IPCop Firewall

I should add it is out of question to apply a so large patch on header.pl
from a version that aim to be stable.
This will fail to apply at the first add-on modifying the menu.

Anyway thank for the proposed code.
We will try to use it in the version under development.
Class the report under RFE

Maybe all of my work was not not going to be made publicly available. I
can still comply with the GPL by providing a CD of source code to paying
clients. I can also use trademarks to protect visual elements in a
design.

I have little interest in becoming actively involved in the development of
IPCop, my contribution is on the user list and bug reports. Everyone gives
back in their own way.

Simple way to test the accessibility of the current menus. Set JS on and
use lynx to admin ipcop (you will find a lot of other problems with that
too).

As this is a patch, that you will not apply it should be CLOSED/REJECTED.
The problem should be noted in a bug report.

In the time you have spent arguing how best to handle this, you could have
isolated the bits of the patch you wanted and applied it.

I won't waste any more of our time on this discussion, lets start
discussing open source vs free software, text editors, *nix desktop
environments, religion I am sure it will prove just as fruitful ;)

>I wasn't going to find all the occurrences of the option
>and change them to another variable and relabel the screen where the
value
>is set.
but me yes...

>I did this work when I was looking at making IPCop skinable, a project I
>gave up on due to the mess of the markup.
why do you work alone on such big change without be sure it will not be
rejected?
I know 1.4 is ugly with "table presentation" instead of "div/span". 1.4 is
too
much soho for you? Join the actual team on 1.9 and come with you ideas and
your
devloppers. I would like to have an accessible GUI and be as good as
"www.zengarden.com"
for correct html/css usage.


>>it is
>>pretty clear to me that it is not acceptable to you in its current
form.
it will be twice the work to make the two menu available

Confirm me something not clear in the first message:
what system didn't pass your test?

with js 'on' the menu is not passing and the patch fix it

with js 'off' you simply decided it was no longer needed because you
fixed the js 'on' version?

progressive enhencement, where user fix enhacement level: basic
menu and links, or classic windows menu. HE chooses. Not the system.

I let this open because it is surely a bug, without solution today.

> you also removed the other 'presentation' just showing links. Why?

I removed it because it was controlled by the use js pref option, which is
a broken option. I wasn't going to find all the occurrences of the option
and change them to another variable and relabel the screen where the value
is set.

> we are not an army developping IPCop
I don't have an army of staff to prepare patches and manage development
installations.


> Are you using IPCop ? Concerned with accessibility ?
I did this work when I was looking at making IPCop skinable, a project I
gave up on due to the mess of the markup.

My vision is fine, I just think it is really poor form to implement broken
js in FOSS projects.

My personal IPCop install is likely to switched to pfSense pretty soon
running on WRAP. I will still run installs under KVM for testing upgrades
for clients before I roll them out. As more clients require more complex
setups I am finding pfSense to be a better solution. IPCop is a great
product, but I feel that it is becoming a SOHO/Home only option these
days.

The patch is offered as is. I have set it to CLOSED/REJECTED as it is
pretty clear to me that it is not acceptable to you in its current form. I
will not be resubmitting it.

You fixed the issue 'rely on js, failed accesibility test' Ok. Good.
Super.

But you also removed the other 'presentation' just showing links. Why?
Does-it also fail accesibility? Why??

"Its been over 2 months....": we are not an army developping IPCop*.
Priority.

"I also cleaned up the footer a little while I was at it.": try to submit
this in another report.
Especially if this have no relation with the menu.

If you don't want to have working for nothing, please reconsider. Are you
using
IPCop ? Concerned with accessibility ? Work with us (two visual problems
persons since already).


Franck

*1.4; for 1.next it is not true since two weeks.

Huh? Its been over 2 months since I submitted this, and now you want me
to resubmit.

Sorry but I won't be submitting the version you have asked for. The
current menu system is broken on several levels. There should be no need
for a user to select a preference within IPCop to indicate that they want
to use js or not, they already have this option in their browser. I would
suggest that you read
http://accessites.org/site/2007/02/graceful-degradation-progressive-enhancement/
to get a better understanding of what of I am talking about.

Hello,
It's ok for removing 'js', I have tried your menu with css only (I think)
code, it works.

But, sorry to disapoint you: I love the menu system that was produced
'without js'.

So please, resubmit the patch, only removing 'js' so that the two menu
system work.

Thank you
Franck