global.css new revision: 1.21; previous revision: 1.20 done Checking in template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl,v <-- filterexceptions.pl new revision: 1.69; previous revision: 1.68 done Checking in template/en/default/bug/show.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/show.html.tmpl,v <-- show.html.tmpl new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11 done Checking in template/en/default/global/banner.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/banner.html.tmpl,v <-- banner.html.tmpl new revision: 1.9; previous revision: 1.8 done RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/common-links.html.tmpl,v done Checking in template/en/default/global/common-links.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/common-links.html.tmpl,v <-- common-links.html.tmpl initial revision: 1.1 done Checking in template/en/default/global/header.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/header.html.tmpl,v <-- header.html.tmpl new revision: 1.41; previous revision: 1.40 done Checking in template/en/default/global/useful-links.html.tmpl; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/global/useful-links.html.tmpl,v <-- useful-links.html.tmpl new revision: 1.45; previous revision: 1.44 done
Added to the release notes on bug 255155.
The correct bug number for those release notes is actually bug 349423.