732529 - Dictionary entries in Language Tools need better separation to avoid description string ambiguity

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Public Pages, defect, P5)

Description

[Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] (he/him)]

Attachment: German dictionaries, showing ambiguity

Split off from bug 695038.

See the attached screenshot. The description text between the 2 "Install Dictionary" links is meant to describe the one above it, but this isn't obvious from just looking at those entries. It could very well be describing the one below.

Entries for the same locale need some form of separation that makes it clearer that the description belongs to the entry directly above it and not the one below.

Comment 1

[Wil Clouser [:clouserw]]

What do you suggest?  There isn't much space there so we're trying to avoid padding/indention.  Ideally, all dictionaries of the same language would have a description so there wouldn't be any blanks or ambiguity.

Comment 2

[Jorge Villalobos [:jorgev] (he/him)]

I can see how there's no horizontal space, but I don't see how there would be a strong limitation in vertical space.

One possibility could be to have a border line that divides items in the same locale and same column. A thin dotted line that doesn't get in the way unless you're looking for it.

Another possibility would be to have alternating backgrounds within cell. So, for example, the second German dictionary entry would have a light grey background color.

Comment 3

[Wil Clouser [:clouserw]]

Alternating backgrounds within a cell sound really confusing.  Jason - any feedback?

Comment 4

[Jason Grlicky [:grlicky]]

I agree with Jorge that vertical space is not at a premium here, and I think Wil is right that adding more visual elements might get messy. Something like http://cl.ly/3v0X2q3T2B2t0S0d1u2z could be a good place to start!

Comment 5

[Reuben Brenner-Adams [:kangareuben]]

Hi, I'd like to work on this bug. I've never done this sort of thing before, so would someone be willing to instruct me on how the process works? How do I pull the source code (using Mercurial, presumably)? Are there tests or other things I should be aware of before submitting a patch?

Thanks,
rmb1952

Comment 6

[Dan Callahan [:callahad]]

Hi rmb1952, you can find more information on how to contribute to AMO here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Webdev/GetInvolved/addons.mozilla.org

The docs linked from there have good discussion of testing / style / etc.

Feel free to ping me if you have any questions navigating Mozilla-land :)

Comment 7

[Reuben Brenner-Adams [:kangareuben]]

Thanks for the advice, callahad! I've submitted a patch, which can be viewed at https://github.com/mozilla/olympia/commit/181dc72ca40352f63ba01fe76f29836e4ca0dba2.

Comment 8

[Mathieu Agopian [:magopian]]

PR: https://github.com/mozilla/olympia/pull/410 (supersedes the PR https://github.com/mozilla/olympia/pull/294 from comment 7)

Comment 9

[Mathieu Agopian [:magopian]]

Fixed in https://github.com/mozilla/olympia/commit/23900a8ca2c7f7cf6cd7ef4bec0e1eac81b16393

Thanks Reuben!

Comment 10

[Madalin Cotetiu]

Verified as fixed in FF34(Win7) in addons-dev.allizom.org
Postfix screenshot: http://screencast.com/t/xSRi6aqv0