14:28:35 RRSAgent has joined #lvtf 14:28:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-irc 14:28:37 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:28:40 Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 14:28:40 Date: 07 September 2017 14:28:48 chair: Jim 14:29:01 Agenda+ Understanding Docs https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC 14:29:03 Agenda+ New Comments issues 14:29:04 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20lvtf 14:55:13 alastairc has joined #lvtf 14:59:54 Glenda has joined #lvtf 15:00:06 laura has joined #lvtf 15:01:01 JohnRochford has joined #lvtf 15:01:23 present+ 15:01:28 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:28 Present: Jim, JohnR, SteveR, Glenda, Laura, shawn 15:01:38 present+ Glenda 15:01:59 present+ alastairc 15:02:01 present+ JohnRochford 15:02:02 agenda+ review SCs not accepted for 2.1 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938 15:02:13 present- Laura 15:02:38 present+ Laura 15:02:42 present+ Laura 15:02:59 present- JohnR 15:03:05 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:03:06 Present: Jim, SteveR, Glenda, shawn, alastairc, JohnRochford, Laura 15:03:16 steverep has joined #lvtf 15:03:22 present+steverep 15:03:42 present- SteveR 15:03:45 Scribe List: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List 15:04:07 Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info 15:04:16 present+ steverep 15:04:17 Scribe: Glenda 15:04:33 agenda? 15:05:40 zakim, open item 3 15:05:40 agendum 3. "review SCs not accepted for 2.1 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938" taken up [from allanj] 15:06:50 Jim: David MacDonald has a spreadsheet that lists (on the last tab) SC’s that did not make the WCAG 2.1 cut. Let’s review to make sure it is accurate for LVTF proposals. 15:07:06 [ Shawn with her WAI outreach hat on has been considering sharing info with the world on what did not get into WCAG 2.1 ] 15:07:23 q+ 15:07:51 ack sh 15:08:54 Shawn: From WAI Outreach, so we want to explain WCAG 2.1 has these SC that are in (and these SC that did not make). Is it useful to include the ones that did not make from a best practice perspective? Or is the ROI not good, too much confusion? 15:09:15 Alastair: good thing to do, but time it after people have a stronger sense of what is going in. 15:10:30 Glenda: When define what didn't make it, can help people understand what's out of scope. Good tidea. Agree timing, not first priotiy 15:11:04 s/priotiy/priority 15:11:20 s/tidea/idea 15:11:42 Jim: Lisa recommends a best practices document for things that did not make it into 2.1. 15:12:00 q+ 15:12:04 Lisa already has that doc in progress. 15:12:06 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit# 15:12:12 Shawn: was Lisa thinking of a coga focus, or would it be broader. 15:12:19 q+ 15:12:23 ack st 15:13:11 ack al 15:13:35 Alastair: hoping it would be wider than coga. An incubation for WCAG 2.2 or 2.3. 15:14:09 Alastair: we haven’t mapped out how to handle user agent requirements 15:14:42 John: I think it could be expanded to include other groups like LVTF and MATF. 15:15:38 I think this was the place for future SC? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Potential_Accessibility_Guidelines 15:15:43 Potential Accessibility Guidelines: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Potential_Accessibility_Guidelines 15:15:59 Jim: anyone want to take a first pass at David MacDonald’s spreadsheet to see if there is anything that is missing or needs to be updated? Jim is pasting in link now. 15:16:03 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938 15:17:07 Jim: some of the items listed as “not accepted” are actually folded in to some of the proposed SC. Also, there are some that never got written up…so it would be good to add them. So others can see remaining gaps. 15:17:35 Shawn: when I get back to the User Requirements document, we can add needs/gaps in there too. 15:17:39 Cannot view Google docs behind corporate walls... I'll have to look later 15:18:12 TOR is your friend. 15:18:49 Jim: volunteers to review David MacDonald’s spreadsheet (of what didn’t make) by grouping the LVTF items so it will be easier to review. 15:20:39 Next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivelent). 15:20:58 John: COGA is planning on starting with user needs first in their doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit 15:22:25 Jim: aside, I did a webinar on the evils of horizontal scrolling (for the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired) 15:24:39 https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspectives/customizable.html 15:25:19 shawn: cool that we both use the “toaster” example to explain the importance of individuals being able to customize / personalize settings 15:26:06 zakim, agenda? 15:26:06 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 15:26:06 s/ cool that we both use the/ cool that the Perspectives video also uses the 15:26:07 1. Understanding Docs https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC [from allanj] 15:26:07 2. New Comments issues [from allanj] 15:26:07 3. review SCs not accepted for 2.1 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938 [from allanj] 15:27:00 ACTION: Jim's next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). 