IRC log of lvtf on 2016-11-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:16:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #lvtf
15:16:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:16:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:16:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
15:16:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
15:16:08 [trackbot]
Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:16:08 [trackbot]
Date: 10 November 2016
15:33:07 [Glenda]
Glenda has joined #lvtf
15:39:29 [allanj]
chair: Jim
15:40:33 [allanj]
regrets: Alastair, JohnR,
15:40:41 [allanj]
Agenda+ Contrast: Interactive Elements
15:40:42 [allanj]
Agenda+ Contrast: Informational Graphics
15:40:44 [allanj]
Agenda+ Reflow to Single Column
15:40:45 [allanj]
Agenda+ Line Length
15:40:47 [allanj]
Agenda+ Text Colors
15:41:02 [allanj]
15:41:12 [allanj]
close item 1
15:41:33 [allanj]
zakim, clear queue
15:41:33 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'clear queue', allanj
15:41:50 [allanj]
zakim, who is on the queue
15:41:50 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the queue', allanj
15:41:56 [allanj]
zakim, who is on the queue?
15:41:56 [Zakim]
I see Wayne on the speaker queue
15:42:02 [allanj]
ack w
15:42:14 [allanj]
close item 1
15:57:27 [laura]
laura has joined #lvtf
15:58:21 [Wayne]
Wayne has joined #lvtf
16:00:26 [erich_manser]
erich_manser has joined #lvtf
16:00:35 [erich_manser]
Scribe: Erich
16:02:42 [shawn]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:42 [Zakim]
Present: alastairc, Laura, Jim, Shawn, ErichM, Scott, JohnRochford, Glenda
16:03:28 [Wayne]
present+ wayne
16:03:34 [Wayne]
16:03:55 [Wayne]
zakim, who is on the phone
16:03:55 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Wayne
16:04:05 [shawn]
Present: Laura, Shawn, ErichM, Glenda, Jam, Scott, Wayne
16:04:22 [Wayne]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:24 [Zakim]
Present: Laura, Shawn, ErichM, Glenda, Jam, Scott, Wayne
16:04:36 [shawn]
Present+ Jim
16:04:37 [ScottM]
ScottM has joined #lvtf
16:04:37 [allanj]
16:04:40 [shawn]
16:04:45 [shawn]
Present- Jam
16:04:58 [erich_manser]
JA: Hoping we can finalize at least a few of these today
16:05:09 [erich_manser]
WD: At least to the point of wordsmithing
16:05:25 [laura]
present+ Laura
16:05:41 [erich_manser]
JA: Start with item# 2, contrast of interactive elements
16:05:44 [allanj]
zakim, Open item 2
16:05:44 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Contrast: Interactive Elements" taken up [from allanj]
16:05:47 [allanj]
16:06:23 [erich_manser]
JA: It seems that we have this exception in the SC text where we talk about visual presentation
16:06:51 [erich_manser]
JA: Medium with Border, could we just call that 3 pixel or greater border? Then would not need to have one more definition
16:07:06 [erich_manser]
GS: Open to that
16:07:31 [erich_manser]
WD: I kind of like the medium, sizes are assigned frequently when doing web development
16:07:59 [erich_manser]
GS: I will tell you why I wrote it that way, was trying to use the concept of large text, and instead of going with large border, went with medium
16:08:31 [erich_manser]
GS: Figured that large text and small text was debateable, but wanted the discussion on pixels to be separate from ratios
16:08:44 [erich_manser]
GS: I am fine with changing it
16:09:02 [erich_manser]
JA: Was trying to be expedient, and could simplify. Fine either way.
16:09:19 [erich_manser]
LC: Maybe leave it at medium for now, and if WCAG wants to change it they can
16:10:28 [erich_manser]
JA: I had a task for last week, about what are the interactive borders
16:10:50 [erich_manser]
JA: I tested the browsers, and IE10 was the only to pass on form controls
16:11:32 [erich_manser]
JA: They (browsers) failed on enabled controls, forget about disabled controls
16:13:05 [erich_manser]
GS: My brain and my gut have not agreed on the correct ratio for disabled browser controls
16:13:51 [erich_manser]
WD: Has anyone seen a 3:1 and a 4.5:1 together, and are they different enough?
