14:55:50 RRSAgent has joined #lvtf 14:55:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-irc 14:55:52 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:55:52 Zakim has joined #lvtf 14:55:54 Zakim, this will be 14:55:54 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:55:55 Meeting: Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 14:55:55 Date: 08 December 2016 14:56:04 Chair: JimAllan 14:56:19 regrets+ JohnR 14:56:25 agenda? 14:56:34 who is here? 14:56:41 zakim, who is here? 14:56:41 Present: (no one) 14:56:43 On IRC I see RRSAgent, allanj, shawn, MichaelC, trackbot 14:56:49 present+ 14:57:03 s/who is here? 14:57:13 s/who is here?/ 14:57:28 rrsagent, make minutes 14:57:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html allanj 14:57:40 rrsagent, set logs public 14:58:34 s/s// 14:59:21 s/who is here?/ 15:14:28 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:14:28 Present: allanj 15:16:02 Agenda+ SC Manager 15:16:15 Agenda+ LVTF FAQs 15:16:30 Agenda+ Close Text Size 15:16:38 Agenda+ Finish low vision requirements - 15:16:51 Agenda+ Overlaps/reconcilliation between LFTF and COGA 15:38:07 agenda+ December meetings 15:39:12 agenda 6 = December meetings https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/LVTF-telecons/results 16:00:03 erich has joined #lvtf 16:00:05 alastairc has joined #lvtf 16:00:24 Scribe: Erich 16:00:30 Glenda has joined #lvtf 16:00:30 present+ Erich, AlastairC, Shawn 16:01:12 laura has joined #lvtf 16:02:53 scribe+ erich 16:02:55 present+ Glenda, Laura 16:03:39 zakim, open item 6 16:03:39 agendum 6. "December meetings https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/LVTF-telecons/results" taken up 16:04:42 JA: open to meeting on the 22nd if others are 16:05:22 AC: likely to miss at least 1 due to work 16:05:27 GS: will be off 16:05:45 SH: if everyone could go update the survey to reflect, that would help 16:06:03 I can attend 22 but not 29th 16:06:26 SH: Survey currently suggests next week (12/15) we are good, but the following 2 weeks are questionable 16:06:27 zakim, open item 1 16:06:27 agendum 1. "SC Manager" taken up [from allanj] 16:06:44 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1#Current_SC_Managers 16:07:18 JA: This page talks about various roles and responsibilities of SC manager 16:08:08 Wayne has joined #lvtf 16:08:12 JA: Alastair, Glenda, Laura, David MacDonald have picked up some SC to shepherd, so we have 6 of 11 covered 16:08:42 present+ Laura 16:08:51 JA: John Rochford has agreed also to take up any (3) that overlap with COGA group SC 16:10:49 JA: Seeing All Interface Elements is Issue 80, so will clarify with David MacDonald that we have the correct one 16:11:07 See All Elements #80 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80 16:11:25 issue 10 (interactive images), Issue 78 (spacing), Issue 80 (seeing all interface elements) overlap with COGA 16:12:34 JA: Alastair, was there a procedure to sign up? 16:12:36 AC: NO 16:12:45 JA: Do you need GitHub account? 16:13:29 AC: Likely that we'll just be keeping in the wiki, and place link to current version of the wiki on GitHub 16:14:37 JA: For example, on Font Family, rather than having SC text in the description, I would write 'here is the latest version' and link back to the wiki? 16:15:04 Example: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9#issuecomment-265720386 16:15:12 AC: yes, i've already done this on Informational Graphics Contrast, noting anything I've changed in it 16:16:11 GS: I like the idea of including in the description, so people don't necessarily need to read the comments to get it 16:17:25 JA: I will wait to hear from Josh and Andrew, and then I can go update and link back to the wiki 16:17:34 WD: I have a process question 16:17:36 present+ wayne 16:18:26 WD: When we were developing we had a few contending statements of the criteria, and it looks like in the larger community we'll have that again, so are we going to have the possibility of having take 1, take 2, take 3 in the SC statement, or how are we going to do that? 16:19:25 AC: That's why I suggested SC manager, so that there is really 1 person looking after it 16:19:53 AC: If fresh eyes are used, a concern that they would lack the history of how a SC got to that point 16:20:18 WD: So part of the thing as a manager is to keep the most updated comments 16:20:46 WD: I understand 16:21:06 JA: Another thing, I believe all discussion will happen on WCAG, so need to watch that list 16:22:03 JA: It's imperative for us to be involved in the WCAG group and to comment 16:22:44 AC: I think when an SC has only positive comments and feedback has died down, they may open to a survey 16:23:15 LC: Participating in the surveys is really important too, there's one out there now on the Contrast issues, if people haven't filled that out they should 16:24:04 agenda+ WCAG survey New SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/ 16:25:11 WD: I have difficulty with some of those really long WCAG threads 16:25:15 Email archive: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/ 16:25:25 WCAG List in Thread: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/thread.html 16:25:37 EM: I agree, and point of regard can be tricky also on where to pick up the discussion 16:27:30 zakim, open item 7 16:27:30 agendum 7. "WCAG survey New SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/" taken up [from allanj] 16:27:46 Shawn: I find it easier to read long threads from the archives. You can get a list "by thread" then read a message and select "[ Next in thread ]" 16:28:36 JA: Here is the survey, it is also useful to review what people are saying in the comments 16:28:39 Results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results 16:28:47 q+ 16:28:54 ack g 16:29:35 agenda? 