![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
codeman38) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2010-10-21 09:54 am
Expanding messages in Inbox broken in several ways
Title:
Expanding messages in Inbox broken in several ways
Area:
Inbox
Summary:
To view messages that have already been read in your Inbox, it's necessary to click on a small (11x11 pixel) triangle. There are several issues with the implementation of this.
Description:
In Dreamwidth's inbox system, posts which have already been read are hidden from view and must be manually expanded. This makes perfect sense; there's no reason to see stuff that you haven't read already.
However, the way that expanding these messages is implemented is problematic in several ways.
First of all, the size of the target is ridiculously small: 11x11 pixels. And as far as I can tell, the little arrow is the only way to expand these messages; clicking on the message itself checks the checkbox for that message rather than expanding it. It seems to me that there should be a much larger target for viewing the message rather than checking it, or some other behavior to view the message (double- rather than single-click, for instance).
Second, because this JavaScript is implemented solely using the 'click' event, it is keyboard-inaccessible. There should be a listener for 'keyDown' as well.
Third, the behavior breaks completely if JavaScript is turned off. The non-JavaScript link for the 'expand' button goes back to the main Inbox page, even if you're on a subpage. And even if the Inbox page is selected, the link doesn't actually do anything to collapse/expand the comment! This, at the very least, *definitely* needs to be fixed-- it should be possible to view messages without JavaScript turned on. (As a side effect, it would also fix keyboard accessibility until a keyDown listener was added.)
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
32 (74.4%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (4.7%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)
(I have no opinion)
9 (20.9%)
(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)
no subject