The current theme browser doesn't filter or show themes compatible with your version (or OS platform) unlike other listing views on the site. This view shows no "install" button, and therefore no indication whether the available version is compatible. To check compatibility the user must click through to each theme's page for every available theme individually. Ugh.
See also bug 440226
wenzel suggested graying-out the incompatible themes, rather than outright removing them from the view -- thoughts?
My preference would be to add a checkbox to enable listing of compatible themes only (so to get the real top-10 themes for my current browser).
Yeah, that might work better, since iirc Fred said doing the compat check will be a bit of a perf hit.
(In reply to comment #3) > My preference would be to add a checkbox to enable listing of compatible themes > only (so to get the real top-10 themes for my current browser). See also bug 437496
osunick: Do we have any UI for this?
I could implement some JS+CSS according to comment 2, if you like.
Please do! Thanks in advance, Alfred
Created attachment 394263 [details] [diff] [review] Patch, rev. 1 This adds 30% transparency to incompatible add-ons in the list. I also filed a followup bug to add an overlay to these add-ons that allows users to figure out what version range the add-on *is* compatible with, and also makes it easier to realize what translucency means in this context. For now though, I think this is a good solution, as people who care can look at it, all others can choose to ignore it.
It's an interesting idea - I'm not sure how accessible it is, but I'd be willing to try it in this case. If an add-on is greyed out (and particularly if there is an overlay when I mouse over it) I would expect to not be able to click on it and see the detail page though. However, without the overlay I think this is too subtle to notice.
Not sure if I'd disable the link altogether. That might upset people who want to inform themselves about the add-on in spite of their current browser not supporting it. Also, do I interpret your comment correctly as, you want to r- it, not because the code isn't good, but because you don't think this should be deployed *without* the overlay at first?
I'm just fishing for more ideas, but yeah, I think the overlay is necessary.
I agree with Wil- we need an overlay.
Over to Neil then for mockup / sketch / playdoh model.
Assignee: fwenzel → neilio
Created attachment 394549 [details] Compatible themes bar Here's the mockup we chatted about in IRC, with stephend's text in it. Hex colour for the bar is #b5d9e5. Unless we really need to make this look identical in IE I think we should just use CSS rounded corners, but that's just my 2 cents. :) If you need graphics let me know.
(In reply to comment #17) > Here's the mockup we chatted about in IRC, with stephend's text in it. I thought this is for the followup bug. This bug adds an overlay, no?
Created attachment 394555 [details] Overlay graphic Sorry, I got confused. Here's the overlay graphic (made larger in case you need to do sliding doors with it for text/l10n expansion) and the mockup is here: http://snaps.beatnikpad.com/icompatible-themes-overlay-20090814-153622.png
Attachment #394549 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(In reply to comment #19) > http://snaps.beatnikpad.com/icompatible-themes-overlay-20090814-153622.png From comment 10 / bug 510192, this should also state the compatibility range, not just the fact that it's incompatible.
Created attachment 394823 [details] [diff] [review] Patch, rev. 2 This patch adds an overlay on top of the "faded" list item.
Attachment #394823 - Flags: review?(clouserw)
Comment on attachment 394823 [details] [diff] [review] Patch, rev. 2 This is looking good. I don't like how long the notice stays on the screen when I move my mouse away, but I guess that's just my preference.
Attachment #394823 - Flags: review?(clouserw) → review+
I made it faster. That didn't work for me yesterday, but I was probably doing something wrong. In r49393 and r49394.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Tested using: * Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:220.127.116.11) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/18.104.22.168 * Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 * Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:126.96.36.199) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 * Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2a2pre) Gecko/20090820 Namoroka/3.6a2pre * IE 7, Safari 4, Opera 9.64 (just to double-check for layout/style regressions) mozwebqa: I could use sanity-checking here, thanks :-)
Pretty confident this is fine -- verified FIXED.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Product: addons.mozilla.org → addons.mozilla.org Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.