14:57:49 RRSAgent has joined #lvtf 14:57:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-lvtf-irc 14:57:51 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:57:51 Zakim has joined #lvtf 14:57:53 Zakim, this will be 14:57:53 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:57:54 Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 14:57:54 Date: 15 December 2016 14:58:08 rrsagent, make minutes 14:58:09 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-lvtf-minutes.html allanj 14:58:14 chair: Jim 14:58:35 regrets: Wayne 15:04:56 zakim, agenda? 15:04:56 I see nothing on the agenda 15:05:06 zakim, who is here? 15:05:06 Present: (no one) 15:05:08 On IRC I see RRSAgent, jeanne, shawn, MichaelC, allanj, trackbot 15:05:20 present+ 15:05:24 zakim, who is here? 15:05:24 Present: allanj 15:05:26 On IRC I see RRSAgent, jeanne, shawn, MichaelC, allanj, trackbot 15:06:22 Agenda+ Meeting during next 2 weeks 15:06:24 Agenda+ Review Current Active SCs 15:11:07 Font Family https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79 15:11:08 Resize Content https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77 15:11:10 Interactive Element contrast https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10 15:11:11 Informational Graphics Contrast https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9 15:11:38 Reflow to single column https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/58 15:50:28 JohnRochford has joined #lvtf 15:58:11 ScottM has joined #lvtf 15:59:08 laura has joined #lvtf 15:59:48 Glenda has joined #lvtf 16:00:56 alastairc has joined #lvtf 16:01:40 erich has joined #lvtf 16:02:00 Marla has joined #lvtf 16:02:03 present+ alastairc 16:02:27 present+ 16:02:33 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:02:33 Present: allanj, alastairc, shawn 16:02:39 scrible: eric 16:02:50 Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List 16:02:59 scribe: erich 16:03:23 present+ Laura 16:03:23 zakim, open item 1 16:03:23 agendum 1. "Meeting during next 2 weeks" taken up [from allanj] 16:03:31 present+ Scott, Erich, Marla, Glenda, John, Laura 16:03:59 JA: Seemed like there were 4 or 5 available to meet next week, 2 for the week between Christmas and New Years 16:04:19 JA: Proposing we don't meet for next 2 wks, any objections? 16:04:20 present+ Glenda 16:04:47 next meeting: Thur 5 Jan 2017 16:04:57 JA: Sounds like none, so next meeting will be Thurs Jan 5th 16:04:59 zakim, next item 16:04:59 agendum 2. "Review Current Active SCs" taken up [from allanj] 16:05:22 JA: 5 of current active SC's have had comments 16:05:35 topic: Informational Graphics Contrast https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9 16:05:41 JA: Let's start with number 9, and go in numeric order 16:06:22 AC: #9 has been fairly overhauled, description at top does not really match latest version 16:06:34 JA: Have you chatted with Andrew or Joshua? 16:06:56 AC: Yes, they cannot make me admin on GitHub without losing comments 16:07:08 AC: My suggestion was to simply lose the description at the top 16:07:29 action: jim review the wiki for Informational Graphic Contrast. Import to Github issue 9 16:07:29 Created ACTION-92 - Review the wiki for informational graphic contrast. import to github issue 9 [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-22]. 16:07:58 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Informational_Graphic_Contrast_(Minimum) 16:08:23 AC: Seems it has been considerably overhauled since Dec 1st, and seems to be in a good state 16:08:43 JA: Have the benefits or examples/pie charts changed? 16:09:15 AC: Yes, had to be restructured, so would be good to include the related information 16:09:21 JA: OK, I will slog through that 16:10:46 AC: David also sent around link to spreadsheet he's been developing, he's not convinced that this one is testable, that it's a condition and does not apply across technologies. I will take that up with David 16:11:21 LC: LVTF has had 2 that were accepted 16:11:57 zakim, next item 16:11:57 I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, erich 16:11:59 David's spreadsheet, useful to find out what he isn't convinced by yet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=0 16:12:03 topic: Interactive