16:29:43 GS: Was having a hard time with how to do the SC work, but sharing a Google sheet with each comment and how I plan to handle 16:29:49 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17uFopFpjdpCB1yHgkz11fEJ8IGYfPioGsvFUX1Zq96k/edit#gid=0 16:29:49 close item 1 16:30:03 close item 6 16:32:42 JA: Thank you for sharing that Glenda. Let's please all jump in and add your comments 16:33:05 zakim, open item 5 16:33:05 agendum 5. "Overlaps/reconcilliation between LFTF and COGA" taken up [from allanj] 16:33:27 JA: Let's go to Overlap, let me add the link 16:33:29 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=1491179377 16:34:25 JA: For those who are SC Managers, and COGA has a similar sort of thing 16:35:16 AC: The first 5 are a current AAA issue 16:35:40 JA: And this table also has a summary of all the new SC's proposed by different people, and what level if modifications 16:36:06 JA: There is more to this spreadsheet than just overlaps, but wanted to focus, to see where we have commonalities 16:36:31 WD: In the case between Issue 8 and 51, this has a whole bunch 16:37:38 AC: Issue 51 on COGA appears to be an update to 1.4.8, so best to get that sorted before SC manager does any major work on it 16:37:49 action: jim to contact David update issue 8 to 80. 80 is more current 16:37:49 Created ACTION-90 - Contact david update issue 8 to 80. 80 is more current [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-15]. 16:38:52 zakim, next item 16:38:52 agendum 2. "LVTF FAQs" taken up [from allanj] 16:39:25 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/LVTF_2.1_SC_FAQ 16:40:14 LC: I saw that Lisa had an FAQ for the COGA group, thought it might be a good idea for us too 16:41:20 LC: Many of the duplicates as Glenda has seen, questions that come up repeatedly, can be included 16:42:36 WD: angry about Issue 8, feels it should be scratched 16:42:46 JA: That one is closed, I closed it a few days ago 16:43:35 Topic: Issues 8 and 80 16:43:37 AC: Would say the same about Issue 80, thinks it's a duplicate 16:43:45 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/8 16:43:47 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80 16:44:08 WD: Should we do a resolution to just remove that? 16:44:22 AC: In GitHub terms "closed" means you've dealt with it, it's gone 16:45:16 JA: Issue 80 says users can see and interact with all content..., we're saying this is covered by reflow and text size 16:46:12 WD: So it seems we want to keep 80 and not 8 16:46:20 80 SC Text: Users can see and interact with all content and user interface controls presented visually, including when users have changed display settings such as text size. 16:46:35 JA: So Alastair is saying this one can be closed because it's covered 16:46:59 AC: Yes, I think they even use those graphics in the description of resize 16:47:20 WD: We could drop it 16:47:24 JA: Let's verify 16:49:07 JA: If I put the benefits example, we can close Issue 80? 16:49:19 +1 16:49:29 +1 16:49:34 +1 16:49:39 +1 16:50:26 RESOLUTION: Move benefits from Issue 80 to Issue 77 and close Issue 80 - https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80 16:50:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:50:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html shawn 16:50:57 rrsagent, make minutes 16:50:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html laura 16:52:20 action: Jim to write DavidM to say issue 80 is closed and superseded by 77 and 58 16:52:20 Created ACTION-91 - Write davidm to say issue 80 is closed and superseded by 77 and 58 [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-15]. 16:52:50 zakim, next item 16:52:50 agendum 3. "Close Text Size" taken up [from allanj] 16:53:35 JA: This was one piece of information about very old SC from back in September, that has also been superceded by several and didn't want people spending time trying to deal with it 16:54:02 +111 16:54:52 zakim, next item 16:54:52 agendum 4. "Finish low vision requirements -" taken up [from allanj] 16:55:01 WD: The resize content that Alastair did really covered it globally 16:55:38 JA: Last week we discussed communicating to WCAG that these are our SC's, but that more are needed 16:55:41 [ Shawn hopes to work on the low vision user requirements over vacation ] 16:56:38 AC: It would be helpful to highlight the things which haven't been tackled yet 16:57:15 +1 for documenting what's not included in the 2.1 SCs and what needs are met in UAAG 2.0 and if there are any others not included in either yet 16:57:16 WD: The pushback seem to be getting is on the user agent side 16:57:31 AC: Some of that pushback was coming from organizations which have user agents 16:57:39 +1 for documenting what's not included in the 2.1 SCs and what needs are met in UAAG 2.0 and if there are any others not included in either yet 16:58:04 +1 16:58:13 +1 16:58:16 +1 16:58:25 agenda? 