844567 - Email Layout and Font Revisions - New Account Screen

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 844973

(Firefox OS Graveyard :: Gaia::E-Mail, defect)

Comment 1

[Pavel Ivanov [:ivanovpavel][:pivanov] UX]

Attachment: After patch

Hey Eric,
there are few small thing who depends from some other bugs:
1. The Header - [BB] need to be refactored(visual inconsistency) Bug 844575
2. The Button - [BB] need to be refactored(visual inconsistency)

Comment 2

[Pavel Ivanov [:ivanovpavel][:pivanov] UX]

Attachment: patch for UX branch

Comment 3

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

I think the UX branch is still dead per the discussion on dev-gaia from not too long ago and the patch should be made against gaia/master instead?

Comment 4

[Pavel Ivanov [:ivanovpavel][:pivanov] UX]

(In reply to Andrew Sutherland (:asuth) from comment #3)
> I think the UX branch is still dead per the discussion on dev-gaia from not
> too long ago and the patch should be made against gaia/master instead?

Comment 5

[Sam Joch [:samjoch]]

Andrew, we're thinking of a new flow for the UX branch.

Comment 6

[Sam Joch [:samjoch]]

Pavel: I think you don't need to use a list (ul/li). Actually i try it without and it works.

Comment 7

[Pavel Ivanov [:ivanovpavel][:pivanov] UX]

Yes it works but with different button style ... 
because of [BB][buttons] ... you can see here https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/blob/master/shared/style/buttons.css#L116
we have a different styles for "buttons" and "buttons inside lists"

Comment 8

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

(In reply to Sam Joch [:samjoch] from comment #5)
> Andrew, we're thinking of a new flow for the UX branch.

Does that mean the UX branch is dead for now until there's an announced plan for the UX branch?

Comment 9

[Sam Joch [:samjoch]]

Attachment: [BB] W/ list style vs. Without list style button

Pavel: I have a question, does the style difference between the two samples justify the use of a list ?

Andrew: No, each UX Branch's will be processed. We just need to find a more global process for that branch.

Comment 10

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

(In reply to Sam Joch [:samjoch] from comment #9)
> Andrew: No, each UX Branch's will be processed. We just need to find a more
> global process for that branch.

I don't know what "processed" means in this context.  Regardless, it's clear that for whatever reason it's desired to keep the UX branch around.  Just keep in mind that I take no responsibility for getting stuff merged down to gaia/master for e-mail and if things land on gaia/master in a single big commit that regresses the e-mail UI, it will be backed out as a single big commit.

Comment 11

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

Casey, the patch on here re-emphasizes "manual setup" again by turning it back into a very prominent button.  The attachments here demonstrate it pretty well, it's just that the [Before] is out-of-date and is from the manual setup option was a button.

Is this okay?

Comment 12

[Eric Pang [:epang] UX]

(In reply to Andrew Sutherland (:asuth) from comment #11)
> Casey, the patch on here re-emphasizes "manual setup" again by turning it
> back into a very prominent button.  The attachments here demonstrate it
> pretty well, it's just that the [Before] is out-of-date and is from the
> manual setup option was a button.
> 
> Is this okay?


Pavel, there was a duplicate of this bug that you already fixed.  This bug is outdated.  This is the bug with the correct mock up that you already created a patch for. thx!
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=844973

Comment 13

[Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] (he/him)]

Aha!  Then we really need this patch taken out of https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/pull/8703 since it is on top of the fix for bug 844973!

Comment 14

[Sam Joch [:samjoch]]

took off from https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/pull/8703

Comment 15

[Casey Yee]

We should definitely stick with the link.  We don't want the button to be mistaken for the "next" step which is why it was changed to a link in the first place.    

It seems that this is now correctly implemented as described above.   Just adding this note to be complete.

Thanks!