- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:25:29 -0400
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20041026162529.GE16585@rednote.net>
My second, and by far most important nomination, is Bugzilla. I cannot say whether all Bugzilla implementations are as burdensome as the one I know best at redhat.com, but I believe there's an issue almost everywhere. Please note, you'll need to create an account and login to really see the issue. Go to: http://bugzilla.redhat.com For anyone who can't create such an account, I'm attaching (if the server will let me), the page I get after logging in. The number one, over-riding problem? 2700 active link elements (as counted by lynx' "links and form fields are numbered" feature. That's 45 screenfulls at my 160 X 64 chars resolution! The sad thing is that there seem to be many good accessibility features to Bugzilla. The navbar seems terse and appropriate, for example. One can choose to use javascript, or not. One can choose to do tabular format (which yields 2791 links for me), or not. The footer also seems blessedly terse and appropriate. The overwhelming weight is in the substantive body and requires a better organizational option, imho. It's difficult to imagine how one would appropriately deal with 2700 active link elements. And, one must get them appropriately handled for a bug report to be taken seriously. Perhaps there is an appropriate path here, but I've been unable to find it. On the good news side, an appropriate approach is eminently worth pursuing. I obtained a commitment from the Bugzilla maintainer to fix whatever we might specify as an appropriate fix in order to support accessibility. So, this is no longer an just a standards setting exercise, I think.
Attachments
- text/html attachment: bugzilla.html
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2004 16:25:37 UTC