See also: IRC log
<allanj> who is here?
<allanj> s/
<scribe> Scribe: Erich
scribe+ erich
JA: open to meeting on the 22nd if others are
AC: likely to miss at least 1 due to work
GS: will be off
SH: if everyone could go update the survey to reflect, that would help
<laura> I can attend 22 but not 29th
SH: Survey currently suggests next week (12/15) we are good, but the following 2 weeks are questionable
<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1#Current_SC_Managers
JA: This page talks about various
roles and responsibilities of SC manager
... Alastair, Glenda, Laura, David MacDonald have picked up
some SC to shepherd, so we have 6 of 11 covered
... John Rochford has agreed also to take up any (3) that
overlap with COGA group SC
... Seeing All Interface Elements is Issue 80, so will clarify
with David MacDonald that we have the correct one
<laura> See All Elements #80 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80
<allanj> issue 10 (interactive images), Issue 78 (spacing), Issue 80 (seeing all interface elements) overlap with COGA
JA: Alastair, was there a procedure to sign up?
AC: NO
JA: Do you need GitHub account?
AC: Likely that we'll just be keeping in the wiki, and place link to current version of the wiki on GitHub
JA: For example, on Font Family, rather than having SC text in the description, I would write 'here is the latest version' and link back to the wiki?
<alastairc> Example: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9#issuecomment-265720386
AC: yes, i've already done this on Informational Graphics Contrast, noting anything I've changed in it
GS: I like the idea of including in the description, so people don't necessarily need to read the comments to get it
JA: I will wait to hear from Josh and Andrew, and then I can go update and link back to the wiki
WD: I have a process
question
... When we were developing we had a few contending statements
of the criteria, and it looks like in the larger community
we'll have that again, so are we going to have the possibility
of having take 1, take 2, take 3 in the SC statement, or how
are we going to do that?
AC: That's why I suggested SC
manager, so that there is really 1 person looking after
it
... If fresh eyes are used, a concern that they would lack the
history of how a SC got to that point
WD: So part of the thing as a
manager is to keep the most updated comments
... I understand
JA: Another thing, I believe all
discussion will happen on WCAG, so need to watch that
list
... It's imperative for us to be involved in the WCAG group and
to comment
AC: I think when an SC has only positive comments and feedback has died down, they may open to a survey
LC: Participating in the surveys is really important too, there's one out there now on the Contrast issues, if people haven't filled that out they should
WD: I have difficulty with some of those really long WCAG threads
<alastairc> Email archive: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/
<laura> WCAG List in Thread: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/thread.html
EM: I agree, and point of regard can be tricky also on where to pick up the discussion
<shawn> Shawn: I find it easier to read long threads from the archives. You can get a list "by thread" then read a message and select "[ Next in thread ]"
JA: Here is the survey, it is also useful to review what people are saying in the comments
<laura> Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results
GS: Was having a hard time with how to do the SC work, but sharing a Google sheet with each comment and how I plan to handle
<Glenda> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17uFopFpjdpCB1yHgkz11fEJ8IGYfPioGsvFUX1Zq96k/edit#gid=0
<allanj> close item 1
<allanj> close item 6
JA: Thank you for sharing that Glenda. Let's please all jump in and add your comments
JA: Let's go to Overlap, let me add the link
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=1491179377
JA: For those who are SC Managers, and COGA has a similar sort of thing
AC: The first 5 are a current AAA issue
JA: And this table also has a
summary of all the new SC's proposed by different people, and
what level if modifications
... There is more to this spreadsheet than just overlaps, but
wanted to focus, to see where we have commonalities
WD: In the case between Issue 8 and 51, this has a whole bunch
AC: Issue 51 on COGA appears to be an update to 1.4.8, so best to get that sorted before SC manager does any major work on it
<allanj> ACTION: jim to contact David update issue 8 to 80. 80 is more current [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Contact david update issue 8 to 80. 80 is more current [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-15].
<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/LVTF_2.1_SC_FAQ
LC: I saw that Lisa had an FAQ
for the COGA group, thought it might be a good idea for us
too
... Many of the duplicates as Glenda has seen, questions that
come up repeatedly, can be included
WD: angry about Issue 8, feels it should be scratched
JA: That one is closed, I closed it a few days ago
AC: Would say the same about Issue 80, thinks it's a duplicate
<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/8
<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80
WD: Should we do a resolution to just remove that?
AC: In GitHub terms "closed" means you've dealt with it, it's gone
JA: Issue 80 says users can see and interact with all content..., we're saying this is covered by reflow and text size
WD: So it seems we want to keep 80 and not 8
<laura> 80 SC Text: Users can see and interact with all content and user interface controls presented visually, including when users have changed display settings such as text size.
