See also: IRC log
<shawn> hummmm
I cannot get in webex, enter the meeting number?
<laura> Scribe List: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List
scribe, Wayne
<AWK> +AWK
<shawn> scribe:Wayne
<AWK> Jim: yay
Jim: There was a session on LV at CSUN. The people at the CSUN did not know about our FPWD. Getting the word out. Spread it around to other groups.
Shawn: EO's dance card is full.
<ScottMcCormack> webex is asking for a meeting password
Jim: The deadline is short April 15, but we will take comments as long as we need.
Shawn: We point to the official site, or the editors draft.
<laura> +q
JohnR: Maybe we could point to both.
<shawn> e-mail announcements with both links: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2016JanMar/0174.html
Laura: We can announce it to WCAG.
<shawn> approved version: https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/
<shawn> Editor's Draft (more updated): http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html
Andrew: We have talked about it at the call. Michael did forward it to the list. We will evangelize it.
Shawn: WCAG WG has approved its publishing.
Eric: I
... IAAP is taking up Low Vision.
Jim: Welcome Scott McCormack
Scott: I am from BART and joined from an invite from Jon A.
Scott: The group was assembled by Joel Isac. This was to talk about technical aspects. How each applies technology. There was an emphasis on Low Vision in education.
<shawn> Wayne: some panel participants not want to actively participate in TF, yet like the work and want to review doc
<shawn> Scott: group is largely non-technical
Scott: It is not a technical group, but they can give good review.
<shawn> [ plus this document is not technical -- later ones will be more so ]
Jim: People do not have to be technical. We need their pain points.
Shawn: This document is not technical.
<shawn> Wayne: setting up conference call w/ CS Council of Low Vision to introduce doc
JohnR: That depends on your point of view. People who know nothing about technology.
Shawn: We want this audience to understand the document. Even though they're not the primary audience.
JohnR: I am a proponent of plain language. We need a simple way to explain it.
Eric: Any thing with a hint of jargon causes some to glaze over.
<shawn> [ we do plan to do a language edit later ]
Scott: We are trying to explain Low Vision and even the aspects of low vision are new to me.
JohnR: Now I am talking about a simplified version of text. One possibility is a simple explanation followed by a more formal explanation.
<shawn> Wayne: @@
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say Lainey Feingold web site does a good job with it.
<jeanne> http://www.lflegal.com/2016/03/houston-press/#summary
More people are more likely to be familiar light sensivity than lumins.
Jeanne: Lainey Feingold does a good job of simplification.
<shawn> zakim take up item 4
<allanj> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2016Mar/0061.html
Andrew: (We are not asking for LVTF necessarily) That would be good, but WCAG seems to have forgotten. I don't know.
<shawn> Wayne: from e-mail, prefernce for all states meeting c ontrast requirements
<shawn> ... can live w/ hover being poor contrast, but would rather not.
Jim: We have five members commented. Do you think the five could get together and look into this issue?
<laura> +q
Scott: In an ideal world all would be high contrast. An absolute requirement is that any state is read should have contrast.
Laura: The only pause, is the difficulty is the claime of difficulty finding colors.
Andrew: If you have a focus color one can use the focus color.If there is a use canse whaere hover needs to be different maybe.
Joh: Most people say hover and focus. The only difference is active. Unless there is a important. Recommend focus and hover.
<shawn> proposal: focus & hover need to meet requirement. active does not
Andrew: We have a use case for focus and hover.
Jim: In the past IE used a different interpretation.
Scott: Will check.
Andrew: I will write up a resolution for focus and hover, and will pass it around.
<shawn> s /Joh:/JonA:
RESOLUTION: AWK to modify text of TF recommendation on focus and hover state contrast and send to TF mailing list, to be then forwarded to WCAG
+1
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-a11y-tf/issues/32
<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-a11y-tf/issues/32
Jim: we are working on rephrasing.
Shawn: If we 86% if we added the 14% are blind. Would that meet the point of Denis but keep it shorter.
Andrew: My only concerned. Make sure our mathematics is correct.
JohnR: In the back of my mind I was thinking world wide.
Jim: We have that right.
Shawn: We need a fact check. Is
this how we want to present it.
... Denis wants to make it clear that there are more LV than
Blind.
Andrew: It puts is in appearing to set up a priority game.
<allanj> +1
Andrew: I worry about wanting to overemphasize the point.
JohnR: Denis is there any reason to say this percent is color blind.
Jim: It is not official low vision.
Shawn: Can we get across the idea that it is prevalent without saying it is more important.
<JohnRochford> +1 to representation by percentages
<allanj> +1 percentage
<laura> +1
<shawn> +1 to both percents (and not 6 times)
<shawn> ACTION: Jim do fact check on "(WHO) estimates that there are 246 million people worldwide who have low vision and 39 million people are blind, indicating that generally 16% of people with visual impairments are blind and 84% have low vision." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/30-lvtf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Do fact check on "(who) estimates that there are 246 million people worldwide who have low vision and 39 million people are blind, indicating that generally 16% of people with visual impairments are blind and 84% have low vision." [on Jim Allan - due 2016-04-06].
<alan_smith> Joining late
<alan_smith> + on percentages for a business case statistic
<shawn> Wayne: lots of people with low vision feel left out. solutions for blind are expected to meet low vision, but don't
<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-a11y-tf/issues/33
<JohnRochford> Got to go, folks. Ciao.
<AWK> AWK just sent updated wording on focus/hover to LVTF list
Andrew: There is difficulty with defect. There is a concern about not noting the icrease in age related low vision.
<shawn> Wayne: in places where correction is available, about 1/2 is age-related
<shawn> ACTION: Shawn follow up with DEnis on https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-a11y-tf/issues/33 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/30-lvtf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Follow up with denis on https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-a11y-tf/issues/33 [on Shawn Henry - due 2016-04-06].
<allanj> close item 6
Eric: A question came in about SVG that include text. Can we include this as an agenda item.
Andrew: This should be in the success criteria.
<allanj> jonA: may be issues with changing color, css
<allanj> perhaps there is a use case
<allanj> shawn: maybe an example for getting information from images
Jon: Does this meet images of text. You can resize but changes to font and color are not addressed.
<laura> bye
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/I can't get the phone number or webex links to work/ / Succeeded: s/Darft/Draft/ Succeeded: s/Sccott/Scott/ Succeeded: s/grouop/group/ Succeeded: s/We do want these people to understand this document./Even though they're not the primary audience./ Succeeded: s/JohmR/JohnR/ Succeeded: s/have live w/can live w/ Found Scribe: Wayne Inferring ScribeNick: Wayne Default Present: JimA, shawn, JohnR, Laura, Andrew, Wayne, Erich, Jeanne, AWK, JohnRochford, ScottMcCormack, JonAvila, jon_avila, Alan_Smith Present: JimA shawn JohnR Laura Andrew Wayne Erich Jeanne AWK JohnRochford ScottMcCormack JonAvila jon_avila Alan_Smith Found Date: 30 Mar 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/30-lvtf-minutes.html People with action items: jim shawn[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]