15:39:28 RRSAgent has joined #lvtf 15:39:28 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/09-lvtf-irc 15:39:30 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:39:33 Zakim, this will be 15:39:33 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 15:39:33 Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 15:39:33 Date: 09 February 2017 15:39:43 agenda? 15:39:54 zakim, clear agenda 15:39:54 agenda cleared 15:40:17 zakim, who is here? 15:40:17 Present: Jim, JohnR, Laura, Wayne, Scott, Glenda, Marla, JohnRochford 15:40:19 On IRC I see RRSAgent, allanj, shawn, Zakim, trackbot 15:40:30 present: 15:40:33 zakim, who is here? 15:40:33 Present: (no one) 15:40:35 On IRC I see RRSAgent, allanj, shawn, Zakim, trackbot 15:40:42 present+ 15:41:01 regrets: Alastair, Glenda (partial) 15:41:37 Agenda+ Review SCs from WCAG 15:41:39 Agenda+ SC managers, need anything 15:41:40 Laura #78 Override 15:41:42 Erich #76 Printing 15:41:43 Wayne #75 Metadata 15:41:45 Glenda #10 Interactive 15:41:46 Agenda+ Starting on Techniques? 15:41:48 possibly for Graphics Contrast (#9, #100), Linearization (#58, #89), Resize Content (#77), 15:48:23 rrsagent, make minutes 15:48:23 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/09-lvtf-minutes.html allanj 15:48:56 chair: Jim 15:49:26 present+ Jim 15:49:30 rrsagent, make minutes 15:49:30 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/09-lvtf-minutes.html allanj 15:50:31 present-(no, one) 15:50:51 zakim, who is here? 15:50:51 Present: allanj, Jim 15:50:53 On IRC I see RRSAgent, allanj, shawn, Zakim, trackbot 15:51:22 present-Jim 15:53:32 ScottM has joined #lvtf 16:01:38 laura has joined #lvtf 16:02:43 Present+ Shawn, ScottM 16:03:08 Glenda has joined #lvtf 16:03:31 present+ Glenda 16:04:05 present+ Laura 16:07:37 Glenda_ has joined #lvtf 16:07:45 scribe: allanj 16:08:36 jeanne has joined #lvtf 16:09:13 present+ Wayne 16:09:17 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:09:17 Present: allanj, Shawn, ScottM, Glenda, Laura, Wayne 16:09:20 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info 16:09:25 scribe: glenda 16:10:11 Wayne has joined #lvtf 16:10:46 zakim, open item 1 16:10:46 agendum 1. "Review SCs from WCAG" taken up [from allanj] 16:11:27 Shawn - can we have a summary of content that is difficult for us to process due to lack of threading. 16:12:31 Wayne - we are missing LV SC, so consuming this large stream of content is exponentially difficult for people with low vision. 16:12:46 steverep has joined #lvtf 16:14:17 Could someone please provide me the WebEx password? 16:14:21 Wayne - concerned about tone of conversation on lists. Concerned about 8 out of 10. 16:15:27 I think AG WG is a hostile working environment 16:15:36 s/for us to process due to lack of threading/for some of us to process 16:16:15 present+steverep 16:16:41 jeanne2 has joined #lvtf 16:16:53 Jim: you wrote about dropping a propsed SC Enlargement of Text. Were you dropping that because of hostility? 16:17:29 Wayne: No. I read accessibility support. 16:17:54 Wayne: I would like a resolution that LVTF deems that enlargement without word wrapping is not accessibility support. 16:19:34 Shawn: Wayne needed to drop being the manager of SC Enlargement of Text, but he still thinks it is a requirement for LV 16:20:31 topic: enlargement without word wrapping is not accessibility support 16:20:44 Wayne: Any SC that has to do with reconfiguring typography to accomodate low vision, enlargement without word wrapping does not constitute accessibility support. 16:21:03 Shawn: Let’s list specific SC that this applies to. 16:22:00 Issue 58 linearization 16:22:11 Wayne: For example: Letter spacing, Word spacing, Font family, all of the Resizing and Reflow SCs 16:22:14 Shawn: We already have in place an SC related to not horizontal scrolling, yes? 16:24:09 allanj: Linearization 58 and Resize Content 77 are both in github pull request with horizontal scrolling 16:25:06 shawn: we are including good horizontal scrolling requirements in each proposed SC that needs it. 16:25:46 Wayne: I just need a statement from LVTF (a fact) - enlargement without word wrapping is not accessibility support 16:26:04 shawn: we have that in user requirements 16:26:37 Wayne: I think the problem is people are still interpretting “accessibility support” as a screen magnifier that requires horizontal scrolling. 