16:14:09 [erich_manser]
WD: Before we actually submit this, it may be worth taking a look at that
16:14:19 [erich_manser]
JA: Will put that together today
16:14:33 [erich_manser]
JA: Any other objections, have we made our case enough?
16:14:55 [erich_manser]
WD: Really like the addition at the end
16:15:06 [erich_manser]
GS: Credit to Alastair for providing the foundation for that
16:15:40 [erich_manser]
LC: Do we need to remove old proposed description then, and go with Glenda's?
16:16:00 [erich_manser]
GS: I would be happy to take that out, but wanted to bring it to the group first
16:17:37 [Wayne]
16:17:57 [erich_manser]
JA: Any objection to calling this one done, and send to WCAG?
16:18:03 [erich_manser]
16:18:10 [allanj]
16:18:14 [erich_manser]
GS: no objection
16:18:27 [erich_manser]
LC: no objection
16:18:38 [laura]
16:19:57 [erich_manser]
Resolution: Working Group agrees that Contrast Minimum for Enabled Elements is ready to be sent to WCAG
16:20:32 [Glenda]
Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum)
16:21:17 [erich_manser]
RESOLUTION: Working Group agrees that Contrast Minimum for Interactive Elements is ready to be sent to WCAG -
16:21:29 [allanj]
zakim, open item 3
16:21:29 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Contrast: Informational Graphics" taken up [from allanj]
16:21:35 [allanj]
16:22:09 [erich_manser]
JA: Lots of work done on this
16:22:34 [Glenda]
immediate surrounding background
16:22:34 [Glenda]
a 3px area adjacent to the entire length of the perimeter of the element
16:22:45 [erich_manser]
GS: One suggestion to add here, have not discussed with Alastair yet, a definition for "immediate surrounding background", if we don't define, we will be all over the map
16:23:23 [ScottM]
that makes sense
16:25:12 [erich_manser]
JA: Had posed the question to Alastair last week, and he ran it by his designers, and they agreed
16:25:31 [ScottM]
Are we saying everything has to have a border?
16:25:36 [erich_manser]
JA: Do we want to add this definition?
16:25:45 [erich_manser]
LC: yes
16:25:48 [erich_manser]
16:25:51 [ScottM]
or just things that wouldn't pass contrast otherwise?
16:27:00 [erich_manser]
GS: Everything does not have to have a border
16:27:55 [erich_manser]
JA: Falls to important information definition, if it's just decoration doesn't have to
16:28:06 [erich_manser]
SM: How do we define what needs a border?
16:28:42 [erich_manser]
SM: Should the color contrast between the border and the adjacent colors also need to meet the color contrast requirements as well?
16:29:31 [erich_manser]
GS: Does not force a border, if the designer picked colors between the graphical things that are important, no border is necessary
16:29:53 [erich_manser]
GS: If it's light gray against slightly darker gray, you're going to need a border
16:30:36 [erich_manser]
SM: Working with pie charts that use patterns that could be harder to distinguish, but they have white borders that are tough to see
16:30:39 [shawn]
[ remember we already have SC that says does not rely on color alone ]
16:31:29 [erich_manser]
SM: Anticipates more objection if people think we're asking them to put a border around everything, so we want to make it as clear as possible
16:31:49 [Glenda]
example of complex graphic
16:32:14 [erich_manser]
GS: Complex graphic with lots of different colors example, lets double-check and make sure that the informational piece that we've written has that alternative available
16:32:55 [allanj]
scott, you may want to review Alastair's test page. feed back from you would be very useful.
16:33:02 [erich_manser]
GS: You could have minimalist graphic exactly as it is, but would also need an alternative conforming version available from the same page
16:33:34 [erich_manser]
JA: Alastair did a test page that contain some of the same things you were talking about, if you could review that and give feedback that would be useful
16:33:37 [Glenda]
This is the language in Alastair’s proposed SC for Information Graphic Contrast (Minimum) “Incidental: Graphical elements that are not required for the understanding of the graphic, that are pure decoration or that have an alternative conforming version available from the same page have no contrast requirement;”
16:34:13 [Glenda]
Here is the link to Alastair’s great examples:
16:35:48 [erich_manser]
GS: If I look at #8 in Alastair's examples, designers may consider ugly but people with low vision could see it
16:36:28 [erich_manser]
JA: How do we feel about this one? We will add the definition in
16:36:34 [erich_manser]
LC: I will add it
16:36:49 [erich_manser]
JA: Are there any other objections?
