15:13:59 RRSAgent has joined #lvtf 15:13:59 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-lvtf-irc 15:14:01 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:14:03 Zakim, this will be 15:14:03 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:14:04 Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 15:14:04 Date: 27 January 2016 15:14:13 Chair: Andrew 15:14:21 zakim, clear agenda 15:14:21 agenda cleared 15:14:24 present: 15:16:26 AWK has joined #lvtf 15:16:36 Trackbot, start meeting 15:16:38 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:16:40 Zakim, this will be 15:16:40 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:16:41 Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 15:16:41 Date: 27 January 2016 15:16:47 Chair: AWK 15:16:50 Zakim, agenda? 15:16:50 I see nothing on the agenda 15:17:26 +AWK 15:17:37 regrets+ Alan 15:18:56 agenda+ Scribe 15:19:12 agenda+ survey Review Requirements https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/UserNeeds-Jan-27/results 15:19:59 agenda+ User needs vs user requirements agenda+ Note title agenda+ Do not include additional stats? agenda+ Leave movement? agenda+ Leave hyphenation in tracking? regrets+ Jim 15:20:24 Zakim, close item 3 15:20:24 agendum 3, User needs vs user requirements agenda+ Note title 15:20:26 ... agenda+ Do not include additional stats? 15:20:26 ... agenda+ Leave movement? agenda+ Leave hyphenation in tracking? ... closed 15:20:26 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:20:27 1. Scribe [from AWK] 15:20:29 Zakim, close item 2 15:20:30 agendum 2, survey Review Requirements https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/UserNeeds-Jan-27/results, closed 15:20:30 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 15:20:30 1. Scribe [from AWK] 15:20:42 agenda+ User needs vs user requirements 15:21:03 agenda+ Note title 15:21:12 agenda+ Do not include additional stats? 15:21:16 laura has joined #lvtf 15:21:21 agenda+ Leave movement? 15:21:37 agenda+ Leave hyphenation in tracking? 15:21:46 agenda+ Visual Acuity section heading 15:21:54 agenda+ Field of Vision section heading 15:22:01 agenda+ corrected terminology 15:22:10 agenda+ color vision terminology 15:22:19 agenda+ wai page title 15:22:27 agenda+ contrast & image accessibility 15:29:47 agenda+ Who is going to CSUN? 15:30:08 JohnRochford has joined #lvtf 15:30:51 regrets- Alan 15:31:13 Wayne has joined #LVTF 15:32:11 Erich has joined #lvtf 15:32:59 jon_avila has joined #lvtf 15:33:12 present+ Laura 15:33:18 present+ John, Alan, Andrew, Shawn 15:33:25 Present+ Wayne 15:33:28 present+jon_avila 15:33:50 zakim, list attendees 15:33:50 As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Laura, John, Alan, Andrew, Shawn, Wayne, jon_avila 15:33:51 present+ Erich 15:33:52 Low Vision TF Scribe List: 15:33:52 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List 15:33:54 Present +John 15:34:02 Present +JohnRochford 15:34:11 Zakim, take up item 2 15:34:11 agendum 2. "survey Review Requirements https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/UserNeeds-Jan-27/results" taken up [from AWK] 15:34:12 scribe: jon_avila 15:34:24 Zakim, take up item 15 15:34:24 agendum 15. "Who is going to CSUN?" taken up [from AWK] 15:34:25 Present: Erich 15:34:26 zakim, take up item 15 15:34:26 agendum 15. "Who is going to CSUN?" taken up [from AWK] 15:34:32 Shawn is going 15:34:37 I am 15:34:48 wayne going 15:34:57 awk: who is going to csun? 15:34:59 I am 15:35:07 Alan is not 15:35:10 Laura not going. 15:35:20 john R not going 15:35:23 Erich not going 15:35:50 Zakim, take up item 2 15:35:50 agendum 2. "survey Review Requirements https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/UserNeeds-Jan-27/results" taken up [from AWK] 15:36:17 Zakim, take up item 3 15:36:17 agendum 3. "User needs vs user requirements agenda+ Note title 15:36:19 ... agenda+ Do not include additional stats? 15:36:19 ... agenda+ Leave movement? agenda+ Leave hyphenation in tracking? ... up [from AWK] 15:36:32 zakim, agenda? 