Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

20 Apr 2017

See also: IRC log


allanj, steverep, AlastairC, JohnR, Laura, Shawn, Marla, ScottM, Wayne, Glenda, erich
Jim, erich


<allanj> scribe: Jim

reminder Joint LVTF & COGA call Mon 24 April. Topic: personalization

<allanj> COGA call 12 EST, 11CST

<allanj> open item 3

<Wayne> http://nosetothepage.org/FontTst.html

<erich> +1

<allanj> jim: perhaps we leave fonts out, to get the

<Wayne> +1

<allanj> ... SC in the document.

<erich> Scribe: erich

<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to suggest we try to come together on technology support wording

<shawn> +1 for not supporting giving a pass for technologies that don't support it !

SR: Claim is if technology can support user styles than the SC is a pass, and I have concerns with that

LC: We've had it both ways, that wording was insisted upon over the weekend

WD: I interpret it as if you are working with technology that has support for some browsers, than every single browser for which it has support has to work
... This does not deal with technologies for which there are no browsers that support
... Earlier approach was that if it was not allowed on one agent, then we couldn't require it on others

SR: Notes distinction between user agent support vs. technology support, sees that as the issue

<Glenda> 4. Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies: Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported. (See Understanding accessibility support.)

<allanj> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head

<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html

<laura> Hi Gregg: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0196.html

AC: He talks about major web technologies, to which we could add

SR: Big difference is we're giving a blanket pass with no stipulations behind it

JA: We have 13 versions of wording nobody can agree on

<laura> Proposal L text: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options#Proposal_L_text_reads:

JA: We want the want that talks about accessibility supported, and leaves out the technology stuff
... No matter what we say about the Fonts, until we get some metric, it's just going to spin

<Glenda> My vote: Go with “L” version. Dropping font for now (to get this SC in).

AC: Do we need to worry about spacing issues caused by replacing fonts?

+1 to Glenda

<laura> Up the spacing?

AC: If people have to leave a certain spacing around text, does it matter why?

<steverep> How about: No loss of content or functionality occurs when a user agent.... (Proposal D but replace mechanism with user agent), then use the bullets of J minus font for now

<JohnRochford> Dropping off now to attend a COGA call.

<JohnRochford> JohnRochford present+

WD: verbalizing potential metric formulation

<Glenda> I love this direction. Let’s leave font off…and see how far this SC can take us! It will sure be a step forward.

+1 font off (for now)

<laura> WebAIM Feedback: “The variations introduced by font family customization are, we believe, adequately covered by the manipulation of line, letter, and word spacing.”

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/254

<allanj> adapting text just changed - https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/288/files

moving over to AG call

<Wayne> quit

<ScottM> wayne just type /join ag

User Needs Document - publishing timeline, Issues

<shawn> Shawn to finish going through GitHub issues and public comments. Then go through the Issues in the draft where the TF planned to add info and see if they are easy enough to handle. Then decide if we can publish it as done (with the idea that we can update it later), or if we publish an updated Draft now and set a milestone to get back to it after the SCs settle down (like in 8+ months).

<allanj> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/AWK_adapting-text/guidelines/#adapting-text

<shawn> TF will need to review proposed changes.

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/288/commits/ab7b16c0ca5027863a0bca3837a4e64a30b358e8?diff=split

<allanj> Each of the following text styles of the page can be overridden with no loss of essential content, functionality or meaning.

<allanj> jf hasd "All font-families specified on the page can be overridden with no loss of essential content, functionality or meaning."'

<allanj> jim: remove the "technology" clause

interface affordance

<allanj> glenda: table borders and bullets contrast

<Glenda> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/user-interface-component-contrast-minimum_ISSUE-10/guidelines/index.html#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum

<allanj> what do we call table borders?

<allanj> visual affordance?

<allanj> table borders are not and interactive user interface component

<allanj> sh: graphical components for table borders?

<allanj> sh: can we consider table borders as a graphic for 1.4.12

<allanj> gs: fine with moving table borders to 1.4.12

<allanj> laura: would need a definition of graphical object. tho already used in the SC.

<allanj> jim: the arrows used in https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/user-interface-component-contrast-minimum_ISSUE-10/guidelines/index.html#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum in lower left hand corner

<allanj> ... are they user interface?

<allanj> gs: if graphic supplied by author then it falls with Issue 9 graphics contrast

<allanj> ... if the image, border, created by user agent then issue 9

<allanj> http://html5doctor.com/the-details-and-summary-elements/

<allanj> jim: video element, audio element controls should fall into issue 9 because the controls are created by the user agent.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/04/20 17:07:41 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: allanj steverep AlastairC JohnR Laura Shawn Marla ScottM Wayne Glenda erich
Found Scribe: Jim
Found Scribe: erich
Inferring ScribeNick: erich
Scribes: Jim, erich

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 20 Apr 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/04/20-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]