365397 - request lines make attach's content area too narrow

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 101770

(Bugzilla :: Attachments & Requests, enhancement, P3)

Description

[victory <[e-mail]>]

requestee and/or requester field should be shortened when it loose focus

Comment 1

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: patch for tip

Comment 3

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

Comment on attachment 249995 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for tip

Maki: Asking for review from the wind doesn't work very well, usually. That's why we have the reviewer-list on bugzilla.org.

Comment 4

[Frédéric Buclin]

I much prefer a non-JS fix. See bug 365142 why I don't like these fields changing their size every time you click somewhere else.

Before I review it in details, I would like a screenshot from Boris where this problem appears. He said in bug 366270 that he has only 300px available with a 1200px wide screen. I want to see where place is wasted (maybe a long username for one of the flag setters?).

Comment 5

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

None of my current review requests are quite as bad as the one was that caused me to file the bug, so no screenshot with 300px, but yeah, the long review requester does seem to be the issue.  Look at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=250381&action=edit or https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=247817&action=edit for example (and note that I have a 16px min font-size set; that might matter here).

I can still post a screenshot if that's really needed, I guess.

Comment 6

[Frédéric Buclin]

Note that bug 302372 is part of the problem. It makes the requestee field too large, IMO (size=30). I think size=20 would fit for 90% of all email addresses.

biesi also asked on IRC to make the comment textarea larger, if possible as large as the patch textarea. This would involve some new UI.

So flags should no longer be besides the patch textarea and be moved somewhere else. Maybe something like this?

 __________________  ______________  ________  __________________
| Description      || Filename     || Size   || MIME type        |
|__________________||______________||________||__________________|
 _________   ______  ______
|_Submit__| |_View_||_Diff_|
 __________________________  _____________________________________
| Flags                    || Comment textarea                    |
|                          ||                                     |
|                          ||                                     |
|                          ||                                     |
|__________________________||_____________________________________|
 _________________________________________________________________
|Patch here                                                       |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |
|_________________________________________________________________|

Opinion?

Comment 7

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

That would be a nice improvement over what we have now.

Comment 8

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: patch for tip, rewrited

Comment 9

[Frédéric Buclin]

maki, could you attach a screenshot?

Comment 10

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: screenshot, url attach, narrow

Comment 11

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: screenshot, url attach, wider

Comment 12

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: screenshot, image attach, narrow

Comment 13

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: screenshot, image attach, wider

Comment 14

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 251281 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for tip, rewrited

r- based on the screenshots you attached. We waste too much vertical space. In my proposed UI, the comment textares is on the right of flags, not below.

Also, we would spare even more vertical space if the labels were on the left of the fields themselves, not above.

And the fields for the fieldname and the MIME type are by far too large.

Comment 15

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 249995 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for tip

As I said, I don't like the JS solution.

Comment 16

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: patch for tip

Comment 17

[victory <[e-mail]>]

Attachment: screenshot

Comment 18

[Frédéric Buclin]

(In reply to comment #6)
> biesi also asked on IRC to make the comment textarea larger, if possible as
> large as the patch textarea.

This is bug 101770.

Comment 19

[Teemu Mannermaa (:wicked)]

Comment on attachment 251444 [details] [diff] [review]
patch for tip

Unfortunately huge hunk 2 of edit template doesn't apply anymore and it's too massive change for me to fix before review.

Following comments looking at the screenshot:

 1) This seems to add created and creator information, which is nice. But do we have separate bugs open for these changes already?

 2) I don't think we should cram the Size information on the same line as creator.

 3) Placement of Submit button seems wrong. Probably would look better if it's atleast after the flags and comment textbox.

 4) Attachment buttons should probably be after the attachment and/or combined with Actions line.

 5) Attachment frame might benefit from somekind of header information.

Comment 20

[Frédéric Buclin]

(In reply to comment #19)
>  3) Placement of Submit button seems wrong. Probably would look better if it's
> atleast after the flags and comment textbox.

Eventually. I suggested to put it here in the mockup, but your suggestion would work too.


>  4) Attachment buttons should probably be after the attachment and/or combined
> with Actions line.

If we move the Submit button as you suggested in 3), then combining them with the Actions line would be a better idea, IMO.

We could even go a bit further and limit the length of the requester and requestee names, maybe using |overflow: scroll| for flags.

Comment 21

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

Bugzilla 3.2 is now frozen. Only enhancements blocking 3.2 or specifically approved for 3.2 may be checked in to the 3.2 branch. If you would like to nominate your enhancement for Bugzilla 3.2, set the "blocking3.2" flag to "?", and either the target milestone will be changed back, or the blocking3.2 flag will be granted, if we will accept this enhancement for Bugzilla 3.2.

Comment 22

[Frédéric Buclin]

pyrzak, what's your opinion about comment 6?

Comment 23

[Guy Pyrzak]

I like it.

Comment 24

[Guy Pyrzak]

this ui is basically being implemented on bug 101770