User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request for Issue # .
Introduce a polyfill for the next generation css feature ::focus-visible
. That makes flying focus redundant. Read all about it here: https://wicg.github.io/focus-visible/demo/
Also removes jQuery migration script
and cleanup the dependencies in package.json
There is nothing to test here as this is just the polyfill (apart the fact that is loaded correctly in the backend template).
There is some css classes/sudo elements that needs to be implemented, eg:
/*
This will hide the focus indicator if the element receives focus via the mouse,
but it will still show up on keyboard focus.
*/
.js-focus-visible :focus:not(.focus-visible) {
outline: none;
}
@ciar4n and me will try to sort this out on another PR
Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
Category | ⇒ | Administration Templates (admin) JavaScript |
In theory yes, in practice no as it will take twice the time to do 2 PRs. Also this is extensively discussed and I think we all agree that jquery migrate is mistakenly included in J4 (usage only for devs, so shouldn't be in the distributed code).
Labels |
Added:
?
|
Anyhow, I've reverted that part, someone with ample of free time can do it...
I agree 100% that migrate should go but a pr should only have a single purpose.
This polyfill is not a direct replacement for flying focus as it doesn't visually indicate the movement from one element to another. That's a shame but this is probably the best way to go moving forward
@brianteeman I agree but not for the alpha version. we are making our life hard for no good reason. I mean I don't expect someone to test something here. Neither I would expect someone to test a PR for removal of jQuery-migrate, because quite frankly there's nothing to test...
it doesn't visually indicate the movement
Actually the removal of that particular feature is welcome, as it breaks A11Y rules for animations
It doesn't or webaim wouldn't use it :)
On Thu, 24 May 2018, 15:54 dGrammatiko, notifications@github.com wrote:
it doesn't visually indicate the movement
Actually the removal of that particular feature is welcome, as it breaks
A11Y rules for animations—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#20570 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABPH8aKP0AVz4pUOOSxPMj1OcULc2IKOks5t1sm3gaJpZM4UMXdc
.
You do realise that it's a quite old concept: https://web.archive.org/web/20140103103024/http://webaim.org/
That's from way back in 2014
I have tested this item
I have tested this item
Status | Pending | ⇒ | Ready to Commit |
RTC
What are the consequences when we remove them here?
@laoneo the command node build.js --update
will have the same result as before, so that is the proof of
A. nothing breaks here
B. these are wrongly mentioned as dependencies since we're doing our own versioning here instead of copying from the source (read my comment above)
Labels |
Added:
?
|
Status | Ready to Commit | ⇒ | Fixed in Code Base |
Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2018-05-30 13:15:34 |
Closed_By | ⇒ | laoneo |
I see that this pr removes jQuery.migrate.
Isn't that unrelated to this pr and should be units own pr?