Webex problems. will try calling in via phone instead of computer.

<ScottM_> irc going nuts for me

​ create process for proposing and revising SCs

<allanj> proposed process

<allanj> - create an issue for each user need

<JohnRochford> Jim: proposed a way to create SCs

<allanj> - use comments for proposing and editing SCs

<allanj> - when SC finalized update current table putting SC with all appropriate

<allanj> user needs (same SC in multiple user needs

<allanj> - or -

<allanj> - create new table of SCs with all the user needs met by the SC

<allanj> also

<allanj> - use comments for the resolution of how we dealt with the user need

<allanj> (defer to WCAG.next or something else)

<allanj> see new table http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-SC/GapAnalysis-SC.html

<allanj> sh: create issue for each proposed SC, then discussion in comments

<allanj> sh: suggests rewording Wayne's work for proposed SC

<allanj> proposed acceptance criteria for SC from WCAG: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Requirements_for_Success_Criteria

<JohnRochford> Andrew: We are workiing on what the acceptance criteria are for SC

<JohnRochford> Andrew: We will be wanting TF members to be able to help engage and advocate for good wording for SC

<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Requirements_for_Success_Criteria

<JohnRochford> Jim: Important criterion is to structure statement so answer is binary: true/false.

<JohnRochford> statement = SC

<JohnRochford> Andrew: No decisions made on phone calls, but rather via calls for consensus

<allanj> CfC = call for Concensus

<JohnRochford> Andrew: There may be things we can't say because ecosystem and tools are not ready.

<JohnRochford> Wayne: Example = finding your place again after enlargement

<JohnRochford> Andrew: We will be providing "clearer" guidance that TFs can use

<JohnRochford> Jim: In response to Shawn, we don't need to use Wiki - we can go right to GitHub

<allanj> ​http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-SC/GapAnalysis-SC.html

<JohnRochford> Jim: Shawn created a new Git instance for SCs

<JohnRochford> ?

​ ​review questions to ask about modifying/creating SC

<allanj> Current SC

<allanj> 1. is there a WCAG SC that meets the need?

<allanj> 2. does the SC need to be raised a level (or 2), e.g. from AAA to AA?

<allanj> 3. does the SC need modification? (modification must meet WCAG Acceptance

<allanj> Criteria)

<allanj> 4. do we need to create a new SC?

<allanj> New SC

<allanj> 1. Is it possible to write an SC for WCAG or do we save this need/SC for

<allanj> WCAG.next

<allanj> 2. Is the new SC worded as a true/false statement?

<allanj> 3. Is the new SC a statement of "what is" - when the statement is true?

<allanj> then you have met the SC.

<JohnRochford> Jim: One issue to consider is whether or not an SC should be deferred to WCAG Next

<ScottM> seems good to me

+1

<JohnRochford> Andrew: Can the WCAG Next consideration be step 1 of the process to create an SC?

<Wayne> + to 2 lists

<JohnRochford> Andrew: We could divide an SC into to lists: what we can address today and what we can address later

<JohnRochford> to = two

<JohnRochford> two lists

<JohnRochford> Wayne: We could focus on the content level and content-related accessibility issues.

<allanj> ja: we don't have to totally defer to 3.0, can make minor modifications for 2.1, then in 3.0 do it totally.

<JohnRochford> Andrew: We should focus on end-user needs and what is achievable by authors, and not be constrained by current-technology limitations.

<Wayne> It seems likely that 80% or what we need for customization is possible with HTML. If others can only support 20% of this can we call these accessible, or should we simply declare that an accessible alternative should be used.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say 1. cautious about putting things off, 2. like writing what need now, even if some not do-able yet - provides info for future

<JohnRochford> Wayne: Developers use unneccessary techniques to structure a page, for example, that interfere with accessibility.

<ScottM> We need to make sure our efforts don't end up AAA

<allanj> +1 scott

<JohnRochford> +1 Scott

<Wayne> +1

<JohnRochford> Shawn:

<JohnRochford> +1 to 2-lists idea

<scribe> scribe: Laura

zakuim, open item 3

review SC for User Need 3.1.2

<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/2

<shawn> https://w3c.github.io/low-vision-SC/GapAnalysis-SC.html

Shawn: Thinks this is less than we want.

Jim: Attacking piece meal. then we can merge.
... is wording okay?

wayne: can wordsmith on second pass

<allanj> ja: is 200% sacrosanct or open to change

AWK: can increase requirement but not decrease it.

<ScottM> can we change to /at least/ 200%

<allanj> increase to the limits of browser zoom

<allanj> wayne: 4 or 500%, technology can do this.

wayne: 400 or 500% is achievable

<Wayne> +1

<Wayne> +1 to scott

Jim: propose increase to the level of browser zoom.

wayne: g legge recommended 1100 percent

<allanj> minimum characters on page in order to read is 5, or user can't remember what they read

LC: if we can document it. Let’s go with 1000%

<allanj> current: Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text on a full-screen window.

wayne: pages have to be re-organizable.

<allanj> shawn: uni-directional scrolling, not horizontal or vertical. and need to define uni-directional

<allanj> proposed: Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 1100 percent in a way that does not require bi-directional scrolling to read a line of text on a full-screen window.

+1

<Wayne> +1

<allanj> Jim will find research to cite for this

<allanj> shawn: keep hear developers say meeting 200% is the hardest SC to meet.

<allanj> ... need to make it clear in the Understanding doc, that you need reflow, rewrap, single column

Shawn: we will make to make it clear in the understanding doc about reflow etc.

<allanj> Psychophysics of reading--I. Normal vision. Legge GE, Pelli DG, Rubin GS, Schleske MM Vision Res. 1985; 25(2):239-52.

<allanj> Effects of Word Width and Word Length on Optimal Character Size for Reading of Horizontally Scrolling Japanese Words http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754429/

Shawn: we have the research page

<allanj> add these to general research page, and include in the SC, pull direct quote with citation

Shawn: separate issues for each bullet.

Jim: have a good weekend folks

tackbot, end meeting

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/hats rerettable//
Succeeded: s/instance with Wayne's proposed SCs/instance for SCs/
Succeeded: s/Question for Jim: should I still scribe given it looks to me that you just generated the minutes?//
Succeeded: s/We could write up stuff we can't do now but can do later.//
Succeeded: s/be right there//
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Default Present: Jim, Wayne, shawn, Laura, Scott, allanj, AWK, JohnRochford, McMormack, Andrew

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Jim, Laura, Scott, Wayne, allanj, shawn)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Jim, shawn, Laura, Scott, allanj


WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Jim, Scott, allanj, shawn)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Jim, shawn, allanj

Present: shawn allanj Laura AWK JohnRochford Scott_McMormack Wayne Andrew John Scott
Regrets: laura
Found Date: 16 Jun 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/16-lvtf-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.