Closed Bug 288943 Opened 20 years ago Closed 12 years ago

Search sidebar is not accessible

Categories

(SeaMonkey :: Sidebar, defect)

x86
Windows 2000
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: neil, Unassigned)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

(Keywords: access)

The search sidebar results lists was explicitly removed from the focus. Blake did this in bug 66212 for some reason... Even with the focus, the list is unusable with the keyboard.
This this has seen no activity for over 7 years I'm going to go out on a limb and call this wontfix.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
(In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #1) > This this has seen no activity for over 7 years I'm going to go out on a > limb and call this wontfix. Do you truly believe that we don't have 7 years old bugs? :) I would rather ask Neil as a reporter if there's an issue still here.
That particular search sidebar got removed in SeaMonkey 2.1 anyway...
(In reply to neil@parkwaycc.co.uk from comment #3) > That particular search sidebar got removed in SeaMonkey 2.1 anyway... Thanks Neil. (In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #2) > (In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #1) > > This this has seen no activity for over 7 years I'm going to go out on a > > limb and call this wontfix. > > Do you truly believe that we don't have 7 years old bugs? :) My comment 1 was about bug activity. It was dormant for over 7 years. > I would rather > ask Neil as a reporter if there's an issue still here. I agree but I was pretty sure this bug was good to close. I sure didn't want to draw attention to something we haven't felt is important/fixable for over 7 years.
(In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #4) > (In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #2) > > (In reply to David Bolter [:davidb] from comment #1) > > > This this has seen no activity for over 7 years I'm going to go out on a > > > limb and call this wontfix. > > > > Do you truly believe that we don't have 7 years old bugs? :) > > My comment 1 was about bug activity. It was dormant for over 7 years. yes but is the old bug closing having no activity a right thing in general? > > I would rather > > ask Neil as a reporter if there's an issue still here. > > I agree but I was pretty sure this bug was good to close. and you was right :) > I sure didn't want > to draw attention to something we haven't felt is important/fixable for over > 7 years. Bug resolution change is a drawing attention or at least it should be.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.