Which other methods of categorizing styles can you think of?

[denise]

I've just migrated Bug 3883: Add an Optimized-for-small-screens category to the Select Journal Style page and am opening a bug for additional other categories:

* optimized for large fonts
* high contrast
* low contrast
* streamlined/minimal distractions

What other categories can you think of that you would want to see? I'm mostly interested in things that are accessibility-needs related, but if you can think of other ways to categorize, I'd like to know.

Comments

[deborah]

I was wondering if there can be a category for "uses default system text" although we don't have a single default, do we? Because for me, all the words are visible and standard is a huge accessibility win.

[zvi]

Which styles use a text other than the system default? Or are you talking about text vs. icons?

[deborah]

Text versus icons is definitely an issue, because for me text is way better. So I do want them to be categorized as "all the key links are text, not icons." (I don't mind the presence of images, but I do prefer it if tracks/delete/tag etc. are all in text.)

But also, hrm. I guess what I'm thinking of is less an issue with the style I would choose and more an issue with styles other people choose-- I can wish all I wanted there were styles that didn't allow people to change the system text, but people can then just use other styles. That's what style=mine and the like are for.

That being said, there are styles that use different text by default. Zesty seems to use different text for the key site navigation (e.g. reading page/archive). And there seem to be two core variants for the entry icons, cf. skittish dreams versus Sunday morning.

[foxfirefey]

Zesty is S2 core2's, uh, awkward special exception--It wasn't really standardized like the rest of everything and I think someday it should be replaced with a more up-to-date version! I mean, it doesn't even support Custom CSS or any color changes.