See also: IRC log
<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20lvtf
<laura> Scribe List: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List
<laura> Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
<scribe> Scribe: Glenda
Jim: David MacDonald has a spreadsheet that lists (on the last tab) SC’s that did not make the WCAG 2.1 cut. Let’s review to make sure it is accurate for LVTF proposals.
<shawn> [ Shawn with her WAI outreach hat on has been considering sharing info with the world on what did not get into WCAG 2.1 ]
Shawn: From WAI Outreach, so we want to explain WCAG 2.1 has these SC that are in (and these SC that did not make). Is it useful to include the ones that did not make from a best practice perspective? Or is the ROI not good, too much confusion?
Alastair: good thing to do, but time it after people have a stronger sense of what is going in.
<shawn> Glenda: When define what didn't make it, can help people understand what's out of scope. Good idea. Agree timing, not first priority
Jim: Lisa recommends a best practices document for things that did not make it into 2.1.
<JohnRochford> Lisa already has that doc in progress.
<JohnRochford> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit#
Shawn: was Lisa thinking of a coga focus, or would it be broader.
Alastair: hoping it would be
wider than coga. An incubation for WCAG 2.2 or 2.3.
... we haven’t mapped out how to handle user agent
requirements
John: I think it could be expanded to include other groups like LVTF and MATF.
<alastairc> I think this was the place for future SC? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Potential_Accessibility_Guidelines
<laura> Potential Accessibility Guidelines: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Potential_Accessibility_Guidelines
Jim: anyone want to take a first pass at David MacDonald’s spreadsheet to see if there is anything that is missing or needs to be updated? Jim is pasting in link now.
Jim: some of the items listed as “not accepted” are actually folded in to some of the proposed SC. Also, there are some that never got written up…so it would be good to add them. So others can see remaining gaps.
Shawn: when I get back to the User Requirements document, we can add needs/gaps in there too.
<steverep> Cannot view Google docs behind corporate walls... I'll have to look later
<JohnRochford> TOR is your friend.
Jim: volunteers to review David MacDonald’s spreadsheet (of what didn’t make) by grouping the LVTF items so it will be easier to review.
<alastairc> Next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivelent).
John: COGA is planning on starting with user needs first in their doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit
Jim: aside, I did a webinar on the evils of horizontal scrolling (for the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired)
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspectives/customizable.html
shawn: cool that the Perspectives video also uses the “toaster” example to explain the importance of individuals being able to customize / personalize settings
<alastairc> ACTION: Jim's next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Jim's'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/track/users>.
<alastairc> ACTION: allanj to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Error finding 'allanj'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/track/users>.
<allanj> ACTION: Jim to write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-minutes.html#action03]
<allanj> ACTION: Jim to write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (LV) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from Lisa (or an equivalent). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Write next step after a review, would be to gather info from the (lv) user-requirements, and the content requirements, then use those to fill in the doc from lisa (or an equivalent). [on Jim Allan - due 2017-09-14].
JIm: Understanding docs are ready to be worked on. See https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC
<steverep> Feel free to ask me if you need GitHub or git help
Jim: AG chairs want Understanding docs ready before TPAC, so we can easily publish a good PWD shortly after TPAC
Glenda: suggest that the SC manager draft the Understanding doc…and send an email to LVTF when you are ready for review.
Steve: believe we should be deep into Techniques (and Understanding should be well formed)
Alastair: agrees, we should have Understanding done, and be working on Techniques before and at TPAC
Steve: recommend making Understanding doc reviews part of this call before TPAC (so we can have LVTF approval on Understanding docs)
Jim: how should be track comments?
Alastair: Minor comments to the list. Big Changes - make a fork within Github and make changes there, and make pull request.
Steve: create a branch off the branch, ask Steve if you need help
<laura> Allowing for Spacing Override: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Allowing_for_Spacing_Override
Jim: There is a technique’s template (posted on the LVTF wiki) at (Jim pasting in URL)
<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Template
<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Instructions
<laura> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques
<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Writing_WCAG_Techniques_-_Notes
<allanj> main AG techniques page https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques
<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask about images in Understanding
Steve: If you put images in understanding, do we have rules of what they can or cannot include? Like screenshots.
<shawn> Glenda: Allows for screen shot. Just need good description.
Steve: this is a copyright question related to screenshots
Shawn: make it generic, so you don’t identify a specific site
Jim: could keep images on the wiki
Alastair: I may be able to have a designer help with some of the images we need a generic version of
<JohnRochford> Must go, folks. Ciao.
