WUI: accessibility problem with node status in new Welcome page #1961

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2013-05-02T00:26:57Z

daira commented

2013-05-02 00:26:57 +00:00

On 02/05/13 00:16, Greg Troxel wrote:

The up/down-ness of nodes is indicated by a green vs red circle, which
is gratuitously unfriendly to people with color vision issues and/or B&W
displays (yes, I have sparcstation ELC handy, but no I haven't tried to
run a browser on it and look at the weclome page).

I would suggest leaving the green circle and making the down icon be a
red X, basically the logical and of a big X and the circle, so it has
similar visual feel, and is distinguishable w/o color.

It's unfortunate that I missed this, given that I fixed it for the
Introducer and Helper status (they say "Not Connected"). My bad.

On 02/05/13 00:16, Greg Troxel wrote: > The up/down-ness of nodes is indicated by a green vs red circle, which > is gratuitously unfriendly to people with color vision issues and/or B&W > displays (yes, I have sparcstation ELC handy, but no I haven't tried to > run a browser on it and look at the weclome page). > > I would suggest leaving the green circle and making the down icon be a > red X, basically the logical and of a big X and the circle, so it has > similar visual feel, and is distinguishable w/o color. It's unfortunate that I missed this, given that I fixed it for the Introducer and Helper status (they say "Not Connected"). My bad.

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2013-05-02 00:26:57 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the soon milestone 2013-05-02 00:26:57 +00:00

RedEmerald commented

2013-05-10 02:29:07 +00:00

Much love for this

tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from soon to 1.11.0

2013-08-28 16:38:52 +00:00

nejucomo commented

2013-12-05 16:12:56 +00:00

Daira and I worked on this at the last summit. I have a branch that's almost ready for a pull request.

zooko commented

2013-12-31 00:32:49 +00:00

What's the status of this ticket? I guess, from reading the comment history, that it is blocked on nejucomo posting a pull request.

warner commented

2014-09-02 18:24:48 +00:00

nejucomo is going to locate the branch for this, then assign to me for review and landing.

nejucomo commented

2014-09-07 21:02:40 +00:00

I'm dusting off this branch now: https://github.com/nejucomo/tahoe-lafs/tree/1961-welcome-accessibility

I'm dusting off this branch now: <https://github.com/nejucomo/tahoe-lafs/tree/1961-welcome-accessibility>

nejucomo commented

2014-09-07 23:13:48 +00:00

I rebased (with rename appending _1) the above onto the latest master:

https://github.com/nejucomo/tahoe-lafs/tree/1961-welcome-accessibility_1

I can now run setup.py test (within a virtualenv) and all tests pass except for some skips and some expected failures:

Ran 1140 tests in 436.003s

PASSED (skips=5, expectedFailures=3, successes=1132)

However, when I start a node the images are broken links, so I consider the unit tests to have insufficient coverage for a pull-request. Focusing on that now.

I rebased (with rename appending `_1`) the above onto the latest master: <https://github.com/nejucomo/tahoe-lafs/tree/1961-welcome-accessibility_1> I can now run `setup.py test` (within a virtualenv) and all tests pass except for some skips and some expected failures: ``` Ran 1140 tests in 436.003s PASSED (skips=5, expectedFailures=3, successes=1132) ``` However, when I start a node the images are broken links, so I consider the unit tests to have insufficient coverage for a pull-request. Focusing on that now.

warner commented

2014-09-08 18:17:01 +00:00

minor nit, could we use "-1" instead of "_1" for future branch-name suffixes? Easier to type.

daira commented

2014-09-08 21:32:44 +00:00

Replying to warner:

minor nit, could we use "-1" instead of "_1" for future branch-name suffixes? Easier to type.

That's the convention we use at LeastAuthority, but I'm open to changing it.

Replying to [warner](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1961#issuecomment-91606): > minor nit, could we use "-1" instead of "_1" for future branch-name suffixes? Easier to type. That's the convention we use at LeastAuthority, but I'm open to changing it.

warner commented

2014-09-23 17:24:29 +00:00

nejucomo said he will work on this on this coming friday. Still on track for 1.11

warner commented

2014-09-23 18:30:38 +00:00

PR in https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/110

PR in <https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/110>

daira commented

2014-11-25 17:37:04 +00:00

Blocked because of the licensing issue described at https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/110#issuecomment-56603567 (we need a connected-not-configured icon with compatible licensing).

Blocked because of the licensing issue described at <https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/110#issuecomment-56603567> (we need a connected-not-configured icon with compatible licensing).

nejucomo commented

2015-01-21 00:46:21 +00:00

Okay, I've added a new PR: https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/136

This one is a single commit with all new icons I created and place into the public domain.

Okay, I've added a new PR: <https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/136> This one is a single commit with all new icons I created and place into the public domain.

warner commented

2015-01-21 01:18:19 +00:00

On it, I'll see if I can tighten up the layout CSS too.

nejucomo was unassigned by warner

2015-01-21 01:18:19 +00:00

warner self-assigned this 2015-01-21 01:18:19 +00:00

warner commented

2015-01-21 01:36:32 +00:00

Done, in cfec3ef.

warner added the

fixed

label 2015-01-21 01:36:32 +00:00