IRC log of lvtf on 2016-11-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:57:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #lvtf
13:57:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:57:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:57:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #lvtf
13:57:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be
13:57:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
13:57:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
13:57:48 [trackbot]
Date: 03 November 2016
13:57:56 [allanj]
chair: jim
13:58:08 [allanj]
rrsagent, set logs public
13:58:17 [allanj]
rrsagent, make minutes
13:58:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate allanj
13:58:47 [allanj]
rrsagent, set logs public
14:02:16 [MichaelC_]
MichaelC_ has joined #lvtf
14:12:12 [allanj]
Agenda+ Prioritization of what we can do in 4 meetings
14:37:18 [laura]
laura has joined #lvtf
14:53:28 [JohnRochford]
JohnRochford has joined #lvtf
14:58:13 [erich_manser]
erich_manser has joined #LVTF
14:58:38 [ScottM]
ScottM has joined #lvtf
14:59:24 [ScottM]
welcome back jim!
15:01:25 [alastairc]
alastairc has joined #lvtf
15:01:40 [erich_manser]
Happy to scribe today :)
15:02:12 [Glenda]
Glenda has joined #lvtf
15:03:32 [alastairc]
present+ alastairc
15:03:58 [laura]
present+ Laura
15:03:58 [allanj]
15:03:59 [shawn]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:00 [Zakim]
Present: alastairc, Laura
15:04:16 [erich_manser]
present+ Erich
15:04:18 [allanj]
15:04:28 [shawn]
present+ Shawn, Jim, ErichM, JohnR, Laura, Scott
15:04:31 [JohnRochford]
present+ JohnRochford
15:04:39 [shawn]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:39 [Zakim]
Present: alastairc, Laura, Erich, Jim, Shawn, ErichM, JohnR, Scott, JohnRochford
15:04:43 [allanj]
scribe: erich
15:04:54 [shawn]
present- Erich, JohnR
15:05:13 [shawn]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:13 [Zakim]
Present: alastairc, Laura, Jim, Shawn, ErichM, Scott, JohnRochford
15:05:24 [shawn]
present+ Glenda
15:06:03 [erich_manser]
JA: Looking ahead to the next 4 meetings for priorities. WCAG is looking to get first public working draft out in Feb 2017
15:06:55 [erich_manser]
JA: Since we're all members of the WCAG wg, feel free to participate in that also, to explain what we've done here, etc.
15:07:39 [erich_manser]
JA: With the Thanksgiving holiday, we've got this meeting plus 3 others.
15:08:15 [allanj]
zakim, open item 1
15:08:15 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Prioritization of what we can do in 4 meetings" taken up [from allanj]
15:08:24 [allanj]
15:09:08 [erich_manser]
JA: It seems our first 4 or 5 SC are the closest we have to complete
15:09:37 [erich_manser]
JA: All the others seem to be part of customization, could be addressed by other work, taskforces
15:10:07 [erich_manser]
JA: Suggesting we focus on the first group, closest to being done, as priority
15:10:25 [allanj]
15:10:26 [erich_manser]
GS: Agrees with that
15:10:28 [JohnRochford]
15:10:34 [erich_manser]
LC: Also agrees
15:10:39 [erich_manser]
15:11:05 [erich_manser]
WD: Agrees provisionally, but Dec 1st deadline limits us\
15:12:04 [erich_manser]
GS: Let's get these solid and in by the deadline, and then when we have a chance to breath move to the others
15:12:45 [erich_manser]
SH: Let's buckle down and do it rather than talk about it, get as much to them as we can
15:13:54 [erich_manser]
WD: Element level customization needs attention
15:14:13 [erich_manser]
SH: We really must focus, next 2 or 3 meetings are critical
15:14:16 [erich_manser]
WD agrees
15:14:20 [allanj]
Topic: Contrast: Informational Graphics
15:14:36 [allanj]
15:15:13 [erich_manser]
JA: Did search on some info graphics that are up there, they are horrid
15:15:51 [alastairc]
q+ to ask whether we can define what it contrasts with?
15:15:54 [erich_manser]
JA: If I have my infographic on a color wheel, there is no way I can make it meet 4.5:1
15:16:18 [erich_manser]
GS: Pattern, pattern, pattern
15:16:41 [erich_manser]
JA: I see it, differentiated pattern is part of it, ok
15:16:53 [erich_manser]
JA: How do we feel about it?