15:36:32 I see 13 items remaining on the agenda: 15:36:33 1. Scribe [from AWK] 15:36:33 4. User needs vs user requirements [from AWK] 15:36:33 5. Note title [from AWK] 15:36:34 6. Do not include additional stats? [from AWK] 15:36:34 7. Leave movement? [from AWK] 15:36:34 8. Leave hyphenation in tracking? [from AWK] 15:36:34 9. Visual Acuity section heading [from AWK] 15:36:34 10. Field of Vision section heading [from AWK] 15:36:35 11. corrected terminology [from AWK] 15:36:36 12. color vision terminology [from AWK] 15:36:36 13. wai page title [from AWK] 15:36:36 14. contrast & image accessibility [from AWK] 15:36:36 15. Who is going to CSUN? [from AWK] 15:36:50 Alan_Smith has joined #lvtf 15:36:53 zakim, drop agenda 1 15:36:53 agendum 1, Scribe, dropped 15:37:11 awk: talking about the title? Are we happy with it as it is now? 15:37:12 zakim, drop agenda 3 15:37:12 agendum 3, User needs vs user requirements agenda+ Note title 15:37:14 ... agenda+ Do not include additional stats? 15:37:14 ... agenda+ Leave movement? agenda+ Leave hyphenation in tracking? ... dropped 15:37:20 zakim, take up agenda 4 15:37:20 agendum 4. "User needs vs user requirements " taken up [from AWK] 15:37:23 I like requiermets 15:38:52 awk: back to terminology, user needs versus user requirements. 15:39:04 wayne: likes requirements 15:39:31 wayne: looks like a trial spec, I think requirements is better 15:39:55 awk: Shawn mildly prefers user needs 15:40:35 awk: don't have strong feelings. Doesn't appear that most people do Shawn more so internal to the document. 15:40:48 q+ to say How about requirements for title and user needs for section -- which is what it is now 15:41:08 ack me 15:41:08 shawn, you wanted to say How about requirements for title and user needs for section -- which is what it is now 15:41:47 Shawn: concern that we aren't saying each one of these is a WCAG requirement. Approach have requirements in title and then have sections say user needs. 15:41:57 http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html#user-needs 15:42:05 shawn: essentially what we have now. 15:42:51 shawn: Section 3 is titled user needs 15:44:04 +1 to leaving it as it is 15:44:19 erich: want to support people first approach. Requirements could sound like people demand this. 15:44:57 q+ 15:45:01 erich: What are people more likely to do if the standard is rigid versus something else? Comfortable with softer wording if it make it more palatable 15:45:13 shawn: What we have may strike that balance 15:45:25 q- 15:45:38 +1 15:46:49 awk: This document is separate from what WCAG and UAAG requires and time will tell how this maps to a future extension. Trying to position this document as a standalone document. 15:47:06 shawn: We should continue to position it that way in the introduction 15:47:35 RESOLUTION: Keep requirements in title and keep user needs in interior sections 15:47:58 Zakim, take up item 3 15:47:58 agendum 3. "User needs vs user requirements agenda+ Note title 15:48:00 ... agenda+ Do not include additional stats? 15:48:00 ... agenda+ Leave movement? agenda+ Leave hyphenation in tracking? ... up [from AWK] 15:48:16 Zakim, next item 15:48:16 agendum 3 was just opened, AWK 15:48:29 zakim, agenda? 15:48:29 I see 12 items remaining on the agenda: 15:48:30 4. User needs vs user requirements [from AWK] 15:48:30 5. Note title [from AWK] 15:48:30 6. Do not include additional stats? [from AWK] 15:48:30 7. Leave movement? [from AWK] 15:48:33 8. Leave hyphenation in tracking? [from AWK] 15:48:33 9. Visual Acuity section heading [from AWK] 15:48:33 10. Field of Vision section heading [from AWK] 15:48:34 11. corrected terminology [from AWK] 15:48:35 12. color vision terminology [from AWK] 15:48:35 13. wai page title [from AWK] 15:48:35 14. contrast & image accessibility [from AWK] 15:48:36 15. Who is going to CSUN? [from AWK] 15:48:49 zakim, close agenda 15 15:48:49 agendum 15, Who is going to CSUN?, closed 15:48:50 I see 11 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:48:50 4. User needs vs user requirements [from AWK] 15:48:59 Zakim, close item 4 15:48:59 agendum 4, User needs vs user requirements , closed 15:49:01 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:49:01 5. Note title [from AWK] 15:49:07 Zakim, next item 15:49:07 agendum 5. "Note title " taken up [from AWK] 15:50:38 The issue is "Low Vision User" 15:50:51 awk: no immediate consensus that emerges. I'm not unhappy with the current title. We've discussed this before. Would be happy with title or could flip to users with with lwo vision. 15:51:04 ( and Laura commetns about issues with "user") 15:51:28 laura: like wording of people first language without user 15:51:50 +1 to laura 15:51:52 Laura suggests: "Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision" 15:51:59 alana: people with low vision would sound better 15:52:01 +1 15:52:18 johnR: equivalent to saying people who are blind 15:52:24 Accessibility Requirements of People with Low Vision 15:52:33 johnr: people first, we just happen to have a disability 15:52:53 awk: not a fan of the text "of" 15:53:42 shawn: concern with word "for" as these are their requirements 15:54:21 awk: It's not about presenting this gift but the other meaning of for 15:54:45 of+ 15:55:29 Alan: I need to drop for 11 o'clock business meeting. 