Administration UI elements that need a design review

[quicksketch]

r5yn in the Drupal queue has done some amazing work on making a new consistent UI for the Seven theme. We should work on doing the same work for Backdrop CMS.

We should use the list below as list of things we should evaluate. Do they need a design update? If so, let's incorporate those changes into our styleguide, and go from there.

• Develop and use new branding for the installer #221 | the installer
• System icons
• Vertical tabs
• Messages
• Progress Bar
• Pager
• Tabs
• Recent log messages
• Tables
• Buttons
• Throbber
• Image Fields
• File Fields
• Textfields & Textareas
• Restyle the Password Confirm element to take less space and work on small screens #293 | Password strength indicator
• Dropbuttons
• Font
• Select elements
• Redesign the status report and available updates pages. #485 | Status report
• Update CKeditor skin to "Moono-Lisa". #2631 | Ckeditor skin
• [UX] Views UI redesign to match the rest of the admin UI. #930 | Views
• Design review: admin navigation lists #990 | Admin navigation lists
• Design review: update.php & "Task List" styling #991 | Updater
• Design review: contextual links #992 | Contextual links
• Design review: modal dialog #993 | Modal dialog
• Design review: search component #994 | Search/filter component

These issues collected from d.o
The main D8 issue is at: https://drupal.org/node/1986434

[jenlampton]

This issue is now just a list of things we should review and see if we need a change. @dariusgarza once you review the element go ahead and check the box. Don't worry about the #xx since we may not have individual issues for all these things in Backdrop, they may all end up getting all fixed at once :)

[dariusgarza]

#364 Icon font issue -

Just realized there's a whole thread about this in the issue.

The Free Software Foundation says that it's ok to distribute fonts with OFL license, such as font awesome alongside GPL software packages.

Here's snippet from a thread about this:

Question: 1.2 Can the fonts be included with Free/Libre and Open
Source Software collections such as GNU/Linux and BSD distributions
and repositories?

Answer: Yes! Fonts licensed under the OFL can be freely included
alongside other software under FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source
Software) licenses. Since fonts are typically aggregated with, not
merged into, existing software, there is little need to be
concerned about incompatibility with existing software licenses.
You may also repackage the fonts and the accompanying components in
a .rpm or .deb package (or other similar packaging formats or
installers) and include them in distribution CD/DVDs and online
repositories. (Also see section 5.9 about rebuilding from source.)
It is OK to distribute fonts licensed under the terms of the SIL OFL 1.1alongside a GPL licensed work. What we mean by "alongside" is that the font and
the program would be considered "separate works" under the terms of the GNU GPL,
because they aren't combined in any way, but simply aggregated. It is often the case
that a program (such as a word processor) can make use of makes use of a particular
font without the font being considered part of the Program or the font and program
being considered a single combined work.

full post: FortAwesome/Font-Awesome#1124

@quicksketch @jenlampton

[dariusgarza]

Seems like the only issue that's open without an #xx is the icon font
one....but it's a doozy ;)

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Jen Lampton notifications@github.com
wrote:

I'm stealing this issue back.... It's now just a list of things we should
review and see if we need a change. @dariusgarza
https://github.com/dariusgarza once you review the element go ahead and
check the box. Don't worry about the #xx since we may not have issues for
all these things in Backdrop, they may all end up getting all fixed at once
:)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#139 (comment)
.

[jenlampton]

yeah licensing isn't an issue for backdrop, I think it's just depending on an external library that's an issue, but that's why we have the other issue to debate it. @dariusgarza can you do a quick design review of all the items in the list, and check the boxes if either 1) we've redesigned it in the new styleguide or 2) the current style is good enough as-is? If you don't know what something is or don't know where to find it add a note here and we can steer you it the right direction.

[olafgrabienski]

Added a link to the CKEditor skin checklist item. (#2631)