15:17:04 [erich_manser]
AC: One question from TPAC still needs addressing
15:17:24 [erich_manser]
AC: Do we need some way of saying what the graphic must contrast with?
15:17:44 [erich_manser]
LC: I agree, Glenda did a great job in the other contrast one, Interactive Elements, could we borrow from that?
15:17:57 [allanj]
interactive elements contrast -
15:18:16 [erich_manser]
GS: I defined it as the visual presentation of important (non-text) information... think that covers it, what do you guys think?
15:19:01 [allanj]
15:19:14 [erich_manser]
AC: Concerned less on icons, but more on larger info graphics. Realize the patterns help, but SC text is saying it should have a contrast ratio
15:19:38 [erich_manser]
JA: Just added an infographic sample from Google
15:19:52 [erich_manser]
JA: It's not text, it's a graphic, so you can't get in to it
15:20:30 [erich_manser]
AC: There's a good example from the 1948, where does the orange and blue need to contrast against the background, as well as each other
15:20:46 [erich_manser]
LC: That would be the same for a pie chart too
15:21:19 [shawn]
15:21:24 [alastairc]
15:21:31 [shawn]
ack me
15:21:42 [erich_manser]
GS: Need to take a small step back, no need to handle in color contrast, actually color alone causing the problem
15:22:41 [erich_manser]
SH: If I have pie chart and data table right next to it, it doesn't matter if I can see the colors. No need to overcomplicate
15:22:48 [allanj]
ack a
15:23:13 [Wayne]
Wayne has joined #lvtf
15:23:16 [erich_manser]
AC: That would just mean we need some caveats, if it's being relied on and there's no redundancy it should have sufficient contrast, or are you saying it's not needed at all?
15:23:30 [Glenda]
this is an interesting info graphic I was looking at last night
15:23:59 [erich_manser]
SH: What else do we need to say, do adjacent colors not need to have sufficient contrast because we're already saying we're not relying on color
15:24:22 [erich_manser]
GS: Why don't we put that as an assumption, but for now think of less is more
15:24:39 [erich_manser]
JA: This seems to fall in 1.4.5 in WCAG, Images of Text
15:25:04 [erich_manser]
JA: Wouldn't infographic example I added already fail?
15:25:23 [erich_manser]
GS: There are some fun exceptions
15:25:50 [erich_manser]
GS: Not trapping text inside a graphic is very important
15:26:31 [AWK]
AWK has joined #lvtf
15:26:36 [erich_manser]
JA: What is it in our SC that we need to say something must be done to fix, and have we said that?
15:26:58 [allanj]
rrsagent: make minutes
15:26:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate allanj
15:27:36 [erich_manser]
WD: Would like to add a note: There is not a lot of explicit reference in the understanding document as to their application to low vision, things about keyboard use and other things
15:27:54 [alastairc]
How about: The visual presentation of graphics that *are relied on to* convey important information have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1. (Using the 'important information' to define what needs the contrast.)
15:28:05 [erich_manser]
WD: May need to look at the techniques of using color only, embedded images, etc to see if there is an interpretation
15:28:36 [erich_manser]
WD: Need to use some asterisks along here
15:28:57 [erich_manser]
JA: Would like to focus on getting our language right in the SC
15:29:01 [erich_manser]
WD: Understood
15:29:23 [erich_manser]
JA: Does the language we currently have sufficiently convey there are issues needing to be fixed?
15:29:37 [erich_manser]
GS: Proposes adding a sentence similar to:
15:29:43 [Glenda]
Propose adding a similiar sentence like this to “Informational Graphics”: The visual presentation of important (non-text) information in an interactive image has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1.
15:30:17 [allanj]
action: jim with LVTF to review wcag understanding document and techniques adding implications for Low Vision
15:30:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-85 - With lvtf to review wcag understanding document and techniques adding implications for low vision [on Jim Allan - due 2016-11-10].
15:30:43 [erich_manser]
LC: We would need to define, since pulling from COGA
15:30:49 [Glenda]
Use COGA's important information definition:
15:30:50 [Glenda]
important information
15:30:51 [Glenda]
1. information the user may need to complete any action or task including an offline task.
15:30:51 [Glenda]
2. information the user may need to know related to safety, risks, privacy, health or opportunities
15:31:36 [erich_manser]
AC: Is it the important information that needs to be contrasted with adjacent items?
