Community
Participate
Working Groups
I used a software tool to run accessibility checks of the content in the <> Doc and found some problems. I will attach the reports, with a list of the problems sorted by severity (most severe first). Each problem lists the file, line number, severity and error. Please have a look at the reports and act as follows: 1. Fix problems with severity SV(severe violation) and V(violation) first. 2. Investigate whether problems marked with severity PSV(possible severe violation) and PV(possible violation) are truly problems and fix as required. 3. Optionally correct problems marked with severity I(informational); often these are deprecations. Some of the errors in the /reference files of the step1-report appear to be due to the javadoc generator so you can ignore these ones. I will be logging a bug against JDT for this. The error in the step4-report file is severe - should try to fix this one asap.
Created attachment 45038 [details] zip of generated reports These reports list the file name, describe the error and report the line number on which the error exists.
After looking more closely at the errors that are reported, I would say that fixing the errors marked SV (severe) in the step1-report (there are none for PDE) and all errors in the step4-report are the most important to fix. The rest I will leave up to you to make a call on.
Hi Karice, Thanks for the report, it is something we should look into. However, a lot of the PDE Guide documentation has been changed or rewritten. Would it be possible to get a copy of the software tool you are using to run the accessibility checks? (without making the IBM legal gods angry ;) ).
Tod is now your accessibility contact (I have since changed roles). I will provide him with the info.
Pinging Karice, do you know who the current accessibility contact is? I don't think it is Tod currently. PDE has rewritten a lot of the doc to make it more consistent with the rest of the Eclipse platform. It would be nice to run an accessibility tool to see what is still a problem. Otherwise we should close this bug.
The guide has changed too much for the information on this bug to be valid.
