See also: IRC log
happy to scribe today
<laura> Scribe List: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List
<laura> You’re welcome,
<laura> You’re welcome, Shawn.
<AWK> +AWK
<alastairc> +alastairc
+Erich
AWK: first would like to get to the survey first
AWK: sorry for getting agenda out late, did not have much time for the survey
<AWK> relates to https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Reflow_to_Single_Column
AWK: three people have responded, all looking for changes to it
<erich missed several statements>
AWK: Some people go to description for techniques, but really need to go to test procedure
WD: We were taking concept of G57
and making it normative
... Suggests we state explicitly what we want in
AC: Has not been covered in
practice by meaningful sequence
... Took out things that are not explicitly hidden by the
author. Does not think we necessarily need in the SC text
AWK: Agrees with that. Having lots of trouble with it sounding just like 1.3.2 to me, what it doesn't do is clearly indicate that we're talking about the visual order of the content, and so what we now have as a correct reading sequence is the same as 1.3.2
WD: It doesn't say that, it is different.
AWK: If you have a webpage with
content presented on that page, and the sequence affects the
meaning, you have to be able to get a programmatically
determined sequence.
... The correct reading sequence could be anything. But if I
take three columns, the sequence could be anything. Does that
make sense?
... So when we say the elements of a document are sequenced so
that the elements are in correct reading sequence, it's kind of
the same thing, just in reverse. It's not say you need to be
able to read this a certain way.
... In order to meet this, I would need to make sure the
correct reading order matched the visual reading order.
... It's not saying you need to be able to linearize the entire
page.
WD: You can linearize the entire
page, provided you know the reading order.
... I think this is the difference between accessibility and
accommodation.
<alastairc> Brings me back to: "When the visual elements of a page are presented as a linear sequence they retain a correct reading order."
WD: All we're doing is requiring
the programmer to create a situation where we need AI to tell
us what was in their head.
... 1.3.2 talks a lot about the bi-directional algorithm.
... It does not say those things should be listed in a reading
order.
... We could say add G57 as an appendage to 1.3.2
AWK: Could you give a couple of examples?
AC: I think I can.
... There's an implementation bug in FF about how flex ordering
works
... When you're tabbing through, FF will follow the flex
order
... If you are linearizing a page from a DOM perspective, that
will give you a wrong result
... If you linearize the page using visual presentation, it
gives you a different result
AWK: I may need to see the example you're talking about, not making sense to me
<alastairc> http://adrianroselli.com/2015/10/html-source-order-vs-css-display-order.html
AC: Pasted in irc, if you want to
see how it's actually working
... CSS and grids will allow people to manipulate the visual
order without affecting the DOM
AWK: Why wouldn't this fail 1.3.2?
AC: There's several programmtic orders, with no indication of which to follow
AWK: I think linearization was one of the things we hoped we would get, and I don't think we consistently have
WK: My question is whether this success criteria as-written will address that
WD: It least gives you the
opportunity to know what the author's intended sequence
is
... There are many ways to order a document, and if there's
more than one, which one do you choose
<ScottM> +q
WD: The potential for ambiguity is great, and by simply saying you put it in a reading order as you program, guarantees that this does not come up as a problem. It's not a burden for developers
AWK: I am not arguing against, I just think that what 1.3.2 covers is already included here
AC: I did put an alternative in which includes the linear sequence Andrew is looking for
SM: The problem I run in to from
an audit standpoint, is there doesn't seem to be any explicit
definition of how you define a reading order
... You have the base reading order, but authors have the
ability to change the layout of a page using CSS however they
want
... They put up things like simulated modal dialogs, which
always appear completely out of order of the DOM
... Maybe 1.3.2 does address this, but end result is you cannot
linearize this
... There's this conflict between reading order in the DOM and
reading order imposed by CSS, and how do you address
that?
... Not sure 1.3.2 quite does
... How do we programmatically tell an AT how to reconcile
those things
WD: Here's a use case I run in to
a lot. Many with low vision look at the print while listening
to the print
... It's very disruptive when what you're looking at, and what
you're being read, come at you in a different order. And it
happens a lot.