15:32:01 [erich_manser]
GS: I would say background, then that follows the pattern for tests
15:32:08 [allanj]\
15:32:15 [Glenda]
COGA definition on important information is located here:
15:32:20 [laura]
15:33:19 [ScottM]
15:33:47 [ScottM]
15:35:14 [Glenda]
15:35:56 [erich_manser]
SM: Does not think asking people to check all possible color combinations is practical. Would almost say it woudl be easier to indicate to use information conveyed solely through color as the SC, and suggest removing all color to test whether same information can still be conveyed
15:35:58 [allanj]
q+ to say focusing on contrast ratio, but techniques list many other ways to fix. but sc says only 4.5:1
15:36:49 [erich_manser]
GS: This is an important gap which needs to be filled in 2.1
15:37:06 [erich_manser]
GS: There's something that's important to convey that is not text, but as important as text
15:37:26 [alastairc]
15:37:41 [allanj]
ack s
15:37:44 [erich_manser]
GS: We're not talking about differences between that pie slice and every other pie slice, but can I see the image / important information
15:37:46 [allanj]
ack g
15:38:48 [erich_manser]
JA: There are different ways of seeing it, we have SC talking about 4.5:1, but all of our techniques (GARBLED)
15:38:55 [ScottM]
Anyone else hearing distorted audio?
15:39:00 [AWK]
q+ to say that what I hear Glenda talking about is not relying on color alone
15:39:25 [allanj]
ack j
15:39:28 [Wayne]
15:39:33 [allanj]
ack allanj
15:39:33 [Zakim]
allanj, you wanted to say focusing on contrast ratio, but techniques list many other ways to fix. but sc says only 4.5:1
15:39:39 [erich_manser]
AC: Sounds like the hole we're trying to plug is discerning 'the thing' from it's surroundings
15:39:49 [allanj]
ack alastairc
15:39:54 [erich_manser]
AC: Status icons and warning images are more obvious use cases where we could simplify
15:40:13 [erich_manser]
AC: Don't think we need to get in to slices of a pie chart, as that is covered by the color alone aspect
15:40:32 [allanj]
ack awk
15:40:32 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to say that what I hear Glenda talking about is not relying on color alone
15:40:41 [Glenda]
I agree with what alastair just said. This is about discerning/seeing an item compared to the immediate surroundings.
15:41:00 [erich_manser]
AWK: We want to make sure things like status indicator warnings, if text, would be 4.5:1
15:41:45 [allanj]
ack wayne
15:41:52 [erich_manser]
SC: Covers status and focus in SC I am working on
15:42:33 [erich_manser]
GS: Covers status and focus in SC I am working on
15:42:40 [alastairc]
So add to the SC text something like: "The visual presentation of icons or graphics that convey important information have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the background".
15:43:05 [AWK]
+1 AC's suggestion
15:43:13 [erich_manser]
WD: Need to see the line indicating the changes, that's what needs to be 4.5:1
15:43:36 [AWK]
But it doesn't cover the use case of colored elements within a graphic
15:43:37 [erich_manser]
GS: Proposes that we add 'with it's immediate surroundings' to the end of what's currently written
15:44:52 [erich_manser]
AWK: If I make a line graph with two lines that follow a grid, 1 dashed line and 1 solid line, that might satisfy what Wayne is saying
15:45:22 [Glenda]
Here is a timely example:
15:45:25 [allanj]
provided the lines are contrasting enough with the background
15:45:34 [Glenda]
scroll to bottom to see line graph
15:45:45 [erich_manser]
AWK: We're getting in to real specific language that risks not having broad application
15:46:38 [erich_manser]
JA: Glenda example just posted fails SC as Alastair has posted
15:47:01 [Glenda]
The yellow to white is 1.8 to 1
15:47:34 [erich_manser]
JA: The black text passes, for state names, but the white outlines, not so much
15:49:04 [erich_manser]
AWK: In state map situation, are we trying to differentiate between these different colors as well?
15:49:17 [erich_manser]
AWK: You can have one color that's touching many others
15:49:31 [erich_manser]
GS: It's okay, in those outlines, it's immediate surroundings
15:50:04 [erich_manser]
GS: I was actually looking at the line map at the very bottom, and just looking at the yellow, blue, red, and asking if they can all be 3:1 since they're all big things
15:51:00 [erich_manser]
AWK: On that same chart, do the grid lines need to be contrasted also?
15:51:04 [erich_manser]
GS: Is it important?
15:51:14 [erich_manser]
AWK: Argument could be made that it is
15:51:31 [allanj]
"The visual presentation of icons or graphics that convey important information have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the background".