15:55:52 I too need to drop off at 11 15:55:59 from reference.com intended to belong to, or be used in connection with: equipment for the army; a closet for dishes. 15:56:00 +1 for for 15:56:07 can live with for 15:56:16 welcome, try for full engagement again next week and beyond. Regards. 15:56:40 awk: accessibility requirements for people with low vision 15:57:13 awk: any objections? 15:57:39 RESOLUTION: title Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision 15:57:41 Zakim, close this item 15:57:41 agendum 5 closed 15:57:42 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:57:42 6. Do not include additional stats? [from AWK] 15:57:44 Zakim, next item 15:57:44 agendum 6. "Do not include additional stats? " taken up [from AWK] 15:58:53 awk: Do we want to include stats where correction is less achievable? 15:59:45 wayne: afraid that uncorrected low vision not being taken serious 16:00:05 awk: sounds like we stick with what we have unless more data that we happen upon 16:00:09 +1 16:00:54 rrsagent, make minutes 16:00:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-lvtf-minutes.html laura 16:01:15 wayne: so hard to get careful study -- managed to get US study 16:02:02 shawn: want to emphasis that this is big -- but we perhaps the addition information could be in a separate place 16:02:25 awk: sounds like it a useful additional resource that we could put the AMA study there on the WAI pages. 16:02:31 awk: any objections to sticking to what we have? 16:02:57 RESOLUTION: stick with what we have for low vision incidence - stick with stats we have 16:02:58 Zakim, close this item 16:02:58 agendum 6 closed 16:02:59 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:02:59 7. Leave movement? [from AWK] 16:03:02 Zakim, next item 16:03:02 agendum 7. "Leave movement? " taken up [from AWK] 16:03:56 awk: is movement when reading on a train different for people with low vision for people who do not? Is it an factor that effects users with low vision? 16:05:12 shawn: what if we shortcut this. This is a pretty minor thing. I wonder if we have an objection or concern with leaving it. It's a minor point in the document. 16:05:38 awk: just in 2.5 under environmental factors include... we talk about it anywhere else 16:06:07 awk: next we talk about how people sometimes have control over environmental factors. 16:06:15 no thoughts either way 16:07:26 awk: any objections to leave it as it is as a minor note? 16:07:34 RESOLUTION: Leave movement bullet as is 16:07:37 Zakim, close this item 16:07:37 agendum 7 closed 16:07:38 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:07:38 8. Leave hyphenation in tracking? [from AWK] 16:07:38 Zakim, next item 16:07:39 agendum 8. "Leave hyphenation in tracking? " taken up [from AWK] 16:08:47 awk: hyphenation currently under 3.2.6 -- is it best under tracking or somewhere else? 16:09:21 wayne: most appropriate with resizing text and large hpyerlinks can affect word wrapping 16:10:05 shawn: text size is under perceiving. No main heading for resize text. Hyphenation becomes more of an issue when text size increases. 16:10:34 wayne: doesn't say what issue it is. Could imply that you shouldn't use it. You need hyphenation to get more words on page with large print. 16:11:00 current wording: "Some people with very large text may prefer hyphenation on so that more characters fit on a line of text." 16:11:02 shawn: It says that some people may prefer hyphenation because you can get more characters on a line. 16:11:38 wayne: long hyperlinks stretches out the page. Things that don't break mess up text size. 16:11:54 q+ to say that our "perceiving" section refers to recognizing characters 16:12:13 shawn: Is this related to tracking b/c when it does not wrap it causes issue with tracking? Perhaps we could add explanation. 16:12:25 ack me 16:12:25 AWK, you wanted to say that our "perceiving" section refers to recognizing characters 16:13:03 action: shawn & wayne write for WAI page hyphenation and word breaking, e.g., URI screws up wrapping overall https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/LVTF18Jan2016/results#xq2 16:13:03 Created ACTION-30 - & wayne write for wai page hyphenation and word breaking, e.g., uri screws up wrapping overall https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/lvtf18jan2016/results#xq2 [on Shawn Henry - due 2016-02-03]. 