Thanks Hannes. I understand your logic now about the blue. And yes, there are clear directions on the top. While I might still prefer the blue, that's a mild preference now, after having read your response.
I also understand your logic about the 2 columns, but that sounds more like an argument for saying that the 2 displays should be in sync -- not that there shouldn't be a different ordering or compartmentalization of the content. Me personally, I find it easier to parse the contents of a table when each column has a single piece of data. So, I remain unconvinced on this point. But like you said, let's see if others feel similarly. Thank you for your consideration. David Alayachew On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, 6:59 AM Hannes Wallnoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, David. > > The main objective for the updated search page in JDK 25 was to make it > possible to navigate search results by keyboard (using tab, arrow and > return keys). That’s also the reason search results are no longer displayed > as blue links. Now the whole result row is the link, which allows you to > click anywhere in the row (it still works with right-click and open in new > tab). > > The reorganisation of table columns and content is due to alignment with > the navigation bar search field on other pages, which now uses the same > two-column format. It used to use a single column format containing only > the fully qualified name. > > As you say, it’s all about tradeoffs. A fully qualified name (or something > resembling it) may be quicker to read. The new layout provides more > information, and IMO it’s also more aesthetically pleasing, although > that’s certainly subjective. I’m open to changes if there’s a clear trend > in feedback. > > Hannes > > On 01.09.2025, at 19:35, David Alayachew <[email protected]> wrote: > > May also want a 4th column for module, but that's less important. Maybe > makes sense to put that behind a toggle. > > And I want to emphasize, of these suggestions, the splitting up of > Description is the most important. That just makes my searching experience > more taxing, as the horizontal position of a package name is slightly > different for each line, making reading harder. > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 1:24 PM David Alayachew <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello @[email protected] <[email protected]>, >> >> If I click "Search" on the top left of Java 24 Javadoc, and then when the >> page loads, I type in "Subtask", it returns "StructuredTaskScope.Subtask" >> with blue text. Here is a screenshot. >> >> <image.png> >> >> But if I do the same for Java 25 EA, not only is the columns different, >> but the text color for the Class Name has changed from Blue to Black. Here >> is a screenshot. >> >> >> <image.png> >> >> It is also the same for Java 26 EA. Here is a screenshot. >> >> <image.png> >> >> There's definitely some tradeoffs I can see. >> >> For example, I can now see from a glance if it's an interface, a class, >> an enum, etc. >> >> But on the other hand, the "Description" column smushes 2 separate pieces >> of data together -- class type and package. I would much prefer that these >> be 2 separate columns, for a total of 3. >> >> I also would like it if we could go back to having packages on the left, >> vs the right. I understand that the class name is what people care about, >> but since fully qualified names of classes start with packages, then I >> think it also makes sense to have the packages be the first column. We can >> keep class type (interface, enum, Exception, etc) as the 3rd column. >> >> Finally, can we go back to the blue text? Blue is a nice signifier -- I >> see blue, and I think hyperlinks. It kind of leads me into right-clicking >> to open in a new tab, and since the blue pops out compared to the black, my >> eyes naturally gravitate towards it, making it easier for me to find what I >> need. >> >> These are just a few suggestions from trying out the Java 25 Javadoc over >> a period of time. I like it, but think it can be better. >> >> Thank you for your time and help. >> David Alayachew >> > >