15:51:36 [erich_manser]
JA: So going back to AC's text, have we conveyed what we're trying to say
15:52:05 [erich_manser]
JA: Does the language address all the things we've talked about regarding issues we have with the particular image
15:52:08 [erich_manser]
AWK: no
15:52:39 [Glenda]
Propose changing language to 'The visual presentation of important information in icons or graphics has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the immediate surrounding background.”
15:53:08 [erich_manser]
AC: We would almost have to define which elements are important to understanding
15:53:50 [erich_manser]
AC: Need to come up with some frame around discernibility to understanding
15:54:47 [erich_manser]
JA: What sort of language do we need to work in to Glenda's proposed language to address discernibility to understanding?
15:54:49 [Glenda]
Use COGA's important information definition:
15:54:49 [Glenda]
important information
15:54:50 [Glenda]
1. information the user may need to complete any action or task including an offline task.
15:55:15 [JohnRochford]
+1 to using COGA definition of important information
15:56:10 [erich_manser]
JA: And we need to differentiate this from just the basic color contrast SC
15:57:05 [erich_manser]
JA: Trying to see how we separate color alone to other information
15:57:19 [erich_manser]
WD: Why does it fail color alone?
15:57:28 [erich_manser]
JA: It's the yellow line, I can't see it
15:57:42 [erich_manser]
GS: That's discernment
15:58:03 [erich_manser]
AC: It's the definition of graphics that's the problem here
15:58:21 [erich_manser]
AC: when we get in to more complex graphics, they need to be discernible against each other
15:58:48 [erich_manser]
AC: If we consider blue line, red line, yellow line as graphics, one surely fails
15:58:56 [Glenda]
Suggest we handle it with examples (like this line chart and state chart for the election)
15:59:06 [erich_manser]
AC: if it's important to understanding, it should have sufficient contrast against it's background
15:59:29 [erich_manser]
GS: I propose that SC language suggested is within reason, and be supplemented with additional examples
16:00:04 [allanj]
AC isn't this covered under WCAG 1.4.3 Contrast (minimum)
16:00:16 [JohnRochford]
Gotta go, folks.
16:00:45 [erich_manser]
WD: Informational text has a foreground and a background
16:01:24 [erich_manser]
WD: IG is generally trying to depict something, so in the foreground you can tell what it's depicting against clearly a background
16:01:30 [AWK]
what would we say about:
16:01:33 [Glenda]
each informational element in an information graphic must have a color contrast of 4.5 to 1 with it’s immediate surrounding.
16:01:59 [erich_manser]
AC: In complex graphics, need to say each complex graphic is made up of parts of a graphic, and if important to understanding, needs to have it's contrast
16:03:07 [erich_manser]
GS: Inside an icon, may have black icon with white smiley face, and that face is immediately surrounding the black, so it works and is simple
16:03:20 [erich_manser]
WD: What if your background color is dark charcoal
16:03:38 [erich_manser]
JA: You could see the white smiley face, but would you know that anything is surrounding it
16:03:48 [erich_manser]
JA: Are we any closer on this one?
16:04:14 [erich_manser]
WD: If we combine what AC did with GS clarification
16:04:17 [allanj]
proposal: each informational element in an information graphic must have a color contrast of 4.5 to 1 with it’s immediate surrounding.
16:04:46 [erich_manser]
AC: This could use more description, I will tackle for next week
16:04:52 [AWK]
16:04:59 [Glenda]
then we will need to add 3 to 1…can we look at my stuff
16:05:14 [erich_manser]
JA: We keep saying 4.5:1, but 3:1 for larger things
16:05:42 [erich_manser]
16:06:46 [Glenda]
16:08:38 [shawn]
+1 for sticking with 4.5:1 and 3:1 (and 7:1) from WCAG 2.0
16:09:21 [erich_manser]
GS: Using 4.5:1 as default, and less comfortable but left it also for disabled elements
16:09:34 [laura]
1 for sticking with 4.5:1 and 3:1 (and 7:1) from WCAG 2.0
16:10:47 [erich_manser]
GS: What is the normal pixel size at 14 pt, I did not measure for that
16:11:38 [erich_manser]
JA: Alastair will work more on the description. Seems we have loose agreement on proposed language, though we did not have a vote
16:11:52 [erich_manser]
JA: Thinks description will tease out the size aspects
16:12:35 [erich_manser]
AWK: I have concerns, very complicated and talking about many complicated things. Worried what we come up with may fail dramatically
16:12:59 [erich_manser]
AWK: We may wind up relegating to AAA because it's not specific enough about what we need to do
16:14:26 [erich_manser]
GS: Thinking a lot about it, and hoping your concerns is a normal concern at the beginning, but that you would start to become more comfortable with it
16:14:54 [erich_manser]
GS: Comes back to questioning, why did you put that in the graphic, did you want somebody to see it or not?