16:37:15 [erich_manser]
SM: Think I am okay, just playing devil's advocate
16:37:55 [erich_manser]
JA: Would be important for you to review Alastair's examples, and provide feedback
16:38:00 [erich_manser]
16:39:26 [Glenda]
16:39:55 [Wayne]
16:40:46 [allanj]
ack g
16:41:08 [erich_manser]
GS: One thing I would like in this one, is the incidental bullet point could be broken in to 2
16:41:30 [erich_manser]
GS: "Alternative Conforming Version" would highlight to the designer that we've given them another way out
16:42:15 [erich_manser]
LC: will do wordsmithing to make a separate bullet
16:43:12 [erich_manser]
WD: Also I think we might want to think about techniques, we may want to have some clear alternative techniques for this issue
16:43:25 [allanj]
ack w
16:43:39 [allanj]
zakim, close item 3
16:43:39 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Contrast: Informational Graphics, closed
16:43:40 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:43:40 [Zakim]
2. Contrast: Interactive Elements [from allanj]
16:43:50 [allanj]
zakim, close item 2
16:43:50 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Contrast: Interactive Elements, closed
16:43:51 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:43:51 [Zakim]
4. Reflow to Single Column [from allanj]
16:44:23 [shawn]
present+ Andrew(part)
16:44:40 [Wayne]
16:45:50 [AWK]
AWK has joined #lvtf
16:46:17 [allanj]
open item 4
16:46:20 [erich_manser]
JA: Reflow to a Single Column
16:46:24 [alastairc]
alastairc has joined #lvtf
16:46:24 [Wayne]
16:47:00 [allanj]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:47:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate allanj
16:47:15 [allanj]
rrsagent, set logs public
16:47:52 [erich_manser]
JA: We got lots of pushback when we did this, so what's our final wording here?
16:48:07 [erich_manser]
WD: Shall I explain each part of it?
16:48:16 [erich_manser]
JA: Lets see what people think first
16:48:21 [allanj]
current wording: Content elements can be arranged programmatically into a single column with all text in a correct reading sequence. Lines of text should not be truncated by the viewport unless the spatial layout of that content is essential to its use. Data tables may retain a multi-column format, but table cell shall have no lines of text truncated by the viewport.
16:49:38 [erich_manser]
JA: My thought, text content should meet these things. Each line is a separate thought
16:50:10 [AWK]
how about: Content can be arranged programmatically and in a correct reading sequence into a single column.
16:50:28 [erich_manser]
WD: Can think of two technologies that could do this, but don't know about the others
16:52:46 [laura]
Content can be programmatically arranged into a single column with a correct reading sequence.
16:53:09 [erich_manser]
16:53:38 [AWK]
Content can be viewed as a single column with all information in a correct reading sequence.
16:54:46 [erich_manser]
WD: I think that's perfect
16:55:06 [allanj]
Content should not be truncated by the viewport unless the spatial layout of that content is essential to its use.
16:56:56 [erich_manser]
AWK: It's really not just text though, what do you do for images?
16:57:35 [erich_manser]
AWK: Where does the transformation in to single column fall apart that we would need to have exceptions for it?
16:57:52 [erich_manser]
WD: We could say lines of text should not require 2D scrolling
16:58:23 [erich_manser]
WD: The problem really is not horizontal scrolling, it's really requiring a person to scroll in two dimensions rather than one dimension
16:58:53 [erich_manser]
AWK: Are there exceptions where this is done currently? What things fail? Is it large images, tables, etc?
17:00:58 [erich_manser]
WD: I should have put some of the examples in
17:02:24 [erich_manser]
WD: When you tie the width of a block of text intended to take up the whole screen to an element beneath that is meant to expand, the expansion can force the other off the screen
17:03:18 [erich_manser]
AWK: Data tables are one possible exception where you may have multi dimension scrolling
17:03:30 [shawn]
[ scrolling across a whole table, OK, but not within a table cell ]
17:03:39 [erich_manser]
WD: correct, but once you're in the data cell, it shouldn't extend beyond the screen
17:03:54 [erich_manser]
AWK: How does cell not go beyond, but table does?