... If we state it that way at the normative level, it may help
us anticipate what's coming
AWK: Question for Wayne - if someone is following along visually as content is coming in different ways, is this a fine detailed problem, gross level detailed problem, or both?
<ScottM> I'd say both
AWK: Ex: newspaper website
reinforcing the notion most important info is in upper right
corner, that would be gross level. Fine level might be if I
have a form control, that says Telephone Number with the field,
and what one might decide is that it's important to bundle
label and instructions together so that you receive both at the
same time. Fine level. Is it both, or one or the other?
... In order to meet 1.3.2 you have to be able to look at what
you have on the screen and say Yes, this is reflective of this.
Not some random assortment of what should be reflected.
WD: We don't really have a test
of whether 1.3.2 is doing it or not, because most people lay
them out in the order they want them to be naturally
... An example, on our wiki page, if you linearize our wiki
page, LOGIN goes all the way to the bottom
... It's still a correct reading order. It's inconvenient, but
correct.
... There are cases where you linearize a page, and it does not
come out, and it can be the fault of the screen reader.
... Worried we will get technologies that will create a
situation where an AT must go in and look at several different
places to determine what the reading order is
... The user would need to pay attention to all these things
just to know what the reading order is
... Alastair gave one example, and as we develop the web, more
examples will come up
<ScottM> +q
WD: Noticed that G57 was the only way to really point out that you meet the 1.3.2 criteria
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about neutralising layout
AC: I added a bookmarklet to the
list, that was an initial try at having a forced linearization
without killing all the styles
... There'd be DOM order and more of a CSS order
... I understand that this might become a set of techniques
under 1.3.2, but thinks worth proposing as a SC first so that
people realize the importance
SM: This is similar to problem
you have with PDF's where a tag system was added later on for
accessibility, and a reflow sequence inherent to the PDF
itsefl, and if the two are not sequenced you have an
interesting situation
... With the web, you can have a layering which the DOM doesn't
express, and really no way of reconciling those things
... In order to meet the criteria, the DOM has to be in
order
... Not a huge problem the majority of the time, but
occassionally the authors cannot put the DOM order in the
reading order
... None of the AT's at the moment support layering, so you're
ending up with a huge document
... There is a conflict, and we have to be more explicit about
the DOM needing to reflect the reading order
... Or find a way where we can use CSS and get the AT vendors
to support so that we don't have this conflict
... We have arguments with customers who come back and say they
can't change the DOM, and all we can say to them is that it's a
violation
... It would be nice if we could push a way of making this
work, explicitly
... People will move away from using DOM to define what the
layout of a page is going to be.
AWK: Clarifying earlier point with PDF
SM: If your tags don't align with
the objects that you have in your reading order, or they are
out of order, you get weird things that happen
... Most of the time, the advice that we give and i've seen
Adobe provide, is that these things must match up. If you have
explicity defined, the tag structure needs to reflect
that
... If you're missing some content in the tags, it will
sometimes just get strange, as it will be handled
differently
... Sometimes if you have a tag structure that is completely
bizarre, I've had times where I've had to erase and start
over.
AWK: Same as what we're talking about?
SM: Similarities with PDF. You
can end up with a situation, if you have a paragraph and
reading order is split in 2 parts, if the tags are created so
you have a tag that encompasses an entire paragraph, if that
tag doesn't get in to more detail, most AT's are going to fall
down to reading the reading order
... The most common thing we see is words can be broken in to 2
pieces.
... To fix, we treat each word as it's own object
... or you can have a huge block of tags, which doesn't happen
quite as often
... Similarly on the web, it's not quite as bad, but the
problem is that CSS is going to define how the page is laid out
visually
... You can have a sidebar, maybe that's an important piece of
information, you can set up your DOM so it appears after the
navigational stuff on the left
... So the question becomes, what is the intended reading order
supposed to be?
... You can sometimes guess, but programmatically how do we
determine? Trust the DOM?
... Right now, we're taking out the CSS completely and trusting
the DOM
WD: Even in W3C technologies and
HTML, we're not going to just have the DOM anymore, we're going
to have web components dropped in there.
... Not clear how that's going to go with the rest of the
program.