16:13:10 awk: we don't talk about identifying words only characters in perceiving 16:13:13 +1 to awk 16:13:23 +1 to awk 16:13:54 shawn: took and action to write up with Wayne to explain overall issue more 16:14:11 shawn: would be good to point to WAI page with some images. 16:14:20 awk: Right now support seems to support in leave in tracking 16:14:28 +1 to leave in tracking 16:14:46 awk: Erich what do you think? 16:14:50 Erich: tracking is good 16:15:00 awk: any objections to leaving hyphenation in 3.2? 16:15:11 RESOLUTION: leave hyphenation in 3.2 16:15:13 Zakim, close this item 16:15:13 agendum 8 closed 16:15:14 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:15:14 9. Visual Acuity section heading [from AWK] 16:15:16 Zakim, next item 16:15:16 agendum 9. "Visual Acuity section heading " taken up [from AWK] 16:15:23 s/hyphenation in 3.2/hyphenation in Tracking 16:15:39 awk; bouncing to other survey 16:16:17 awk: balancing clarity with accuracy 16:16:39 awk: Jim says acuity is more accurate and known 16:16:53 q? 16:17:46 jon: low vision misunderstood... blurry... functional vision more important than visual acuity 16:17:50 q+ 16:18:03 I like clarity in parens 16:18:30 I'm OK with "Visual Acuity (Clarity)" 16:18:32 q- 16:19:09 awk: people seem to be ok with adding clarity in paranthesis 16:19:51 Zakim, close this item 16:19:51 agendum 9 closed 16:19:52 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:19:52 10. Field of Vision section heading [from AWK] 16:19:54 Zakim, next item 16:19:54 agendum 10. "Field of Vision section heading " taken up [from AWK] 16:20:02 RESOLUTION: Add in clarity in parenthesis in section on Visual Acuity with editorial permission 16:20:51 q+ 16:21:57 erich: my feelings where similar to acuity 16:22:23 erich: think of addition term we could put in parenthesis 16:22:26 q+ to say perceptual area seems too awkward (unlike clarity). field of vision is clear enough 16:22:40 ack w 16:23:14 ack me 16:23:14 shawn, you wanted to say perceptual area seems too awkward (unlike clarity). field of vision is clear enough 16:23:15 q+ 16:23:19 wayne: field actually makes sense to what I experience 16:24:11 shawn: perceptual area is confusing. Don't think people will say that. 16:24:29 ack me 16:24:38 shawn: why add another term that we have to explain 16:25:35 q+ 16:25:57 ack me 16:25:57 ack s 16:25:59 awk: I think we were trying to distinguish between field versus ability to obtain clarity. Field loss can be a side effect 16:26:34 shawn: makes sense now. At one point we had combined functional limitations and now it is split up. Happy to take action to cover that second aspect. 16:27:09 shawn: before it was called perceptual area and now it may make sense to just be visual field 16:27:24 laura: should be ok if we remove perceptual area 16:27:33 awk: any objections to remove perceptual area? 16:27:43 ACTION: Shawn check that issue of people with large text have small bit of info is covered well 16:27:43 Created ACTION-31 - Check that issue of people with large text have small bit of info is covered well [on Shawn Henry - due 2016-02-03]. 16:27:48 awk: Shawn will make sure we discuss types of field loss 16:28:15 Zakim, agenda? 16:28:15 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 16:28:16 10. Field of Vision section heading [from AWK] 16:28:16 11. corrected terminology [from AWK] 16:28:16 12. color vision terminology [from AWK] 16:28:16 13. wai page title [from AWK] 16:28:19 14. contrast & image accessibility [from AWK] 16:28:29 RESOLUTION: remove perceptual area parenthetical text when talking about field of vision 16:28:43 Zakim, close this item 16:28:43 agendum 10 closed 16:28:44 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:28:44 11. corrected terminology [from AWK] 16:28:45 shawn: items are in most important order 16:28:53 Zakim, next item 16:28:53 agendum 11. "corrected terminology " taken up [from AWK] 16:29:10 awk: one more -- corrected terminology 16:29:35 shawn: this was question #4 on survey 16:30:00 awk: corrected or not corrected. Jim says used in field and in documentation. 16:30:15 Wayne: I am in favor 16:30:41 wayne: will take note to check terminology -- this should be ok here. Was thinking to expansive when I made that comment. 16:30:52 awk: Laura says she can live with it if it is consensus 16:30:53 +1 16:31:02 shawn OK with it 16:31:08