The font size for bug pages is set to 80% of default font size. The font size for comments on those pages is additionally reduced by at least another 30%, more depending on error correction in browsers (the pages are not valid HTML, there are plenty of errors to fix). This results in a font size that is 56% (or less) of the normal size of text. This is unlikely to be an appropriate font size, especially as Verdana is specified. Verdana has a larger than usual aspect ratio, so where another font is substituted for Verdana (as is common in a www environment), the text will be even less legible. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Load any bug page in your browser. Compare it to the size you have chosen for text in your preferences. Actual Results: The text is about half the size I have defined to be most readable in my browser. Expected Results: Leave the font size alone, or at least don't reduce it by such a silly amount. The relevent pages and stylesheets: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14713 http://bugs.gentoo.org/css/edit_bug.css http://bugs.gentoo.org/css/main.css Also, there are a number of errors in the HTML pages that could affect rendering. Valid HTML and CSS should be used: http://validator.w3.org/ http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ I've marked this as a major bug, since this makes a lot of text very difficult to read. I'd say the text on the page being unreadable would count as "a major feature is broken".
I am in 1600x1200 right now, and I am having no problems. I have also tested this in 1024x768, and also have had no problems. When did you last check this, and what resolution are you in? As for the html errors, I will get right on that. Cheers, //zhen
The font size for bug pages is set to 80% of default font size. The font size for comments on those pages is additionally reduced by at least another 30%, more depending on error correction in browsers (the pages are not valid HTML, there are plenty of errors to fix). p { font-size: 0.90em; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; } table { font-size: 0.90em; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; } You must have checked this in the middle of one of my updates. As you can see, the relevant sizes are both .90. As for editing bugs, I have uped the size to .75, which should work better. As for the validation, I cannot even get the tester to load the page. Any suggestions?
Resolution is only one factor. There are tons of factors that go into deciding what an appropriate font-size is, such as the font being used and the reader's eyesight. That's why the most appropriate font size is 1em/100%. Usually people reduce this on pages they create because they have their defaults set too high. 80-90% of their chosen font-size is what I would consider to be the absolute minimum for text that actually needs to be read. Why is 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.75 (approx 60% of user's chosen font size) being used in the first place? Is it more important than people being able to read the text confortably? The validator is refusing to process the pages because you haven't specified an encoding. You can do this via Apache directives in the main config file or a .htaccess file: AddDefaultCharset UTF-8 (or whatever encoding you are using) ...or you can do so with a meta element in each page. In the meantime, you can manually set the encoding using the drop-down list on the error page. I would also avoid skipping things like opening table tags. Whilst shortcuts like this may be technically permitted by the HTML specifications, it is an area where many browsers are buggy, and a source of incompatibility when converting to XHTML. Additionally, the comments before the doctype will probably cause quirks mode in mozilla, internet explorer, and opera 7. Whether this is what you want is up to you, but I'd recommend following standards instead of relying on proprietary, incompatible rendering engines.
FWIW, for me the new version of Bugzilla looks a lot nicer than the old one used to. I think that the fonts used to be too large. Jim does have a valid point, of course, but Bugzilla is not a Gentoo project (we are just using the application). It is correct, though, that HTML, output by Bugzilla is not valid HTML. Zhen, to validate it you may select "View source" in your browser, then save it as a file, and then upload the file into the validator (go to the "Extended file upload interface"). Not sure whether Gentoo should undertake fixing Bugzilla. Perhaps the bug should be thrown their way.
i'm happy with the default fonts, and i'm working with 1280x1024 on my desktop, and with a 1280x854 15" monitor on my laptop ... what browser are you using ? you never said ... also, try taking a screenshot so we can see what you're dealing with
I have fixed all of the HTML errors - it looks like that we are all w3c compliant now (yay). Please supply us with these specifics: browser screenshot resolution what your default font is. Thanks
Arcady, I don't think that the fonts were ever higher than the browser default. If you thought that they were too large before, then your browser isn't set up correctly. Your default font size should be set to something you find comfortable to read. SpanKY, John, With all due respect, screenshots and the like are irrelevent. You agree that the font size for comments is set to around 60% of the visitors' choice, correct? You don't see a problem with this? Nevertheless, I will include a screenshot from Konqueror 3.1, with some normal text to compare with. In both browsers, for monospace fonts, my font size default is 12px. This is what I find comfortable to read. The comments are coming out at around 7px, which is difficult to read quickly, at almost half the size. People who don't have as good eyesight as me will be affected even more, since the shrinking effect will be more pronounced with a larger default font size. As a contrast, the "Bugzilla Version 2.17.2" text at the bottom of the page is a fuzzy blur. I don't care about that, it's a non-essential part of the page. The comments are an essential part of the page, and so it's important to make them as readable as possible. My approach would be to leave them at 100%, but anything larger than 60% would be an improvement. I agree that if the small sizes are caused by bugzilla, then the bug should be sent their way, however it was my understanding that this is caused by a new stylesheet recently added.
Created attachment 7924 [details] Screenshot of page I've embedded some normal text to compare with.
Anything that is contained withing a <p> tag, <table> tag, or a bug comment is now 0.90em (90%). It is set this way because we are accomodating the generic setup of most browsers, we cannot accomodate for browser specifics. Because of this reason, I am hesitant to go larger that 90% for layout sakes. Any larger, and the footer bar will not fit in a 1024x768 screen, which is very annoying. Please check the site now and comment.
Fair enough, that is quite a bit better. However, bear in mind the comments are in a table, which means the size of the text for comments is 90% * 90%, ending up at 81% of the original size, not 90%. I've never been a fan of the bugzilla layout, I think it's one of the worst interfaces I have ever seen, but I appreciate you would like to preserve the layout for people who are used to using it. Thanks.
i found the old font to be 'readable' and yes, i do look at size of fonts when designing webpages because i hate fonts that arent easily readable ... nor am i one of those freaks who can use a 1600x1200 laptop and read all the fonts on the screen ;) i think this bug is all set now ... 80% or 90%, its readable
Agreed - thanks for all of the comments.
Closing.