... Today we're getting an indication of how those of us with
visual disabilities have felt about how 1.3.2 has worked for
us.
... We could make it a level AA to make the distinction
... It seems like a guide that would be very useful for this
HTML change
... Trying to state it in terms that authors can control, not
about user agents
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about volunteering to carry on with this SC and add a test case.
AC: Volunteering to take up this SC
AWK: Have not heard anything not
covered by 1.3.2
... If we have a problem that is user agent related, we can't
do anything about it, so authors are correct focus
... If it is already covered by 1.3.2, maybe clarifications in
understanding or techniques are needed
... If it's something else, I still don't understand what that
thing is, suspect I'm not alone
... Linearization not required unless you go to 1.4.8
AC: Think I can come up with test case to highlight the differences
SM: Everything we're trying to do may be in 1.3.2, but there's something about it that's missing
Believe I am muted
<AWK> EM: Was looking at this issue and thought that 4.5:1 was ok but wanted to clarify
<Wayne> +1
<AWK> Laura: agrees
<AWK> EM: was also looking at borders - an they be required?
<AWK> ... hard to read when content is not clearly delineated from the background
<AWK> ... can that be included as a recommended practice?
<AWK> Laura: Could be a technique
<AWK> EM: Borders would be for each wedge of a pie chart for example
<laura> New Techniques: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Informational_Graphic_Contrast_(Minimum)#New_Techniques
<ScottM> +q
<laura> Informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum): https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/
SM: The SC is limiting itself to
ratio
... Not disagreeing, we do need these kinds of things, if we're
talking about the contrast itself between two kinds of things,
it's fine
... How do we address more broadly other types of visual
impairment. I think they're related, but separate
... WOuld need to decide what other kinds of enhancements we
need
... If turning on HC, and suddenly everything has a border, in
certain cases that can seem like almost too much
... COGA group would likely have much to say as well
WD: This is a tough one
... In some ways I think we can do the contrast ratio, but
cannot do borders
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if we could we take the approach of contrasting the element as a whole rather than colour specifically?
AC: We already have use of color
which generally helps for that sort of thing. When you look at
best practices, the use of patterns can help with those
distinctions.
... The aim of the current contrast minimum and interactive
contrast, to make sure there is contrast, we're not trying to
define that everything must have a border, but that you can
distinguish one element from another.
... Current color guideline can really help for this kind of
thing.
<laura> The 2 contrast SCs were combined at one time.
WD: Just thinking contrast, I
think this could be a good SC just focusing on contrast. I know
we've worked on Informational Graphics, but being more specific
on this, I think we'd have to be really careful with what we
excluded on this
... In talking earlier, part of the challenge with this one,
was just that - trying to break informational graphics out from
graphics in general
<AWK> EM: this is great feedback and will continue to work on it
SM: Each element of the informational graphic has to be distinguishable from every other. You can still derive the same information from that graphic as you could if could see the colors. How you go about that is a matter of debate
<ScottM> no pressure! :)
<AWK> EM: Question from up at IBM
<AWK> ... was using user settings going to address for high contrast issues
<ScottM> brb
<AWK> Wayne: background images disappear in HCM
<AWK> ... that's one of the big problems
<AWK> people put important graphical content into background images
<AWK> ... and that's a problem frequently
<AWK> Laura: mentions F3 and how it may be removed
<laura> Something to be aware of is that WCAG has historically had F3: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using CSS to include images that convey important information.
<laura> However, F3 is under discussion to remove the HCM requirement so it would NOT be a failure.
<laura> A yet to be written technique for HCM has been proposed but not written.
<laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/80
<laura> bye. Thanks all.
Trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148 of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/shawn better? :)// Succeeded: s/2 color SCs were combined at one time./2 contrast SCs were combined at one time./ No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: erich_manser Inferring Scribes: erich_manser Default Present: Shawn, Andrew(AWK), Wayne, JohnRochford, Laura, ScottM, AWK, alastairc, Erich Present: Shawn Wayne JohnRochford Laura ScottM AWK alastairc Erich Found Date: 20 Oct 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/20-lvtf-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]