15:27:00 Error finding 'Jim's'. You can review and register nicknames at . 15:27:40 ACTION: allanj to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). 15:27:40 Error finding 'allanj'. You can review and register nicknames at . 15:27:43 ACTION: Jim to write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). 15:28:04 ACTION: Jim to write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). 15:28:04 Created ACTION-101 - Write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (lv) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from lisa (or an equivalent). [on Jim Allan - due 2017-09-14]. 15:28:27 zakim, close item 3 15:28:27 agendum 3, review SCs not accepted for 2.1 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938, closed 15:28:31 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:28:31 1. Understanding Docs https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC [from allanj] 15:28:41 zakim, next item 15:28:41 agendum 1. "Understanding Docs https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC" taken up [from allanj] 15:29:22 JIm: Understanding docs are ready to be worked on. See https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC 15:30:25 Feel free to ask me if you need GitHub or git help 15:33:17 Jim: AG chairs want Understanding docs ready before TPAC, so we can easily publish a good PWD shortly after TPAC 15:35:22 q+ 15:35:30 q+ 15:35:39 ack st 15:35:51 Glenda: suggest that the SC manager draft the Understanding doc…and send an email to LVTF when you are ready for review. 15:36:11 ack al 15:36:14 Steve: believe we should be deep into Techniques (and Understanding should be well formed) 15:36:46 Alastair: agrees, we should have Understanding done, and be working on Techniques before and at TPAC 15:37:17 Steve: recommend making Understanding doc reviews part of this call before TPAC (so we can have LVTF approval on Understanding docs) 15:37:37 Jim: how should be track comments? 15:40:07 Alastair: Minor comments to the list. Big Changes - make a fork within Github and make changes there, and make pull request. 15:41:14 Steve: create a branch off the branch, ask Steve if you need help 15:41:29 agenda? 15:42:44 Allowing for Spacing Override: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Allowing_for_Spacing_Override 15:42:47 Jim: There is a technique’s template (posted on the LVTF wiki) at (Jim pasting in URL) 15:42:51 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Template 15:43:03 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Instructions 15:43:04 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques 15:43:14 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Writing_WCAG_Techniques_-_Notes 15:43:34 rrsagent, make minutes 15:43:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-minutes.html Glenda 15:43:48 main AG techniques page https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques 15:44:59 q+ to ask about images in Understanding 15:45:10 ack steverep 15:45:10 steverep, you wanted to ask about images in Understanding 15:45:46 Steve: If you put images in understanding, do we have rules of what they can or cannot include? Like screenshots. 15:46:25 Glenda: Allows for screen shot. Just need good description. 15:46:42 Steve: this is a copyright question related to screenshots 15:47:14 Shawn: make it generic, so you don’t identify a specific site 15:49:16 Jim: could keep images on the wiki 15:49:40 Alastair: I may be able to have a designer help with some of the images we need a generic version of 15:49:58 Must go, folks. Ciao. 15:51:50 zakim, next item 15:51:50 agendum 2. "New Comments issues" taken up [from allanj] 15:52:23 Jim: thank you Laura for tagging all the LVTF issues 15:52:58 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20lvtf 15:55:18 Glenda: How do we handle the request to remove 4.5 to 1 and just go with 3 to 1 on “Graphics Contrast” and “User Interface Component”? 15:55:37 q+ to add more generically, we should have resolutions here for changes we want to SC 15:57:06 2.1 Issues labeled LVTF: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/labels/LVTF 15:57:34 Alastair: I’d like to catch up on the comments and discuss this at the next LVTF meeting 15:58:06 add agenda item next week... 15:58:21 3:1 vs 4.5:1 for UI and graphics 15:58:22 Steve: adding future agenda items like the 4.5 to 1 versus 3 to 1. 15:58:54 borders, what's a graphical object 15:59:05 q+ 15:59:12 ack st 15:59:12 steverep, you wanted to add more generically, we should have resolutions here for changes we want to SC 15:59:18 ack gl 16:00:23 q+ 16:00:41 gs: thought I need 4.5:1 to "see" the random control. the need for higher contrast on text is because consuming at a rapid rate. 16:01:12 .... why glenda softened on the 3.:1 issue 16:02:01 ack st 16:02:18 Steve: warrents research 16:02:44 +1 to Steve, the reasoning for 3:1 also need research 16:02:54 Steve: complicated mathematical diagram that you need to follow needs research 16:04:45 Glenda: difference between rapidly reading text (and needing to see fine differences in letters)…versus staring at a chart. Do humans really “scan” complex graphs. 