Closed
Bug 562776
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 14 years ago
Buttons in digest pane are using the same access key multiple times
Categories
(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, defect, P2)
Toolkit
Add-ons Manager
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
mozilla1.9.3a5
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
blocking2.0 | --- | final+ |
People
(Reporter: whimboo, Assigned: mkohler)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [rewrite])
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
26.30 KB,
image/jpeg
|
Details | |
5.21 KB,
patch
|
Unfocused
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100427 Minefield/3.7a5pre When you have the digest pane open for any type of add-on open, the same access key is used for the Enable, Disable, Remove buttons. We have to avoid that. An access key should only be used once.
Comment 1•14 years ago
|
||
Sadly, the solution to that problem is to completely remove the access keys.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•14 years ago
|
||
As long as we wanna show the buttons for all add-ons in that list even when the add-on isn't selected, it's true.
Keywords: uiwanted
Updated•14 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P2
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•14 years ago
|
||
Jennifer, the reason why I have added the uiwanted keyword is, if we really wanna show up the buttons for all entries, even when they are not selected. In the old ui only the selected items shows buttons for enabling/disabling/removing an extension.
Keywords: uiwanted
Comment 5•14 years ago
|
||
Bug 563912 is closely related to this one. Having to havigate using tab through all those buttons for all extensions makes the keyboard interaction model really cumbersome.
Comment 6•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #2) > As long as we wanna show the buttons for all add-ons in that list even when the > add-on isn't selected, it's true. Agreed, we should remove the access keys. For accessibility I'm guessing we'll need to implement a way to expand any add-on just using the keyboard, for instance by cycling focus and then having an access key just on one item. For now let's just take out access keys.
Keywords: uiwanted
Updated•14 years ago
|
blocking2.0: --- → final+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•14 years ago
|
||
AFAIC there are no other accesskeys to delete.
Assignee: nobody → michaelkohler
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #447022 -
Flags: review?(dtownsend)
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•14 years ago
|
||
When we are going to remove the accesskeys we also have to update the dtd files, if the same access keys aren't used anywhere else.
Comment 10•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 447022 [details] [diff] [review] Patch Need to remove the relevant entities in extensions.dtd too. Also, there's code in extensions.xml that handles the accesskey attributes for the "Show more" toggle button - that will need removed too (its in the toggleDetails method).
Attachment #447022 -
Flags: review?(dtownsend) → review-
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•14 years ago
|
||
Attachment #447022 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #447073 -
Flags: review?
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #447073 -
Flags: review? → review?(bmcbride)
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•14 years ago
|
||
Michael, why doesn't the new patch contain the lines from patch 1? Was that by accident?
Comment 13•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #12) > Michael, why doesn't the new patch contain the lines from patch 1? Was that by > accident? Huh? Looks like it does include those changes.
Updated•14 years ago
|
Attachment #447073 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride) → review+
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > Michael, why doesn't the new patch contain the lines from patch 1? Was that by > > accident? > > Huh? Looks like it does include those changes. What about extensions.xul? Don't we have to remove the enable/disable/remove accesskeys there too, which would also require to remove those from the dtd file?
Comment 15•14 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #14) > What about extensions.xul? Don't we have to remove the enable/disable/remove > accesskeys there too, which would also require to remove those from the dtd > file? No, that's the detail view - we don't have this problem in the detail view.
Assignee | ||
Updated•14 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 16•14 years ago
|
||
Landed: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/03776449f410
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 14 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.3a5
Updated•14 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Reporter | ||
Comment 17•14 years ago
|
||
Verified fixed with Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100530 Minefield/3.7a5pre (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) ID:20100530040319
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Flags: in-testsuite-
Flags: in-litmus-
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•