#35809 closed Bug (fixed)
Background color for admin's m2m multi-select "selected" rows is lost in dark theme
Reported by: | Giannis Terzopoulos | Owned by: | Natalia Bidart |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | contrib.admin | Version: | 5.1 |
Severity: | Release blocker | Keywords: | accessibility |
Cc: | Thibaud Colas, Tom Carrick, Sarah Abderemane, Eliana Rosselli | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | yes |
Description
I noticed today that the color that is currently used for selected m2m items is indistinguishable. It might not be as noticeable to others, I'm not sure, I have some color difficulties. Only dark theme seems to be affected.
I am attaching 2 screenshots, how it looks on 5.1 and on 5.0.9
Attachments (2)
Change History (11)
by , 3 months ago
Attachment: | django_5.1.png added |
---|
by , 3 months ago
Attachment: | django_5.0.9.png added |
---|
comment:1 by , 3 months ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Component: | Uncategorized → contrib.admin |
Severity: | Normal → Release blocker |
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Type: | Uncategorized → Bug |
UI/UX: | set |
comment:2 by , 3 months ago
Cc: | added; removed |
---|
Added Accessibility team as cc, would you have any recommendation?
comment:3 by , 3 months ago
Summary: | Improved background color for admin's m2m multi-select → Background color for admin's m2m multi-select "selected" rows is lost in dark theme |
---|
comment:4 by , 3 months ago
Keywords: | accessibility added |
---|
comment:5 by , 3 months ago
Owner: | set to |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:6 by , 3 months ago
Hi Natalia,
I didn't check the code yet, but this might be an issue with the CSS class :focus
on the element if there is one (or missing)
or it could be the change of ::-moz-focus-inner
CSS class if the property exist in the CSS stylesheet. I can check deeper if needed :)
comment:7 by , 3 months ago
Has patch: | set |
---|
Hello Giannis, thank you for your report!
I have tried to reproduce and these are my findings:
I bisected the regressing revno to be b47bdb4cd9149ee2a39bf1cc9996a36a940bd7d9
Would you like to prepare a patch?