17:04:10 [erich_manser]
WD: Each column of table is one screen width
17:04:25 [erich_manser]
WD: Not saying you can't have multiple columns, but columns have to fit on the screen
17:04:42 [erich_manser]
WD: Within that column, you never have to do horizontal scrolling
17:04:56 [erich_manser]
JA: Would it be possible to include some images that demonstrate this?
17:05:00 [erich_manser]
WD: absolutely
17:05:06 [Glenda]
17:05:09 [Glenda]
17:06:07 [erich_manser]
GS: Wayne had me explore research project he was doing, creating an environment where I was scrolling left and right, and I had never understood it so clearly
17:06:40 [erich_manser]
GS: I think it would be important for others to experience that
17:06:58 [erich_manser]
AWK: I am not arguing against this, but trying to figure out how achievable
17:07:37 [erich_manser]
GS: As we take this forward, not everyone has an understanding of what is important, so when it gets to next level, we'll be able to represent the need better if everyone understands
17:08:16 [erich_manser]
WD: Will add example from Eric for next week's meeting
17:09:15 [erich_manser]
WD: Question for Andrew, does PDF example at the bottom look ok?
17:10:34 [erich_manser]
AWK: Will take a look
17:11:31 [allanj]
zakim, close item 4
17:11:31 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, allanj
17:11:49 [allanj]
zakim, who is on the queue?
17:11:49 [Zakim]
I see Glenda on the speaker queue
17:11:55 [allanj]
ack g
17:12:03 [allanj]
zakim, close item 4
17:12:03 [Zakim]
agendum 4, Reflow to Single Column, closed
17:12:04 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
17:12:04 [Zakim]
5. Line Length [from allanj]
17:12:26 [erich_manser]
JA: Line Length
17:12:33 [allanj]
17:12:45 [allanj]
zakim, open item 5
17:12:45 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Line Length" taken up [from allanj]
17:13:31 [erich_manser]
WD: Really is just the old SC, and action is to move 1.4.8, I would like to take off "if no user agent", don't think we want to get in to that
17:13:51 [allanj]
proposed SC: For the visual presentation of all text, a mechanism is available such that width is user adjustable between no less than 5 characters and no more than 80 characters or glyphs (40 if CJK).
17:14:09 [erich_manser]
WD: Basically moving from AAA to level A
17:15:55 [allanj]
For the visual presentation of all text, a mechanism is available such that line length is user adjustable between no less than 5 characters and no more than 80 characters or glyphs (40 if CJK).
17:16:26 [erich_manser]
WD: "Width" should be "Line Length"
17:16:33 [erich_manser]
AWK: Why 5 characters?
17:16:40 [erich_manser]
WD: That was the original wording
17:16:58 [erich_manser]
WD: I think 15 is fine
17:17:35 [erich_manser]
WD: 15 is a standard deviation outside the average word length in almost every language
17:18:10 [erich_manser]
AWK: It talks about "no more than 80" but does not set the lower limit "no less than"
17:18:43 [erich_manser]
WD: It should be something like "width is adjustable down to X characters"
17:18:56 [erich_manser]
AWK: Is this covered if we get the single column one in anyway?
17:19:24 [shawn]
17:19:49 [shawn]
q+ to say coga? tunnel vision!
17:19:58 [erich_manser]
WD: I think so. Question to Scott, with peripheral field loss would you like shorter lines?
17:20:15 [erich_manser]
SM: I am more concerned with keeping track of where I am, rather than what direction I'm going
17:20:46 [shawn]
ack me
17:20:46 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to say coga? tunnel vision!
17:21:49 [erich_manser]
JA: So we're saying it needs to be shorter, 80 is not short enough, 5 is too extreme. Is there some halfway point?
17:22:23 [erich_manser]
JA: Tools have changes substantially, and we're trying to make the group benefitting larger, so what is our reasonable down limit?