16:58:42 zakim, close item 7 16:58:42 agendum 7, WCAG survey New SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/, closed 16:58:44 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 16:58:44 4. Finish low vision requirements - [from allanj] 16:59:12 I agree with Alastair, let’s focus on moving our proposed SC forward 16:59:18 current Requirements document - http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html 17:00:03 agree with focusing on moving our proposed SC forward 17:00:42 JA: Shawn was going to work on requirements over vacation, so if anyone has thoughts, contact her 17:01:19 SH: I can plug away at that, but not take taskforce time until stuff settles down, so can keep a list of what open issues are, but not slow down the SC work 17:01:25 s/Some of that pushback was coming from organizations which have user agents/some pushback about including user agent and authoring tools, some on using incubation for sliver 17:02:08 JA: That is the agenda, we have lots to do and SC to shepherd. Happy to let us go early to get to it 17:03:21 AC: Question for the group - could you see VR having an impact on other SC? 17:03:28 topic: graphics contrast 17:03:34 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0713.html 17:05:28 GS: One thing I keep bouncing back and forth, I love where you said VR isn't content, it's a monitor. I am leaning in that direction, but we've been talking about static images, as opposed to moving images. What about exceptions for live video, how do I describe that? 17:05:43 http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/jet/jetCookbook.html?component=pieChart&demo=default 17:05:43 AC: James pinged me off list, and has an example 17:06:09 AC: Basically a pie chart, but if you mouse over to it, it has pop-ups that have the label and the value 17:06:31 AC: This is an interactive version of the plain pie chart 17:06:39 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/index.php?title=Informational_Graphic_Contrast_(Minimum)&oldid=2609 17:06:41 AC: I changed the test procedure in Graphics Contrast 17:07:02 AC: To say check whether there is an input agnostic way 17:07:16 AC: Not sure we need to change the text, but open to others thoughts 17:07:55 New part of the test criteria: Check whether there is an input agnostic way of showing more information (e.g. pop-overs or enhanced contrast shown with mouse, touch or keyboard interaction), if so that element can be skipped. 17:08:26 WD: This is much like what we see in the higher education realm 17:08:29 q+ 17:08:39 AC: Oracle example is good 17:09:01 overlap between graphics and interactive 17:09:37 ack g 17:10:31 GS: My brain keeps going back and forth between interactive and immersive content. Remember things like Second Life. What if I'm doing VR to walk through a video of downtown Rome 17:10:51 NB: Good article on VR accessibility: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20161031/284491/VR__accessibility.php 17:11:11 GS: Maybe we want to limit this to 2D images, static images, I don't want to get in to video. I think will be a whole other area we need to consider, and I don't think we have the time for it 17:12:05 AC: We could possibly even say things like 'for a photo-realistic environment' 17:12:26 AC: we have plenty in WCAG already that covers video 17:13:00 GS: though nothing that covers real vs. fake things, don't have time to go there 17:14:38 Sensory: Non-text content that is primarily intended to create a visual sensory experience has no minimum contrast requirement. 17:14:49 I'll add that to the graphics contrast SC 17:15:14 Should we add that we want to defer VR to silver? 17:16:55 +1 for your attention moved to the scolling then have to find your way back to the line 17:17:33 +1 for your attention moved to the scolling then have to find your way back to the line 17:18:15 GS: Do we want to document that we're moving VR to Silver, or add to agenda to discuss next time 17:19:41 +1 to defer VR to silver 17:19:53 +1 17:19:58 +1 defer VR to silver 17:20:02 +1 17:20:23 RESOLUTION: Defer any VR SC's to Silver group 17:21:38 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/LVTF_2.1_SC_FAQ 17:23:43 zakim, make minutes 17:23:43 I don't understand 'make minutes', erich 17:23:51 zakim, generate minutes 17:23:51 I don't understand 'generate minutes', erich 17:24:02 rrsagent, generate minutes 17:24:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html erich 17:24:11 zakim, make minutes 17:24:11 I don't understand 'make minutes', allanj 17:25:36 zakim, please part 17:25:36 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been allanj, Erich, AlastairC, Shawn, Glenda, Laura, wayne 17:25:36 Zakim has left #lvtf 17:25:56 rrsagent, make minutes 17:25:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html allanj 17:26:18 rrsagent please part 17:26:24 rrsagent, please part 17:26:24 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-actions.rdf : 17:26:24 ACTION: jim to contact David update issue 8 to 80. 80 is more current [1] 17:26:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-irc#T16-37-49 17:26:24 ACTION: Jim to write DavidM to say issue 80 is closed and superseded by 77 and 58 [2] 17:26:24 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-irc#T16-52-20