16:26:48 https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-low-vision-needs-20160317/#rewrap-for-one-direction-scrolling 16:26:58 User Need - Rewrap: Blocks of text rewrap so that only one direction of scrolling is needed, e.g., for left-right and right-left scripts (languages), usually vertical scrolling and not horizontal scrolling. 16:27:37 Wayne: we need to break the false assumption that horizontal scrolling is okay for LV 16:28:39 wayne: word wrap is a necessity no matter the size of text. 16:29:32 wayne: ... or size of the block of text. even menus, single words. 16:30:41 Wayne: my research shows that the horizontal scrolling problem is leading to a very significant barrier for low vision (at a rate of 50 times harder per page) 16:30:56 q+ 16:31:34 shawn: I’m trying to find a solution. what blocks of text? discussing this concept in menu items. 16:32:06 Wayne: every time 4 or 5 times day, a menu runs off the page 16:32:35 wayne: authors could put hyphenation 16:32:50 Wayne: a very large majority of the WCAG think horizontal scrolling is not a big deal 16:33:41 q+ 16:34:13 ack s 16:35:53 ScottM: look how responsive design works, trying to represent a page on a tablet, design makes sure there is no horizontal scrolling. Nobody considers it to be a design problem to solve for a tablet or smaller. But for low vision, horizontal scrolling is inappropriately considered to be okay. It is the same technique to solve horizontal scrolling for LV (as is currently being used in responsive design). This is a valid position and important position for the 16:35:54 LVTF to say. 16:35:56 +1 Scott low vision horizontal scrolling comparison to tablet or mobile design. 16:36:02 [ good point that this is relatively "easily do-able" ] 16:36:04 +1 16:36:38 ack l 16:36:49 for example push back check the pull request for reflow: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/89 16:37:12 laura: example of pushback is on reflow. on pull request for TPG saying it should be handled by UserAgents https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/89 16:37:53 Glenda: I suuport us having a resultion. It is to be expected that we'll have push back. OK to get questions. NOw deeper understand importance or resolution 16:37:56 q+ 16:38:04 ack s 16:39:04 steverep: accessibility expert with low vision working in a large .com 16:39:36 steverep: wayne what do you see as the upper bound for magnification? When is it time to switch to a screen reader? 16:39:47 wayne: I’ve worked it out to 700% 16:40:22 wayne: alastair discovered the measurement to use is css pixels 16:42:16 q+ to ask Wayne if the is written up so we can point people to it 16:43:46 q- 16:44:11 http://nosetothepage.org/Fitz/2dScroll.html 16:44:29 wayne: the answer is 700% to 800% (to steverep’s question) 16:44:57 wayne: see research that supports 700% - 800% at https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/89 16:45:37 q+ 16:46:50 steverep: describing his low vision and use of zoomtext and NVDA. we must define the upper bound of magnification. we need to define what text elements this applies to. I’m interested in reading Wayne’s research. 16:47:47 steverep: continuous reading when horizontal scrolling was very difficult that is why I switched to NVDA for many things 16:47:51 ack me 16:48:44 shawn: Note - we want to address a range of people with low vision. Some have extreme low vision and others are at the beginning end of low vision. 16:49:37 shawn: is using line spacing as my main technique (and zooming, text size, font) 16:50:05 s/others are at the beginning end of low vision./some are at other end of low vision. 16:51:02 q+ to dream of EO piece on screen mag not meet some needs 16:51:04 allanj: magnification is not the magic bullet. we are doing a disservice to people who need magnification without horizontal scrolling. 16:51:30 ack me 16:51:30 shawn, you wanted to dream of EO piece on screen mag not meet some needs 16:51:42 allanj: I think a resolution about accessibility support requiring magnification without horizontal scrolling would be good. 16:52:18 q+ 16:52:31 shawn: this is a point of misunderstanding. it would be so nice to have an EO piece to help clear up the myth about magnification with horizontal scrolling being okay. 16:53:12 q+ 16:53:32 wayne: we have a diverse representation of low vision users here in this LVTF. 16:53:46 "Screen magnification software is not a viable solution for some people. Adaptive strategies fall short" http://www.tader.info/understanding.html#atno -- links to "Survey respondents commented that horizontal scrolling with screen magnification software made them nauseous, disoriented, and frustrated." 16:53:58 ack w 16:54:42 +1 to this research finding from http://www.tader.info/understanding.html#atno — nauseous, disoriented, and frustrated 16:55:03 q+ 16:55:22 ack s 16:56:48 ScottM: magnification is not the magic bullet. I’ve been LV my whole life. I’ve trained many LV people. Vast majority aquire condition later in life. Mindset of what they are willing to put up with, is different. Adaptation techniques. 16:57:21 ScottM: looking at how Responsive Design can work in harmony with LV needs may be the universal design angel 16:58:18 ScottM: try to avoid setting an upper limit. 16:58:23 s/Screen magnification software is not a viable solution for some people. Adaptive strategies fall short/Screen magnification software is not a viable solution for some people. 16:58:57 The Low Vision Task Force or the Accessibility Guidelines Working resolves that: Enlargement without word wrapping does not supply sufficient accommodation to qualify as accessibility support for people who need enlargement to read. 16:59:01 ScottM: you have to be extremely careful in setting these limits because the range of needs is so diverse 17:00:17 Glenda: Wayne's reseach on horoztonal scrolling... I went from hitnking that hor scolling was just annoying to experiencing 17:00:47 s/hitnking that hor scolling/ thinking that horizontal scrolling 17:01:01 nauseous, disoriented, and frustrated, inability to comprehend dense text without reading it multiple times 17:01:15 s/Wayne's reseach on horoztonal scrolling/When I participated in Wayne's research 17:02:25 proposed resolution: enlargement without word wrapping is not accessibility support 17:04:13 +1 17:04:55 [ ... rewrap so that only one direction of scrolling is needed, e.g., for left-right and right-left scripts (languages), usually vertical scrolling and not horizontal scrolling. ] 17:05:00 +1 17:05:03 +1 17:05:10 +1 17:05:11 +1 17:07:13 RESOLUTION: Enlargement without word wrapping is not accessibility support. 17:07:14 +1 17:07:53 q+ 17:08:11 q- 17:08:26 ack s 17:08:50 steverep: I’m glad this is a diverse group of low vision people 17:08:57 SteveVision (tm) 17:09:44 agenda? 17:10:42 topic: New SC survey 17:10:56 allanj: is issue #10 ready for pull request? 17:11:04 yes, go with it as is right now 17:12:00 allanj: will put #10 on a pull request for SC survey 17:12:30 open item 1 17:14:37 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Brainstorming_Short_Name_Ideas_for_Issue_78 17:14:43 q+ 17:15:01 ack me 17:15:28 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78 17:15:43 allenj: pull request for 77 Resize Content https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77 and 58 Lineariztaion and 9 Graphic Contrast https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9 are ready to go 17:16:37 s/Lineariztaion/Linearization 17:17:13 shawn: what is needed is for authors to provide content in a technology that allows users to change these specific things listed in 78 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Brainstorming_Short_Name_Ideas_for_Issue_78 17:18:38 allanj: this was to help the authors not to block “ability to override” 17:18:40 q+ 17:19:01 shawn: I want to be able to change the leading on content in PDF 17:19:24 laura: you can change leading in VIP tool 17:19:32 shawn: but it won’t open all PDFs 17:20:11 shawn: VIP won’t open files with form fields, signature and won’t print 17:22:42 wayne: my concern is this proposed SC 78 is too limited https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78 17:22:51 s/I want to be able to change the leading on content in PDF/e.g., user needs to change the leading on content, that is in PDF 17:23:08 Letter 1.2, Word 1.6 17:23:27 q+ 17:23:31 ack w 17:23:53 q- 17:24:03 q+ 17:24:10 q+ 17:24:19 q- 17:24:33 I believe that was supposed to be Letter 0.12, and word 0.16 17:24:47 ack s 17:25:40 glenda: I oversee 50 experts. I need set numbers in order to test. lets cover 80% 17:25:42 Glenda: currently work with 50+ accessibility experts. for consistency in testing, need to create a repeatable methodology. I'm willing to set some numbers. was 200%, not picking up more people. something measureable 17:25:52 ack: g 17:26:01 s/lets cover 80%/ / 17:26:29 s/not picking/now expanding it and picking 17:27:37 wayne: the testability of https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/78 needs to test all colors. A way to do that is to simply choose any 2 colors that are visible to the tester and not currently used on the page…and test against those. 17:30:05 wayne: font family of Verdana should not be in the SC text. 17:30:22 wayne: it should be in a testing or failure technique 17:31:24 wayne: how can we sell this to developers? They understand when “it does not work with keyboard”…but why do you need Verdana? 17:32:21 allanj: we got pushback from developers, saying you can’t make us figure out what font to choose. Deveopers did not know how to meet the SC without something more specific 17:32:59 shawn: what if we cover this in the understandability, to explain that the SC is to make it understandable for testing 17:33:21 shawn: i’m comfortable with the current wording with an excellent understanding document 17:33:22 q+ to say that current wording does not give a requirement for authors to provide content in a technology that allows users to change font, color, spacing 17:33:28 wayne: I can agree with that 17:33:32 q- 17:33:44 s/excellent understanding document/excellent understanding document that explains the broader issue 17:34:11 allanj: we removed the colors of black/white. can we remove Verdana? 17:34:35 allanj: we have research and limits that require the measurement on height, letter-spacing and word-spacing 17:35:11 s/understandability, to explain that the SC is to make it understandable for testing/Understanding doc, to explain that the SC was worded that way for testing, but really users need range of fonts, tec. 17:35:35 wayne: verdana is a good one to test with…but this should be in testability not in SC text 17:36:06 “I reject your reality and substitute my own!” :p 17:36:21 should we say the font-family needs to be wide, or that it really needs to allow any font-family you need 17:36:22 q? 17:36:31 ack me 17:36:31 shawn, you wanted to say that current wording does not give a requirement for authors to provide content in a technology that allows users to change font, color, spacing 17:36:35 allanj: it needs to be any font-family you need 17:37:38 allanj: ah, the key is “that current wording does not give a requirement for authors to provide content in a technology that allows users to change font, color, spacing” 17:37:48 allanj: is this a new SC that we need? 17:39:13 allanj: what if we removed the word webpage? and we take the “technology” out? 17:40:01 wayne: take hypens out of line-height, letter-spacing and word-spacing 17:42:44 shawn: if technology is html then the user can change these things, with that technology on a desktop or laptop (they can do it). 17:43:25 shawn: the user may have to pick a certain user agent (like a browser on desktop) 17:44:09 shawn: a PDF with a form is going to still be inaccessible today 17:45:06 Laura: there will be lots of push back 17:45:07 and the point is AUTHOR provides in format that allows user to do this 17:47:18 [ I wonder if "is caused by overriding:" ought to be "is caused by user overriding:" -- phrase needs a subject ] 17:49:58 shawn: thanks for everyone who is participating and following all of this in detail. Because it is impossible to read these threads. 17:50:16 wayne: agreed. 17:51:06 allanj: I may take metadata 17:51:07 I created a Wiki page for Results from Bookmarklet Tests 17:51:08 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Results_of_Bookmarklet_Tests_for_Issue_78 17:51:26 allanj: printing and blocks of text needs some work 17:53:09 scribe: Shawn 17:53:18 Glenda has left #lvtf 17:53:46 shawn: originally the point was e.g., user changes CSS and it prints that way. then morphed to zoom. is the first point still kept. 17:53:47 ? 17:55:39 rrsagent, make minutes 17:55:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/09-lvtf-minutes.html allanj 17:58:19 authors need to provide content in a format that the user can change font, spacing, color and printed with the changes 17:58:37 Authors provide content in format/technology where users can change font, color, spacing (and maybe other) and print it. 17:58:42 laura has left #lvtf 17:58:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:58:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/09-lvtf-minutes.html shawn 18:03:25 trackbot, end meeting 18:03:25 Zakim, list attendees 18:03:25 As of this point the attendees have been allanj, Jim, Shawn, ScottM, Glenda, Laura, Wayne, steverep 18:03:33 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:03:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/09-lvtf-minutes.html trackbot 18:03:34 RRSAgent, bye 18:03:34 I see no action items