<jallan> close item 2
<jallan> close item 3
<shawn> scribe: JohnRochford_
<jallan> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC
Jim: People are working on
issues. We need more than one person per issue.
... We (he) will get something out about that.
Steve: Will continue to work on On Hover.
Jim: Language changes for On Hover became tough to follow toward the end.
<alastairc> Informal feedback on reflow: Could do with a paragraph in the intent to explain the 2D exception. I.e. what can reflow (text and layout), what can't (images, tables), talking through the logical "these things lose information/meaning when reflowed".
Steve: Language for On Hover is in the SC.
Jim: Showing SC to people who have no idea what we are talking about is a good thing.
Steve: Is the whole CR at risk?
Shawn: It could go either in or out.
Steve: Alastair: adjacent "colors" rather than "color" may be difficult to parse.
<jallan> http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#non-text-contrast
Alastair: For things that can have borders, the SC may be overspecifying.
Glenda: If we need to rework this, let's look to 2.2.
<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-WCAG21-20170816/#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum
<Glenda> “Essential visual identifiers of user interface components have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the immediate surrounding color(s), except for the following situations:”
Shawn: Anything that was not in
the last publication has to be marked at risk.
... ... regardless of issues raised
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note about "at risk" and to say next...
Glenda: "Surrounding" could mean either outside or inside.
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#at-risk
Jim: There is no "at risk" anywhere in the document.
Shawn: 1.3.5 is identified as "at risk".
<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#at-risk
<shawn> 1.3.5 Identify Purpose and the referenced term region;
<shawn> 1.4.11 Non-Text Contrast and the referenced term state;
<shawn> 2.2.7 Animation from Interactions and the referenced term motion animation;
<Glenda> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#non-text-contrast
<Glenda> EDITOR'S NOTE
<Glenda> This success criterion is at risk.
Glenda: There's an editor's note.
Jim: evaluating the images
Alastair: Ideally, it would be great if people find examples that are easy but difficult to evaluate. Inter-rater reliability could be determined by multiple testers.
Steve: What's the problem with inside and outside boundaries?
Alastair: You have to contrast the color of a box and the background color and the focus indicator.
Steve: Thickness of border, if
significant, will be noticed by LV people.
... If a border is really thin, it won't be seen no matter what
color it is.
<jallan> sr: depends on colors and border... and change of border size on change of state (focus)
Alastair: We are too late to change the SC test for 2.1, but we could contribute examples.
Steve: If you consider that border as a conveyer of information, then we have a problem.
<jallan> ac: in understanding change the unit change for the state change to be the entire component
Steve: We have to determine the
whole thing as the component itself.
... The example of a black button on a white background, if you
make the border a dashed button, most people with LV should be
able to see it.
Scott: I agree we have to
determine the whole thing at the component itself.
... An high-level explanation can help people understand the
intent of an SC.
Jim: If we could get someone to implement 2 color CSS outline, that would be fabulous.
<jallan> open item 8
<Zakim> steverep, you wanted to ask what the problem with UI component contrast is?
Jim: Silver has its own set of tracks. Is there going to be a 2.2, or will there be supplemental guidance.
Thoughts?
Shawn: SC may not meet all
requirements to be included in WCAG.
... Supplemental guidance can be quite important.
... Thoughts?
<jallan> as part of User Needs document add supplemental guidance on each need?
Alastiar: In response to Glenda's expression of concern about COGA SC, that it may not be as easy to understand as LV SC, says the COGA SC issues are about UI and about content.
<jallan> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page
<shawn> Alastair: .... e.g., "When appropriate..." can't put that in WCAG, yet could put in Supplemental Guidance
Jim: Our Wiki pages are our
institutional memory.
... I'm thinking of adding supplemental guidance to the user
needs.
... ... whether or not it becomes an SC.
... Please everybody, review the understanding docs.
<jallan> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC
<alastairc> Suggested next steps:
<alastairc> 1. Review previous (not included) SC and requirements.
<alastairc> 2: Review COGA's structure for their suppliment.
<alastairc> 3: Suggest structure & content.
<shawn> +1 to *integrated* Supplemental Guidance, not separate for COGA, LV, etc.
<jallan> rssagent, make 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) Succeeded: s/Non-Contrast Understanding/Non-Text Contrast Understanding/ Succeeded: s/WCAG 2.1/WCAG 2.2/ WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Jim, Shawn._JohnR, ScottM, SteveRep) Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Present+ Jim, Shawn, JohnR, ScottM, SteveRep Present: Glenda Jim JohnRochford ScottM Shawn SteveRep SteveRepsher AlastairC Regrets: Laura Erich Found Scribe: JohnRochford_ Inferring ScribeNick: JohnRochford_ WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 01 Feb 2018 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]