Jim: thank you Laura for tagging all the LVTF issues
<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20is%3Aopen%20lvtf
Glenda: How do we handle the request to remove 4.5 to 1 and just go with 3 to 1 on “Graphics Contrast” and “User Interface Component”?
<laura> 2.1 Issues labeled LVTF: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/labels/LVTF
Alastair: I’d like to catch up on the comments and discuss this at the next LVTF meeting
<allanj> add agenda item next week...
<allanj> 3:1 vs 4.5:1 for UI and graphics
Steve: adding future agenda items like the 4.5 to 1 versus 3 to 1.
<allanj> borders, what's a graphical object
<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to add more generically, we should have resolutions here for changes we want to SC
<allanj> gs: thought I need 4.5:1 to "see" the random control. the need for higher contrast on text is because consuming at a rapid rate.
<allanj> .... why glenda softened on the 3.:1 issue
Steve: warrents research
<allanj> +1 to Steve, the reasoning for 3:1 also need research
Steve: complicated mathematical diagram that you need to follow needs research
Glenda: difference between rapidly reading text (and needing to see fine differences in letters)…versus staring at a chart. Do humans really “scan” complex graphs.
<laura> Aries Arditi is the researcher
Steve: Engineers need to “scan” and compare complex graphs, so I don’t buy it without research.
<allanj> yes, you are scanning text, etc to gain content. works the same way when using the UI, if I am scanning/skimming the UI for perform a function... why should I have to look harder because of poor contrast on the UI component
<alastairc> The point from Gregg was (I think) that we read text quickly, so need reasonably high contrast compared to noticing a graphic is there.
<allanj> sr: cognitive argument, going to take years to get research either way ... 3:1 or 4.5:1
Steve: you don’t have enough research to say that 4.5 to 1 is not needed for complex graphics.
<allanj> be careful about research argument.
Alastair: this research could take significant time. Consider falling back to 3 to 1. May have to restrict it to not include very, very complext graphs. What about gradiations of color.
<allanj> gordon legge: Bottom line: Contrast requirements for form controls should be equivalent to contrast requirements for text. https://www.w3.org/2017/06/15-lvtf-minutes.html
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net
<allanj> https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/interview-brian-suda/
<laura> Gordon Legge’s Forwarded message : https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2017Jun/0054.html
<allanj> https://vimeo.com/109208423 Brian Suda - designing with data
<laura> Legge: “If we equate individual text letters and form controls for visual size and proximity of nearby images, there is no reason to believe that contrast demands will be different.”
<laura> Legge: “In fact, one could make the argument that poor contrast can be a greater problem for form controls. Text is usually binary--black on white. As long as any part of the text character is above threshold, the whole symbol is likely to be above threshold. Sometimes, form controls use grayscale coding. Even if the bounding contour is above the viewer's contrast threshold, it may be the case that information coded with grayscale shading may be below thresh[CUT]
<laura> Legge: “Bottom line: Contrast requirements for form controls should be equivalent to contrast requirements for text.”
Jim: leading researchers clearly have said this contrast is just as important for non-text essential information.
<allanj> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUlonNewGk
<allanj> ^^^ Rethinking Color and Contrast - Jared Smith ID24 2017
Alastiar: sceptical of this,
<laura> Rethinking Color and Contrast – Jared Smith : #ID24 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtUlonNewGk
Alastair: there are some oddities…but looking across all the different groups of low vision, color blind, older vision…be careful making assumptions. We have a solid baseline.
<allanj> Create research issues section on Research wiki page
Alastair: color vision can be very, very different for people with low vision (even if they have color vision)
<allanj> hmm, contrast vs acuity limit
Steve: I’ll reach out to my doctor about a contrast test, with little color dots that you try to put in order from darkest to lightest. There is a measure that comes out of it.
<allanj> sr: black on white vs white on black have same contrast level, but for many white on black is difficult to read. glare sensitivity.
<laura> bye
trackbot, end meeting
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) Succeeded: s/priotiy/priority/ Succeeded: s/tidea/idea/ Succeeded: s/ cool that we both use the/ cool that the Perspectives video also uses the/ Default Present: Jim, JohnR, SteveR, Glenda, Laura, shawn, alastairc, JohnRochford, steverep Present: Glenda Jim JohnRochford Laura alastairc shawn steverep Found Scribe: Glenda Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda Found Date: 07 Sep 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/09/07-lvtf-minutes.html People with action items: allanj jim WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]