https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148790
--- Comment #9 from Telesto <tele...@surfxs.nl> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #8) > > However this does hit the fundamental question how much of the UI (and > > logic) must be bend. And where the need for an dedicated UI begins. > > You mean, whether dependent checkboxes are appropriate at all? Otherwise I > don't quite follow. Sorry, I'm talk gibberish once in a while.. The no list feature got introduced because of screenreaders: NVDA & Orca Screen readers are used for individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The complaint for bug 115965 was: Screen readers read Number List and Bullet list as check items. They should be read as radio items because only one can be selected at a time. So the introduction of 'No list' is triggered 'special group' of stakeholders with specific needs. The ordered lists/unordered list are mutual exclusive, but can also be turned on/off. The screenreading detecting the (un)ordered list checkbox being 'proper' from the on/off perspective. But makes les sense from the 'mutual exclusive' perspective. Except if in that case the 'on/off' switch is missing.. which causes the introduction of No-List Which is introduction a button 'exclusively' needed for people with screen readers. There likely more area's where impaired people prefer a different UI design (at least I assume so, I actually don't know). It's bit of slippery slope if we are start modifying the UI, and start adding buttons like 'no list' without value for non-impaired and even breaking UI logic (and causing 'issues, like the 'bug' here) Different targets groups have different requirements. A dedicated UI targeting the visual impaired is likely always 'better' compared to long list of compromises.. with lose-lose, win-lose situations. So an UI template (in form of say an extension) might be better in the long run. However this is depending on 'needs and desires' of impaired people. I'm unable to make realistic assessment here. I have tendency to blow things out of proportion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
