🎨 Palette: 대상 용량 프리셋 버튼 접근성 개선 및 시각적 피드백 추가

[seonghobae]

💡 무엇을(What):
saas_web.py의 대상 용량 프리셋 버튼 그룹에 접근성 및 시각적 개선 사항을 적용했습니다.

🎯 왜(Why):
target_bytes 입력 필드에 포커스를 맞출 때 aria-describedby 속성이 전체 프리셋 버튼 목록을 가리키고 있어서 스크린 리더 사용자에게 불필요하게 장황한 정보가 전달되었습니다. 또한, 관련된 버튼들이 적절히 그룹화되어 있지 않아 문맥 파악이 어려웠으며 현재 활성화된 프리셋에 대한 시각적/접근성 피드백이 부족했습니다.

📸 UI 변경 사항:

• 프리셋 버튼 클릭 시 배경색이 고대비 #004085로 변경되어 활성화 상태임을 시각적으로 나타냅니다.

♿ 접근성 향상(Accessibility):

• aria-describedby에서 불필요한 컨테이너 참조 제거
• role="group" 및 aria-label="Target size presets"를 사용하여 프리셋 버튼 논리적 그룹화
• 인라인 onclick 핸들러 대신 이벤트 위임과 data-bytes 속성을 활용하도록 리팩터링
• 현재 선택된 값에 따라 aria-pressed 속성을 동적으로 토글하여 스크린 리더 사용자에게 정확한 상태 정보 제공

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 10765690335977916706 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 2e40fa1f60ae073d1b594fd80f9bd8a7d5d220de
• Workflow run: 28683035974
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/palette.md, saas_web.py, tests/test_saas_web.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/palette.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: The PR improves accessibility and visual feedback for target capacity preset buttons, with no unresolved review threads or failed checks.
• Head SHA: 2e40fa1f60ae073d1b594fd80f9bd8a7d5d220de
• Workflow run: 28683035974
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_saas_web.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_saas_web.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/palette.md, saas_web.py, tests/test_saas_web.py.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/palette.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: The PR improves accessibility and visual feedback for target capacity preset buttons, with no unresolved review threads or failed checks.
• Head SHA: 2e40fa1f60ae073d1b594fd80f9bd8a7d5d220de
• Workflow run: 28683035974
• Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Test: test_saas_web.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_saas_web.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading