– DRAFT –
WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference

Announcements

maryjom: Content that was approved has been incorporated into the editors draft. AGWG are reviewing and surveying the content. Closes today at midnight EST.

maryjom: Our changes are first on the agenda in the AGWG meeting on Tuesday

<FernandaBonnin> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICT-second-content-review-by-AGWG/

<Chuck> Thanks Fernanda, beat me to it!

<FernandaBonnin> * for sure! :)

maryjom: Project updates. 1.4.11 and 1.4.10 to be worked on today

maryjom: We still have formatting and document issues. If it is not easy to fix, we may have to revert back to an HTML form so we can get public review on the content thus far

maryjom: Volunteers requested to work with Sam on SC 2.5.1 pointer gestures

maryjom: Then we can start to work on WCAG 2.2 items that are stable (excluding the few that are still under active change)

maryjom: Also need to get started on the text command line / issue #45.

Sam: Hope to have pointer gestures work drafted by the end of this week, ready for review

maryjom: If you are working on text/command line (#45) then please add yourself to that issue, similarly with issue #44 for closed functionality section.

Project standup (status of your assigned issues)

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-non-text-contrast-closedproduct/results

<maryjom> Reviewing this content: w3c/wcag2ict#82 (comment)

maryjom: Survey of non text contrast - results show 6 happy with incorporation as is.

maryjom: However, there were a couple of comments. First in email from Mitch

maryjom: Quoting from email from Mitch Evan's: The draft says 508 and the EN are relevant to hardware but I'm not sure they are relevant to non-text contrast on screens. For example, 508 clause 402.4 only mentions contrast of text. Also the draft draws too strong a distinction between "programmatic" color and photos. There are other techniques that fall between and are probably precise enough.
… Example: a game console doesn't provide access to the programmatic color but does support screen shotting. Another example: a TV set top box runs apps, doesn't allow programmatic color measurements or direct screen shotting, but does allow HDMI capture.

maryjom: Agreed with Mitchell's note, and noted that it is an analog to the requirement under ADA/ABA for signage, which is a light reflectance level.

maryjom: Correction: above was actually Bruce's comment

maryjom: Question remains whether we should incorporate some mention of measurement via screen capture.

<maryjom> POLL: Should we add or modify the text to incorporate the concept screen capture (not photographs)?

+1 where possible

<olivia-hs> +1

<Sam> -1

<FernandaBonnin> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 to distinguish between screen capture and photographs

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<maryjom> +1

<bruce_bailey> But I think even screen shots not equal to RGY values set by programmer

Sam: Still concerned that people might take pictures. Screen capture can be difficult to achieve, but can be restricted.

LauraBMiller: We need to be consistent - if mentioning hardware

GreggVan: If using screen capture, then it needs to be the actual source - but sometimes screen capture may not include all content. If there is something preventing one from capturing the screen, then author shouldn't need to screen capture - they created the content. Rules for author remains consistent, regardless of difficulties for 3rd party testing

<ChrisLoiselle> Phil , agrees with Bruce's point

PhilDay: Some architectures layer content - so screen capture may not include all items. Also as Bruce said - may not be an accurate measurement - pixel RGB

<Chuck> repoll?

<maryjom> POLL: Should we add or modify the text to incorporate the concept screen capture (not photographs)?

<GreggVan> no

<BryanTrogdon> -1

<LauraBMiller> +0

<Chuck> -.1

<Sam> 0

<Mike_Pluke> 0

<bruce_bailey> +0 as I am not clear on present context

<olivia-hs> +0

<bruce_bailey> If we need not mention screen capture at all, that seems preferable.

Sam: manufacuturers have the overall domain over things, that is not a fair assumption to made that its just the manufacturer responsibility. Sometimes it is helpful to provide notes on how test, in this case there is a lot of concern on how people would interpret that

Sam: my point is leave screencapture out, but in general, giving testing procedures is helpful

GreggVan: agree that there are things that are untestable such as text should be written to be clear in plain language, and thats a reason for it not being in the guidelines if there is no way to test; but this is not in that category. testing contrast on physical displays is possible with the standard way of measurin contrast

GreggVan: on things that are helpful for testing, in WCAG we have it in a separate document, because it changes all the time; we should separate them

GreggVan: or maybe in the appendix

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I think we may disagree with our individual points though we are landing in the same place to leave it out

Chuck: I think we are all coming on the same conclusion, we are at a point where we can finalize the conclusion

<maryjom> Draft RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast into the editor’s draft as proposed with the closed functionality content as surveyed without changes.

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-non-text-contrast-closedproduct/results

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#82 (comment)

Chuck: we are surveying without the screen capture modification

<Sam> +1

+1

<olivia-hs> +1

<BryanTrogdon> +1

<Chuck> bummer Phil!

<maryjom> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Mike_Pluke> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<LauraBMiller> +1

RESOLUTION: Incorporate 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast into the editor’s draft as proposed with the closed functionality content as surveyed without changes.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about parking lot ?

bruce_bailey: is there a good parking place for some of this insightful observations but didn't attach to this paragraph of guidance

maryjom: we could capture this on the wiki page; I can add a page and capture those thoughts

<Chuck> +1, I don't think we had a parking lot, but agree it would be good to maintain one.

GreggVan: its good to say some members feel this, or that; it can be helpful to share both sides

maryjom: if we agree this is something we all agree its worth adding, yes

SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast readiness to incorporate into editor’s draft

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-Reflow/results

maryjom: we had 3 responses, so fairly light

FernandaBonnin: As we have only 3 responses should we wait for another week?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to baking another week

<maryjom> 707.2 Characters. Characters displayed on the screen shall be in a sans serif font. Characters shall be 3/16 inch (4.8 mm) high minimum based on the uppercase letter “I”. Characters shall contrast with their background with either light characters on a dark background or dark characters on a light background.

<bruce_bailey> 707.2 is from ADAAG

And is 707.7.2

PhilDay: we need to work on this a bit more

<bruce_bailey> https://www.access-board.gov/ada/#ada-707_7_2

GreggVan: one thing that we should know is that saying the screen, we need to say what screen (on 707.2); are we on closed products?

maryjom: we are just discussing reflow in general

<maryjom> w3c/wcag2ict#98 (comment)

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about doing the math and substituting in the angular metric?

bruce_bailey: agree with Phil and Fernanda's comments; instead of DIP can we just do the math of the angular measurement so we don't have to use CSS pixel?

maryjom: the DIP has examples for mobile phone

+1 for doing the math to reduce complexity -forcing people to lookup and convert just adds cognitive load

bruce_bailey: instead of saying 320 css pixels we put an exact measurement with the number as an angle

GreggVan: angle doesn't help unless you specify viewing distance

bruce_bailey: css pixel is an angle

<Chuck> Definition: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/reflow.html#dfn-css-pixel

<Sam> Ψ = (180 x H) / (π x D)

GreggVan: angle is not a size

<Sam> ψ is the subtended angle in degrees

<Sam> • H is the height of the text

<Sam> • D is the viewing distance

<Sam> • D and H are expressed in the same units

<Sam> En 5.1.4

<Chuck> supporting docs: https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#reference-pixel

<Chuck> The reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a device pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm’s length. For a nominal arm’s length of 28 inches, the visual angle is therefore about 0.0213 degrees. For reading at arm’s length, 1px thus corresponds to about 0.26 mm (1/96 inch).

Mike_Pluke: it doesnt give you a size but it gives you a viewable size character, so yes you need a distance, but the visual angle is the critical thing for perceivability

<Chuck> From W3C: The reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a device pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm’s length. For a nominal arm’s length of 28 inches, the visual angle is therefore about 0.0213 degrees. For reading at arm’s length, 1px thus corresponds to about 0.26 mm (1/96 inch).

Sam: my asumption here is that the visual angle was using the same equation as 301 549; in the EN that angle is different and that gives you the height of the letter, and that isn't mentioned anywhere here, that would be helpful

<Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say CSS pixel assumes a fixed 'nominal arm's length' which may not always be true

<Chuck> Yes.

PhilDay: agree with everyone else, wondering if this is worth going back with AWGW, because it seems this is assuming arm's length which might not always be the case

maryjom: agree with that, Phil if you can capture this on the notes/ minutes, please

PhilDay: CSS pixel assumes a fixed 'nominal arm's length' of 28 incheswhich may not always be true

<bruce_bailey> +1 if we can reference snell (sp?) chart

BryanTrogdon: is there an equivalent we can point to to help authors how they would share the size that they are creating to make it easy for someone to see at a set distance

PhilDay: We should either make this explicit, or change the assumption

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#reference-pixel

GreggVan: we could decide what level of vision we want to support, and that was done in the original. but it would get us back into deciding which level to support, other accessibility guidance talk about 14 points as the minimium for large print

+1 to visual angles being unnecessarily complex

GreggVan: we should try to make the languages to be in more plain language, angle of view is not clear for a large number of authors

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say Alastair Campbell has done a lot of work in this space, and may know of some resources.

Chuck: Alastair Campbell has done a lot of work on the space, will reach out to him

maryjom: don't want to get stuck char sizes, this is not about that, its about reflow

Mike_Pluke: I am pretty sure that the angle formula is part of an ISO standard

Mike_Pluke: you can of course provide a table of examples so we don't force everyone to do the maths

+1 to keeping it simple

maryjom: I will reopen the survey so people can continue to contribute, feel free to contribute chanes to the text or examples

<bruce_bailey> rssagent, make minutes

Thanks to FernandaBonnin for scribing when I so rudely left!

* for sure, no worries!