JA: So Alastair is saying this one can be closed because it's covered
AC: Yes, I think they even use those graphics in the description of resize
WD: We could drop it
JA: Let's verify
... If I put the benefits example, we can close Issue 80?
<Glenda> +1
<allanj> +1
<laura> +1
<Wayne> +1
RESOLUTION: Move benefits from Issue 80 to Issue 77 and close Issue 80 - https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80
<allanj> ACTION: Jim to write DavidM to say issue 80 is closed and superseded by 77 and 58 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Write davidm to say issue 80 is closed and superseded by 77 and 58 [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-15].
JA: This was one piece of information about very old SC from back in September, that has also been superceded by several and didn't want people spending time trying to deal with it
<Wayne> +111
WD: The resize content that Alastair did really covered it globally
JA: Last week we discussed communicating to WCAG that these are our SC's, but that more are needed
<shawn> [ Shawn hopes to work on the low vision user requirements over vacation ]
AC: It would be helpful to highlight the things which haven't been tackled yet
<shawn> +1 for documenting what's not included in the 2.1 SCs and what needs are met in UAAG 2.0 and if there are any others not included in either yet
WD: The pushback seem to be getting is on the user agent side
AC: some pushback about including user agent and authoring tools, some on using incubation for sliver
<allanj> +1 for documenting what's not included in the 2.1 SCs and what needs are met in UAAG 2.0 and if there are any others not included in either yet
+1
<Glenda> +1
<laura> +1
<Glenda> I agree with Alastair, let’s focus on moving our proposed SC forward
<allanj> current Requirements document - http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html
<laura> agree with focusing on moving our proposed SC forward
JA: Shawn was going to work on requirements over vacation, so if anyone has thoughts, contact her
SH: I can plug away at that, but not take taskforce time until stuff settles down, so can keep a list of what open issues are, but not slow down the SC work
JA: That is the agenda, we have lots to do and SC to shepherd. Happy to let us go early to get to it
AC: Question for the group - could you see VR having an impact on other SC?
<allanj> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0713.html
GS: One thing I keep bouncing back and forth, I love where you said VR isn't content, it's a monitor. I am leaning in that direction, but we've been talking about static images, as opposed to moving images. What about exceptions for live video, how do I describe that?
<alastairc> http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/jet/jetCookbook.html?component=pieChart&demo=default
AC: James pinged me off list, and
has an example
... Basically a pie chart, but if you mouse over to it, it has
pop-ups that have the label and the value
... This is an interactive version of the plain pie chart
AC: I changed the test procedure
in Graphics Contrast
... To say check whether there is an input agnostic way
... Not sure we need to change the text, but open to others
thoughts
<alastairc> New part of the test criteria: Check whether there is an input agnostic way of showing more information (e.g. pop-overs or enhanced contrast shown with mouse, touch or keyboard interaction), if so that element can be skipped.
WD: This is much like what we see in the higher education realm
AC: Oracle example is good
<allanj> overlap between graphics and interactive
GS: My brain keeps going back and forth between interactive and immersive content. Remember things like Second Life. What if I'm doing VR to walk through a video of downtown Rome
<alastairc> NB: Good article on VR accessibility: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20161031/284491/VR__accessibility.php
GS: Maybe we want to limit this to 2D images, static images, I don't want to get in to video. I think will be a whole other area we need to consider, and I don't think we have the time for it
AC: We could possibly even say
things like 'for a photo-realistic environment'
... we have plenty in WCAG already that covers video
GS: though nothing that covers real vs. fake things, don't have time to go there
<alastairc> Sensory: Non-text content that is primarily intended to create a visual sensory experience has no minimum contrast requirement.
<alastairc> I'll add that to the graphics contrast SC
<Glenda> Should we add that we want to defer VR to silver?
<shawn> +1 for your attention moved to the scolling then have to find your way back to the line
+1 for your attention moved to the scolling then have to find your way back to the line
GS: Do we want to document that we're moving VR to Silver, or add to agenda to discuss next time
<Glenda> +1 to defer VR to silver
+1
<allanj> +1 defer VR to silver
<laura> +1
RESOLUTION: Defer any VR SC's to Silver group
<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/LVTF_2.1_SC_FAQ
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/who is here? Succeeded: s/who is here?// Succeeded: s/s// Succeeded: s/who is here?// Succeeded: s/Some of that pushback was coming from organizations which have user agents/some pushback about including user agent and authoring tools, some on using incubation for sliver/ Found Scribe: Erich Inferring ScribeNick: erich Default Present: allanj, Erich, AlastairC, Shawn, Glenda, Laura, wayne WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: (no, one), allanj) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ allanj Present: allanj Erich AlastairC Shawn Glenda Laura wayne Regrets: JohnR Found Date: 08 Dec 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html People with action items: jim WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]