RFR : 8209052: Low contrast in docs/api/constant-values.html

Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy priya.lakshmi.muthuswamy at oracle.com
Tue Aug 21 11:18:46 UTC 2018 

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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20180821/df1931b3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chedgghbidahlihc.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20180821/df1931b3/chedgghbidahlihc-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fadikioonchflfmi.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6830 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20180821/df1931b3/fadikioonchflfmi-0001.png>

More information about the javadoc-dev mailing list