Phil,
I have no evidence one way or the other whether screen readers pay
attention
to undisplayed or invisible captions. It seemed safest to assume that
they would
read a visible caption, and that we should head in that general direction.
-- Jon
On 05/17/2017 11:58 AM, Phil Race wrote:
And PS I was not saying anything to contradict
> tables should not have a summary attribute and should have a caption.
However that the docs I read on the web did seem to imply that
summary was very much intended for ATs but it was not at all clear this
is the point of caption. I'm sure they can read it, but I don't get
how making
it visible matters to them so how it making it visible relates to
accessibility
requirements is not an obvious connection to me. So why do we have
to make it visible for ATs ?
-phil.
On 05/17/2017 11:54 AM, Phil Race wrote:
I will leave the decision on whether to do that now up to Sergey
although
it seems all he has to do here is remove "invisible".
Many of the "summary" ones had wrong or misleading text but they
seem to have been all fixed.
I'd want to see what the new HTML looks like with a visible title of
course ..
-phil.
On 05/17/2017 11:52 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Phil,
The bottom line is that in the JDK docs, tables should not have a
summary attribute and should have a caption. This comes down to
accessibility requirements, where we are slowly raising the bar on
our docs, to be in accordance with Oracle's guidelines.
Hiding the caption (style="display:none") is an interim measure we
have been using during the HTML 5 updates, especially in cases where
the person doing the markup changes did not know enough to create an
appropriate caption that should be displayed. In time, we should
locate and update all table captions (in our standard docs bundle)
that are not being displayed such that the text is both appropriate
and visible. If you guys want to do that as part of this update, go
ahead. FWIW, that is what we did for the java.xml module in the jaxp
repo ... pretty much all tables there now have a reasonable, visible
caption.
-- Jon
On 05/17/2017 11:19 AM, Phil Race wrote:
I am not sure we are using the summary in a way that makes it
worthwhile.
As you noted in the other mail
"The summary attribute was used to give a more descriptive value
of the contents of the table. A caption is more like a title"
The values I see are more like a title and as you say that is not
the idea. See the example here
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H73.html
Caption sounds like a title so it might actually be more
appropriate than summary
for the text we have except that its not clear why we'd want it to
be visible when we were fine without.
But being there and invisible may be pointless unless screen
readers look for it even if invisible.
But if its not doing any harm I guess we can leave it as proposed
I still need to look at the rest of the changes.
-phil.
On 05/12/2017 05:11 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Sergey,
FWIW, the invisible caption should be regarded as a temporary
solution, until content authors can review/update the text of the
caption and make it visible.
The general guideline in this conversion work has been to avoid
changing the visible text of the specification, and captions fall
into a grey area of whether the text is significant/normative or
not. Hence the temporary step to make them not displayed for now.
-- Jon
On 05/12/2017 05:00 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
The "summary" is unsupported by the HTML5 and we replace it by
invisible caption.
These new styles are located in the stylesheet.css in the root of
the JavaDoc api folder, so I assume these styles should be used
by others as well.
They were added by this fix:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179479
----- philip.r...@oracle.com wrote:
Does this in any way match the rest of the docs ? Or is everyone
left
to
style things how they want.
I thought (?) maybe there is to be some javadoc tool support for
CSS
styles.
Also why are all the table summaries removed ?
-phil.
On 5/12/17, 4:52 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
This is because I use the same style for most of the tables
'class="striped"', which apply the same/unified style for
all(most) of
our tables.
Also this is because I removed 'inlined' styles, like here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/java/awt/font/TextAttribute.html
----- philip.r...@oracle.com wrote:
Adding 2d-dev because a number of the files are 2D.
What is the general reason for changing the appearance of the
tables?
-phil.
On 5/12/17, 4:25 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hello,
Please review the fix for jdk9-dev.
This fix is a part of the effort to make all javadoc in jdk9 be
compatible to HTML5.
It covers all errors which are reported by the javadoc tool
during
the build of jdk for java.desktop module.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180326
Webrev can be found at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/webrev.01
Note that an appearance of some tables were changed after the
fix:
Before:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/java/awt/font/TextAttribute.html
After:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api.01/java/awt/font/TextAttribute.html
Before:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioSystem.html
After :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioSystem.html
Before:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api_old.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioPermission.html
After:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8180326/api.01/javax/sound/sampled/AudioPermission.html