16:04:48 Aries Arditi is the researcher 16:05:11 Steve: Engineers need to “scan” and compare complex graphs, so I don’t buy it without research. 16:05:54 yes, you are scanning text, etc to gain content. works the same way when using the UI, if I am scanning/skimming the UI for perform a function... why should I have to look harder because of poor contrast on the UI component 16:06:07 The point from Gregg was (I think) that we read text quickly, so need reasonably high contrast compared to noticing a graphic is there. 16:06:19 q+ 16:07:19 sr: cognitive argument, going to take years to get research either way ... 3:1 or 4.5:1 16:07:22 Steve: you don’t have enough research to say that 4.5 to 1 is not needed for complex graphics. 16:08:07 ack al 16:09:42 be careful about research argument. 16:09:59 Alastair: this research could take significant time. Consider falling back to 3 to 1. May have to restrict it to not include very, very complext graphs. What about gradiations of color. 16:10:21 gordon legge: Bottom line: Contrast requirements for form controls should be equivalent to contrast requirements for text. https://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-lvtf-minutes.html 16:10:24 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net 16:11:30 https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/interview-brian-suda/ 16:11:36 Gordon Legge’s Forwarded message : https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2017Jun/0054.html 16:12:27 https://vimeo.com/109208423 Brian Suda - designing with data 16:12:49 https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Guide-Designing-Data-ebook/dp/B0058ZWZ8C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504800749&sr=8-1&keywords=a+practical+guide+to+designing+with+data 16:12:52 Legge: “If we equate individual text letters and form controls for visual size and proximity of nearby images, there is no reason to believe that contrast demands will be different.” 16:12:59 q+ Tiller? 16:13:16 ack st 16:13:22 ack ti 16:13:44 Legge: “In fact, one could make the argument that poor contrast can be a greater problem for form controls. Text is usually binary--black on white. As long as any part of the text character is above threshold, the whole symbol is likely to be above threshold. Sometimes, form controls use grayscale coding. Even if the bounding contour is above the viewer's contrast threshold, it may be the case that information coded with grayscale shading may be below thresh[CUT] 16:14:30 Legge: “Bottom line: Contrast requirements for form controls should be equivalent to contrast requirements for text.” 16:14:47 http://www.perkinselearning.org/videos/webcast/visual-acuity-testing-part-2-acuity-cards-and-testing-procedures 16:16:41 Jim: leading researchers clearly have said this contrast is just as important for non-text essential information. 16:17:24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUlonNewGk 16:17:58 ^^^ Rethinking Color and Contrast - Jared Smith ID24 2017 16:17:59 Alastiar: sceptical of this, 16:18:21 Rethinking Color and Contrast – Jared Smith : #ID24 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUlonNewGk 16:18:46 Alastair: there are some oddities…but looking across all the different groups of low vision, color blind, older vision…be careful making assumptions. We have a solid baseline. 16:19:11 q+ will also reach out on color vision tests to my doc 16:19:31 Create research issues section on Research wiki page 16:20:22 Alastair: color vision can be very, very different for people with low vision (even if they have color vision) 16:20:25 ack sr 16:21:01 hmm, contrast vs acuity limit 16:21:03 Steve: I’ll reach out to my doctor about a contrast test, with little color dots that you try to put in order from darkest to lightest. There is a measure that comes out of it. 16:23:40 sr: black on white vs white on black have same contrast level, but for many white on black is difficult to read. glare sensitivity. 16:23:44 agenda? 16:24:44 bye 16:24:57 zakim, close item 2 16:24:57 agendum 2, New Comments issues, closed 16:24:59 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 16:25:17 trackbot, end meeting 16:25:17 Zakim, list attendees 16:25:17 As of this point the attendees have been Jim, JohnR, SteveR, Glenda, Laura, shawn, alastairc, JohnRochford, steverep 16:25:25 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:25:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-minutes.html trackbot 16:25:26 RRSAgent, bye 16:25:26 I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-actions.rdf : 16:25:26 ACTION: Jim's next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [1] 16:25:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-irc#T15-27-00 16:25:26 ACTION: allanj to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [2] 16:25:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-irc#T15-27-40 16:25:26 ACTION: Jim to write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [3] 16:25:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-irc#T15-27-43 16:25:26 ACTION: Jim to write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [4] 16:25:26 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-irc#T15-28-04