Page MenuHomePhabricator

Adjust padding/positioning of orange talk notification in user links menu
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

The orange talk notification (OBOD) does not have its intended padding and is not vertically centered as a result of several overriding CSS rules which ultimately makes the padding-top: 0 but the padding-bottom non-zero.

This can be seen on the beta cluster if your user has a talk notification https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org.

obod.png (1×1 px, 247 KB)

Acceptance Criteria

  • The text in the notification is vertically centered

Developer Notes

See https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/skins/Vector/+/708586 for. a fix

Related Objects

Event Timeline

Change 708586 had a related patch set uploaded (by Nray; author: Nray):

[mediawiki/skins/Vector@master] Fix padding/positioning of the user menu orange talk message notification

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/708586

Jdlrobson added a subscriber: Jdlrobson.

Please move to sign off when this passes design review. If it it doesn't move to needs more work. Please test on the beta cluster.

Change 708586 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/skins/Vector@master] Fix padding/positioning of the user menu orange talk message notification

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/708586

looks good


@nray it seems like fixing the vertical position of this element could be as simple as changing top: 85% when it's positioned absolutely. Do you think that's a trivial/non-risky change that we could make here, or would it be better to do in a separate task?

currentadjusted
image.png (204×561 px, 45 KB)
image.png (204×561 px, 45 KB)

@alexhollender It's trivial, and I'm happy to change it to whatever value you prefer as part of this ticket, but if we go with the 85% are you okay with the hover state of the buttons overlapping with the OBOD?

Screen Shot 2021-08-03 at 12.01.54 PM.png (236×614 px, 36 KB)

@nray good point...also my bad, because we're going to eventually update the tabs I'll make a note to revisit this after that.

85% sounds like a magic number to me. Could we eventually do this in ems as relative size, which is easier to switched over to rems when T261334 is clarified.