16:15:27 [Glenda]
AWK, would you be willing to go with 3 to 1? and you just put borders around it…
16:15:36 [erich_manser]
AWK: Concerned about instances where there are many adjacent colors, and if one of those colors does not comply, the whole thing fails the SC
16:16:56 [erich_manser]
GS: I am not a designer, but I wonder if there are designers in the group
16:18:04 [erich_manser]
AC: I do work a lot with designers, and feel it's possible to do this, if we narrow and use patterns, labels
16:18:30 [Wayne]
16:18:35 [Wayne]
16:18:40 [erich_manser]
GS: It's being able to see the line, or to see the label. It's not getting in to interpreting the legend, but just merely it could enter my brain
16:18:44 [erich_manser]
AWK: agreed
16:19:08 [erich_manser]
GS: I would be willing to start with 3:1 if concern is high, or we could start with 4.5:1 and back down to 3:1 if needed
16:19:21 [erich_manser]
ack erich
16:19:46 [erich_manser]
AC: If anyone has come across examples (good or bad) please send to me
16:20:12 [erich_manser]
WD: THink the problem with IG from a visual point of view, they are important but cannot be changed programmatically
16:20:21 [erich_manser]
WD: there's no way with style that you can fix that
16:20:59 [erich_manser]
WD: I like AC's idea of narrowing it, I think we should narrow this to what we can see right now, with the risk or certainty we'll leave something out initially
16:21:24 [erich_manser]
GS: sending data visualizations example with Alastair
16:21:46 [Glenda]
Data Visualizations to consider: David McCandless
16:22:37 [erich_manser]
WD: we could look at Edward Tufte (sp?) examples also
16:22:41 [allanj]
Topic: interactive contrast
16:23:29 [erich_manser]
GS: Do we want to start with 4.5:1 or simplify and call everything 3:1 to start (would make it much easier, but not sure it's enough)
16:24:59 [alastairc]
AC: 3:1 might be ok with a minimum pixel width of 3px (maybe 2?), but with 1px width then 4.5:1 would be needed.
16:26:41 [shawn]
[ I wonder if information not conveyed by color alone covers the deisabled issue]
16:27:44 [shawn]
[ also with high contrast, it might be too hard to have sufficient change in contrast to be able to tell the difference between enabled and disabled ]
16:28:00 [allanj]
Erich: +1 to 3:1 for disabled elements
16:28:07 [allanj]
wd: +1 also
16:28:10 [AWK]
q+ to ask what the contrast ratio is for default browser controls when disabled
16:29:33 [allanj]
ack w
16:30:12 [erich_manser]
AWK: Do we know default contrast ratio of the browser for disabled elements?
16:30:16 [erich_manser]
GS: no
16:30:30 [erich_manser]
AWK: Are we comfortable saying you fail if you use the default?
16:30:44 [erich_manser]
GS: This would be a change from 2.0, since 2.0 lets you get away with the default
16:31:09 [Wayne]
16:31:24 [erich_manser]
GS: If we're trying to move a11y forward and see the focus, then it's not good enough, can we bring this forward and have the possibility of discussing with the browser vendors to make better
16:31:42 [allanj]
ack awk
16:31:42 [Zakim]
AWK, you wanted to ask what the contrast ratio is for default browser controls when disabled
16:32:11 [laura]
+1 to goodwitch
16:32:28 [allanj]
jim will create a chart of contrast for form elements and focus rings
16:35:37 [alastairc]
default outlines on inputs in Chrome: 2.14:1 for regular, 1.41:1 for disabled! (1px wide)
16:36:13 [shawn]
+1 for developing additional material, e.g., adding to existing Understanding docs -- and maybe more supporting material for the new SCs
16:36:43 [alastairc]
Quick test:
16:37:01 [allanj]
16:38:32 [alastairc]
Glenda - can you update the wiki with your contrast SC text? Not sure I saw the right one go past...
16:39:38 [erich_manser]
rrsagent: make minutes
16:39:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate erich_manser