Element contrast https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10 16:13:13 For Issue 10, I have at least 46 comments to work through, documented at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17uFopFpjdpCB1yHgkz11fEJ8IGYfPioGsvFUX1Zq96k/edit#gid=0 16:13:17 GS: Struggling with where to make these changes, got rejected on the wiki in WCAG group, so I have documented every comment I can find in an Excel spreadsheet - I am up to 46 not including David's latest - so for issue 10 I have at least 46 comments to work through 16:13:52 GS: I've been giving them a unique counter, dating them to keep straight as new comments come in, and also re-sort so I can look at every comment level 16:14:23 GS: I have started to work through them, and stopped, because I don't want to go off on my own. Want to stay in lock-step with Alastair 16:14:45 GS: many of same questions from issue 9 are identical to those being asked for issue 10 16:15:05 JA: So Glenda if you want to edit in the wiki, let me know and I will do updates 16:15:39 GS: I think issue 9 is set at AA, is that true? 16:15:47 AC: Yes, set to match text contrast 16:16:41 GS: The other thing that seemed to be mentioned at Tues WCAG meeting, seemed Andrew and Josh were suggesting we close 9 and 10 and reopen them where the owners are Alastair (9) and Glenda (10) so Jim isn't stuck making the updates 16:17:05 LC: I think they were working so assignees could assign it, but Michael Cooper was doing that 16:17:24 GS: I'll go again and see what I can find, but that's all I have to report right now 16:17:58 topic: Reflow to single column https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/58 16:18:03 JA: Next up, Reflow 16:18:22 JA: Alastair, not sure you are the SC manager 16:18:35 AC: I had to give this one up, they wouldn't let me take on so many 16:19:03 AC: Have a comment from Greg which I have replied to 16:19:22 proposed language: All content can be viewed as a single column with reflow except where reflow would cause distortion or loss of information 16:19:28 AC: He likes it, but suggests all content can be viewed as a single column 16:19:59 AC: I replied to him this morning, and have not heard back... inclined to leave it as-is until we get an answer 16:20:32 JA: So if we change the wording as proposed, does rest of SC still hold? 16:20:58 JA: I think techniques would stay close, as well as testing 16:21:15 LC: They could go through survey too, and there would be lots of updates 16:21:47 ScottM has joined #lvtf 16:21:57 JA: So we have this one, and may also get some changes on 77 16:22:40 JA: Resize Content we just talked about, anything else going on with that? 16:22:59 topic: Resize Content https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77 16:23:00 AC: Don't think so, just David needs to be convinced it applies across technologies 16:23:04 WCAG Surveys: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/ 16:23:41 JA: The only other one we have is 79 16:23:53 topic: Font Family https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79 16:23:53 JA: Font Family, there were some comments on that 16:24:15 Earlier I said I thought AWK had said we should close the issues on github and have the SC Manager open a new issue. I think I misunderstood. Here is one quote from the WCAG Dec 13 Mtg Minutes https://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html “AWK: SC manager probably should not be editing the proposal but elevating issues and guiding TF lead to make changes in response to issues 16:24:16 ... discussion could happen on git hub but also by email if absolutely neccessary. threads on github are prefereable” 16:24:42 JA: Comments from Liam Quinn, but nobody has been assigned to this one - comment is that SC is unacceptable for non-western fonts 16:25:06 Oh, but then AWK said something about branching: “AWK: sc could restate what they are hear. sc manager empowered to for and manage branch of modifications” 16:25:38 EM: I can pick up as SC manager for Font Family 16:25:39 suggested text: suggest,
  • Confirm that font samples appear in the appropriate fonts
    • 16:25:40
  • Select font which appears readable
    • 16:25:42
  • Confirm that the choice is then used to render text.
