Hi Jon,
2. There's an inconsistency in the way that links are handled in some
places ... sometimes the same color is used for all pseudo-classes for
the element (:link, :visited, :hover, :active) and sometimes different
colors are used for (:link, :visited) vs (:hover, :active)
Constants and use summary links have accessibility issues and as
suggested proposed different colors for (link, visited) and (hover,active)
overviewSummary and memberSummary have tabs and active tab have
different background and font color.
In other summary captions, don't see any links. So I didn't change that.
That's the reason for difference.
3. If the same color is used for all the pseudo-classes (:link,
:visited, :hover, :active), you don't need to specify them all
separately ... just specify the color for the "a" element ... but I'd
prefer to see the stylesheet consistently provide different behavior
for (:link, :visited) vs (:hover, :active)
In stylesheet, we have default value for a:link, a:visited , a:hover in
lines : 32-39 And that's the reason we need to override these values
rather just specifying "a" element .
32 a:link, a:visited { 33 text-decoration:none; 34 color:#4A6782; 35 }
36 a[href]:hover, a[href]:focus { 37 text-decoration:none; 38
color:#bb7a2a; 39 }
webrev with out reorganizing anything with minimal changes :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8209052/webrev.03/
doc changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8209052/api/java.base/java/io/package-use.html
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8209052/api/constant-values.html
Thanks,
Priya
On 8/29/2018 4:57 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Priya,
I still don't completely understand the rationale for your proposal,
and I guess the problem is we're trying to solve several problems at
once here.
1. There's an accessibility problem for some styles
2. There's an inconsistency in the way that links are handled in some
places ... sometimes the same color is used for all pseudo-classes for
the element (:link, :visited, :hover, :active) and sometimes different
colors are used for (:link, :visited) vs (:hover, :active)
3. If the same color is used for all the pseudo-classes (:link,
:visited, :hover, :active), you don't need to specify them all
separately ... just specify the color for the "a" element ... but I'd
prefer to see the stylesheet consistently provide different behavior
for (:link, :visited) vs (:hover, :active)
4. The layout/organization of this part of the file is horrible. This
is partly "it's always been this way", and partly to keep CSS happy.
But we should try and improve it, sometime.
So, if we focus on just fixing 1 and avoiding ALL the other problems
for now, what is the MINIMAL set of edits you need to fix JUST the
accessibility problem. By "minimal" I mean, don't do any gratuitous
changes to any line that doesn't need changing (i.e. reflowing
lines). I "think" that means
adding in these lines
450 .constantsSummary caption a:link, .constantsSummary caption a:visited,
451 .useSummary caption a:link, .useSummary caption a:visited {
452 color:#1f389c;
453 }
and then simply deleting references to those four styles later on. I
think that means 4 lines are changed, and 4 lines are deleted. The
lines won't be filled any more, but I don't think it is helping us to
have the lines filled. It's like the effect when you delete a word in
the middle
of the paragraph, and you reflow the text ... all subsequent lines
change, hiding the underlying significant change.
We can figure out how to handle the other 3 issues that I described,
later. I think some it it will come down to writing that spec for the
stylesheet and then doing a series of updates to the stylesheet to
clean it up.
Next time, can you post an updated set of docs alongside the webrev,
so that we can see the effect of these changes live in a browser.
-- Jon
On 08/21/2018 04:18 AM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Hi Jon,
Replies inline.
Why have you started a new CSS block in lines 468-470, using #ffffff
as compared to sharing
the block starting at 450, using #FFFFFF?
Since hover and active have to be declared after link and visited I
created a new CSS block. I will reordered them to fit all the #ffffff
in one block
It is very hard to visually see/understand the differences in this
part of the file.
Would it help to reorganize these lines that that it is one style
(class) per line,
with its variations, such as:
.deprecatedSummary caption a:link, .deprecatedSummary caption
a:hover,.deprecatedSummary caption a:visited, ditto for other
styles, one group per line {
color:#FFFFFF;
}
They are organized such that all similar states appear together, can
be changed.
Why are most of the summary styles grouped together, but
constant/constants/use/uses handled
separately in 464-467?
Only constants and use summary links have accessibility issues and
that's the reason they are handled separately.
overviewSummary and memberSummary links have white fonts over blue
background and don't have any accessibility issues.
In other summary captions, i don't see any links
Changes:
Normal:
hover(since its just hover and need to have contrast color different
from black/blue)
Updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8209052/webrev.02/
Thanks,
Priya
On 8/19/18 8:56 PM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Sure Jon.
For this bug can I push this fix
(http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8209052/webrev.01/)
Regards,
Priya
On 8/17/2018 10:55 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
In addition to the two tables I described before, I'd like to
suggest 3rd, more fundamental table, that comes before the other two.
This third table would define the general palette of colors used
in the documentation. This table would list all the background
colors we use, and for each background color, it would list the
foreground colors used for plain text and for links in the various
states (link, hover, visited, etc) For links, it should also show
any decorations (e.g. underline) that may be used.
So this would mean the design document would have 3 parts:
1. A table showing the general palette, as described above
2. A table of list showing what parts of the palette are used in
each of the different parts of all the pages (e.g. navbar, table
headings, etc)
3. As #2, but pointing at the "current" javadoc stylesheet.css, so
that we can compare actual rendering against intended rendering.
-- Jon
On 8/16/18 9:08 PM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Sure Jon we can do that
-Priya
On 8/16/2018 11:06 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Priya,
I guess white will do. I'll take a look at the webrev.
This is another area where it would be good to see a summary
written description (specification) of the use of color
in the pages. I don't mean at the detail level of the specific
styles in the stylesheet, but rather, an overview of
the design and use of what sort of colors we should see in what
sort of places, such as the navbar, table headers,
table rows etc.
One thought is that if we wrote this as an HTML document, and
included sample fragments of content (not screenshots)
then we could "test" the design for accessibility using the
standard accessibility tools. Obviously, this is not a replacement
for testing the generated docs as well, using the official
stylesheet, but it would give us a reference for the intent of
the design when we do need to change the stylesheet.
The more I think of it, we could have two "sample" docs (or two
parts to the doc).
One part would be "standalone" and have embedded styles (i.e.
<style> tags in the <head>) and illustrate
the abstract design concepts.
The other part would/should be visually the same, but the
content would use styles from standard stylesheet.
-- Jon
On 08/15/2018 09:04 PM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Hi Jon,
For hover, yes I see color variation.
My proposal :
Since its just for hover and also as we need to provide
contrast color other than black/blue, I am suggesting white
Normal:
hover:
webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8209052/webrev.01/
Thanks,
Priya
On 8/15/2018 3:26 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Priya,
Even superficial playing with the JDK API confirms that
javadoc uses a different color for hovering over links.
I think the same should apply to these summary caption links
as well.
-- Jon
On 08/13/2018 04:58 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
I'm surprised that you propose to set all of these styles to
the same color:
+.constantsSummary caption a:link, .constantsSummary caption
a:hover, .constantsSummary caption a:active,
+.constantsSummary caption a:visited,
Doesn't that mean we won't be able to tell the difference
between non-visited and visited links?
Also, if you specify styles for all "a:link a:hover a:active
a:visited", what's the point of specifying
those cases separately: are there any others? Couldn't you
just collapse those 4 to just "a"?
Not that I'm suggesting that: I think it's better to have
some stylistic variation when you hover
over links or have visited them.
-- Jon
On 8/7/18 6:34 AM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
Hi,
Kindly review fix for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209052
webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8209052/webrev.00/
Thanks,
Priya