17:22:42 [Glenda]
Interesting research on comprehension and line length here:
17:22:53 [erich_manser]
WD: I tested with many browsers and with Acrobat, and I could get to 10% with no problem
17:24:07 [erich_manser]
GS: This may end up in area of personalization. May depend on user need, and task they are trying to complete
17:24:56 [erich_manser]
WD: Don't think more research is needed. We're just saying that a mechanism exists that allows you to shrink the line length, not forcing them to use shorter lines
17:24:58 [allanj]
10% of what
17:26:43 [Wayne]
For the visual presentation of all text, a mechanism is available such that width is user adjustable between no less than 5 characters and no more than 80 characters or glyphs (40 if CJK).
17:27:27 [erich_manser]
AWK: The original WCAG says you must be able to resize so that width is no more than 80 characters, but that 80 doesn't need to be there in this version now
17:27:47 [allanj]
For the visual presentation of all text, a mechanism is available such that line length is user adjustable between no less than 15 characters
17:27:53 [erich_manser]
AWK: We're trying to address it so that you can resize it to be as little as you need it to be
17:29:14 [erich_manser]
WD: I can't use a mobile phone visually, because I can't get print large enough to read a word in 3 inch space. I hope we don't have to make something that will address all the way down to cell phone
17:30:40 [laura]
17:31:01 [shawn]
q+ to notes # of words
17:31:23 [Wayne]
For the visual presentation of all text, a mechanism is available such that line length is user adjustable to no more than 20 characters (10 if CJK)
17:31:34 [erich_manser]
GS: As we're targeting for low vision, should we set a zone? It is functional at X magnification, that we're not picking up the beginning edges or the latter edges, but really the between
17:31:45 [shawn]
q+ to say am thinking about people below 200 as well!
17:31:55 [allanj]
testing on the wiki, wrapping works well with zoom or browser width. on mobile, zoom comes from OS, and wiki doesn't wrap with mobile zoom in Chrome.
17:33:03 [erich_manser]
LC: Wondering about the testability section - what is the starting percentage for the viewport?
17:33:05 [shawn]
ack laura
17:33:17 [shawn]
ack shawn
17:33:17 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to notes # of words and to say am thinking about people below 200 as well!
17:33:45 [erich_manser]
SH: I think we are also considering people who are below 200
17:34:16 [erich_manser]
SH: I was also thinking about processing the number of characters. With mobile, I essentially don't need to resize the viewport, as it's already as small as it needs to be
17:34:23 [allanj]
+1 to # of characters vs viewport width
17:34:31 [erich_manser]
JA: I agree with that
17:34:39 [shawn]
on mobile, don't need to resize the viewport - it;s aleady as small as it needs to be
17:35:21 [Wayne]
17:36:31 [shawn]
[ /me also notes that # of characters depends on font size ;-/]
17:36:37 [erich_manser]
WD: Thinking about what's used in mobile cases for responsive design, and it is down around 15 to 20 m as I recall, so I think that really might be alright
17:36:45 [shawn]
17:36:52 [laura]
I updated the Tracking Success Criteria Progress Table per today’s resoution for Contrast: Interactive Elements:
17:37:00 [shawn]
q+ to ask if reflow covers this enough???
17:37:05 [shawn]
ack wayne
17:37:17 [erich_manser]
WD: This week I will look at guidelines on responsive design
17:37:48 [shawn]
q+ or need to say resize viewport?
17:37:52 [shawn]
ack me
17:37:52 [Zakim]
shawn, you wanted to ask if reflow covers this enough???
17:39:18 [erich_manser]
rrsagent: make minutes
17:39:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate erich_manser
17:42:47 [laura]
17:43:08 [laura]
laura has left #lvtf
17:53:23 [shawn]
shawn: I've not had problems with this. As long as I get reflow, then I can change the viewport size. On mobile, don't need it any smaller. So my question is: Do you know of any situations where people cannot get the short line length they need? If not, then maybe we say that while this is a user need, it's covered in existing enviroments, so we put it lower prioirty to bother with for 2.1. The
17:53:24 [shawn]
issue I can see is if developers can disable viewport revizing -- or if a new format/tool didn't provide it.
17:53:53 [shawn]
rrsagent: make minutes
17:53:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate shawn