    • 16:25:58 LC: Just put your name in the comment field, they'll pick it up and assign it to you 16:26:50 JA: Have questions on the testability 16:28:12 Erich: THis is the page -https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1 16:28:15 SC Managers Phase1: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1 16:28:25 LC: There is also a wiki page you need to also put your name in 16:29:14 LC: We still need managers for some of our SC 16:29:51 JA: Text Color, Metadata and Printing still need managers 16:30:15 JA: Also no comments on these yet, likely due to WCAG orderly fashion 16:31:24 JA: I have been looking at the overlaps with COGA, there are 2 - 1 overlaps with 10, another seemingly with several 16:31:54 JR: Who are they (who say there's overlap) 16:32:16 JA: David MacDonald expressed the opinion, not anything official, just helping people out 16:32:27 David's spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=1491179377 16:32:55 JA: Spreadsheet has all SC's by group, has all the overlaps, and several other things, 4 or 5 sheets in there 16:35:29 JA: That is all that I had, unless we want to discuss any in more detail or if an SC manager would like to get more input from the group 16:35:47 JA: One thing from last week was things needed for Silver 16:35:57 q+ 16:35:58 JA: Shawn, I know you were working on requirements doc 16:36:19 ack Glenda 16:37:18 GS: Would value group feedback on overlap between COGA 36 and Issue 10 16:37:53 SH: Jim, let's see if we already have the info in a table, we did something awhile back 16:38:13 topic: overlap with coga 36 and LVTF 10 contrast disabled elements 16:38:41 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10 16:38:42 GS: What to do about color contrast for disabled interactive elements 16:38:45 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/36 16:39:13 GS: I am becoming more convinced that we should not require Color Contrast on disabled interactive elements for 2.1, but that we should leave it for preferences in Silver 16:39:46 GS: I clearly see from a low-vision viewpoint that being able to tell what a disabled element is, is important 16:40:26 GS: Hearing enough dissonant feedback that I am thinking we should delay it to Silver 16:41:03 ScottMq has joined #lvtf 16:41:05 difference between 3:1 and 4.5:1 is not very great 16:41:07 AC: Would tend to agree, unless there is a magic solution. Probably worth calling out as such and raising as one of the discussions at WCAG 16:41:30 SM: Kind of on the fence on this one 16:41:51 SM: Would seem almost a AAA 16:42:17 q+ to say ideally disabled is not conveyed by color alone, yes? ... although not sure that we want to require that... 16:42:25 SM: I can certainly see how people would want to be able to tell what the controls are, even though they're disabled 16:42:51 SM: It's a pain for testing, because all the checkers will flag whether disabled or not 16:43:06 SM: May be exchanging one problem for another 16:43:35 JR: I can see why you would want to reduce to AAA for low-vision population, but for COGA population it's more important than that, which is why AA 16:43:57 q- 16:44:24 GS: If we force Color Contrast at AA in 2.1, I think we hurt COGA 16:46:10 JA: Shawn had a comment about not conveying by color alone 16:46:38 JA: If you have disabled element, is there some other way, or does that just get in to serious rats nest 16:47:49 AC: May be worth checking current techniques 16:48:03 GS: Could we add to agenda for next time so we could also get Wayne's opinion? 16:48:06 JA: Sure 16:48:25 GS: There just seem to be conflicting needs, which is why I am proposing Silver 16:48:52 action: jim add moving contrast of disabled controls to silver and removing from LVTF10 16:48:52 Created ACTION-93 - Add moving contrast of disabled controls to silver and removing from lvtf10 [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-22]. 16:49:47 JA: I did a table which was the Lumosity Brightness, trying to remember where I posted it 16:50:24 JA: Will find the link again for the discussion 16:50:58 Shawn: Good point, disabled elements are mentioned in https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html but there doesn't appear to be a good technique or failure for it. 16:51:28 Luminosity Brightness of Enabled/Disabled Form Controls using default browser styling https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2016Nov/0024.html 16:51:45 GS: Think I have found it in GitHub - reference pasted in chat 16:52:13 JA: I will add that link to 10 16:52:13 This is the table of Luminosity Brightness of Enabled/Disabled Form Controls 16:52:14 using default browser styling http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-SC/luminosity-form-controls.html 16:53:10 GS: Putting in my notes with anything related to Disabled, Color Contrast, as another piece of evidence 16:54:00 GS: I would change it up in the top of Issue 10, and add it to Resources 16:54:38 JA: I will put it in there, and let you know where 16:54:44 JA: Anything else? 16:54:59 HAPPY HOLIDAYS ALL! 16:55:07 bye 16:55:29 rrsagent, generate minutes 16:55:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-lvtf-minutes.html erich 19:01:58 Zakim has left #lvtf