Hi guys,
Thanks for review.
Once I noticed that "Phase/Callback Safe/Position/Since" and
"Phase/Event Type/Number/Enabling/Since" tables are a bit wider I cannot
"unnotice" it back :)
Bordered div's (without width specified) and bordered tables (with
width=100%) have the same width, but div with "display: table" and
"width: 100%" (we need it because otherwise it behaves like a table and
does't fill whole width) is 2px wider and this is consistent in
different browsers (firefox/chrome/IE). I tried different properties,
but was not able to remove this difference.
So I introduced workaround - one more div with right margin 2px.
Also fixed vertical alignment for the same pseudo-tables.
webrev (full):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk14/jvmti_html_accessibility/webrev.2/
webrev (vs prev. version):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk14/jvmti_html_accessibility/webrev2_1/
generated jvmti.html:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk14/jvmti_html_accessibility/2/jvmti.html
--alex
On 08/17/2019 22:55, David Holmes wrote:
Hi JC,
On 18/08/2019 2:15 pm, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Hi Alex,
Looks good to me as well. What is surprising (or maybe not) is the
slight changes that you do see. The vertical alignment is off for the
Position / Since columns it seems (it used to be vertically centered
and no longer; see the "Allocate" table for example).
FWIW I don't observe any differences in that aspect of the tables
(Firefox on Windows 7). The only visual difference I see is that the
table lines seem thicker.
And the same table seems a bit wider on my machine than the other tables:
- The Phase/Callback Safe/Position/Since table seems a few pixels
wider than the Capabilities one for example.
I see that too. To me it appears to be because there is an extra column
in the phase/callback/position/Since table and the extra line thickness
then makes the overall table wider.
Cheers,
David
But these are really small details on my machine that I think we are
fine, so looks good to me too :)
Jc
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:05 AM David Holmes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Alex,
Visually this appeared fine to me, so as long as the accessibility
checking tool is happy then changes seem good.
Thanks,
David
On 17/08/2019 9:46 am, Alex Menkov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please review the change that fixes accessibility issues in
generated
> jvmti.html
>
> There are 2 "general" accessibility issues ("content outside of a
> region") - fixed by replacing <div role="banner"> with <header>
and <div
> role="main"> with <main>
> and huge number (5200+) of table issues:
> - no row or column header for cells;
> - table has only one column or row.
> Most of the tables was updated to have row and column headers,
> the tables which does not contain table data (like "Phase/Callback
> Safe/Position/Since" block for functions) were converted to use
<div>s.
> All table headers/descriptions were converted to <caption>.
> All cases when tables can has only one row/column are handled by
xsl (if
> there is no data for the table, <div>s are used).
>
> jira: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8228547
>
> webrev:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk14/jvmti_html_accessibility/webrev/
>
> generated doc:
> - old:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk14/jvmti_html_accessibility/0/jvmti.html
>
> - new:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk14/jvmti_html_accessibility/1/jvmti.html
>
>
> Visually there are minimal changes (checked in Firefox, Chrome,
IE)
>
> specdiff:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~amenkov/jdk14/jvmti_html_accessibility/spectdiff/diff.html
>
>
> --alex
--
Thanks,
Jc
