<shawn> scribe: Shawn
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER:
Jon: Ok, maybe in the end they
could identify it, but what about the difficulty and cognitive
load?
... and strain, stress, amount of time. some give up and get
frustrated.
JoAnne: Agree. Questioning how they were identifiyable. If by default, maybe not an effective user experience. If discovered just because I happended to hover over it. We need to provide more visual information to provide more efficient user experience.
JimA: boundary of usability &
accessibility. e.g., more time and effort makes it less usable
for spefici users, thus an accessibility problem.
... Good for us to provide feedback.
Jon: Example where helpful: we
have failure for links that use vcolor and not contrast, only
in paragrpah of text. Sent example [to list] but it's not
within the paragraph. Example of where color is being used as
the indicator.
... possible outcome might be not relying on color even if it's
not within a paragraph.
... about identifying affordance. we do have some SC, e.g.,
link purpose.
... have had people say "that's fine, people can follow the
link and then go back"
... my problem is might get the same push-back for
affordance
... it's much more of a problem for people with cognitive &
low vision to "just go back"
... Think about for Silver if not for 2.2
JimA: A broad SC on affordance? or need to break it up by color, borders, etc.?
JonA: dunno...
JoAnne: If we go down road of breaking things up, is that away from the Silver approach?
JonA: In Silver, measuring the functional access. Maybe one of those measurements can be the time it takes or other measurement criteria.
SLH: the stress factor
JimA: Neilsen study long ago showed low vision user took longer than screen reader user
JoAnne: measurements would help attention to low vision needs, rather than diving into specifics (like were going down with 2.x criteria)
JonA: Looking at the material
design, says "buttons should indicate that they can trigger an
action" under heading "identifieable" Then they should be
findable among other elements., They say buttons should be
clear.
... seems like the guidance is there, but they don't follow
through. [what they say about buttons]
... they say in here that should use outline for ones that are
more important
JimA: What they say in materials, versus what the disclaim to users. Seems @@ more discernable than in the resersach.
JonA: [example of buttons] Text I
assume is not a button because the text next to it has border
for affordance.
... Challenge I have with keyboard is lose track of: did the
background change becuse of the keyboard focus? [Confuses when
background is used to indicate things like primary path versus
secondary path]
JimA: They keep getting away from
the basic things.
... maybe make that clear in requirements docs
JoAnne: Try to do custom tings to overcome the user agent, but sometimes makes it worse.
JimA: UA issues - e.g., in most browsers, @@ and focus rings fail contrast
SLH: Are concerns with the study getting adequately communicated?
JonA: I think so. I recommend not
to discourage studies. Want to invite collaboration so that we
can help them make it most worth their effort.
... If a study is done in the way we are comforable with, then
we can use it to make decisions about Silver.
JimA: Pitch to Google like we did to WebAIM's low vision survey? Maybe say: next time, we'd like to ... to get our issues addressed.
JonA: Yes, research would be benefitial. We'd like to collaborate/talk about future studies so we can use them for our criteria. We want to feel comfortable with then methods that are used. We request to work together - discuss methods beforehand.
JimA: Can ask - welcoming
gesture.
... While the study says participants could do it. However,
people not comfortable with that. What aare the issues? Was it
the types of low vision? Or we're mot critical or what?
JonA: Initially need qualitive
analysis. then quantative if you know where to lookk.
... I think what happened in the study design.... can you
identify this button: Yes or No. I guess that's all they were
initially loooking for. They realize now @@
JimA: Yes I can -- but how much itme and effort to do it?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say to researchers, to readers
SLH: @@ concerns with it?
... @@ AG
JimA: Jon only one who
... Jon only one who's said anything. Any discussion in AG? Not
seeing feedback on Jons comments. NOt sure if AG gets it? Maybe
LVTF needs to do more formal communcation with AG WG.
JonA: Think AlastairC wrote on the list. I want to be careful how we go about it.
SLH: +1 to be supportive (even though needs to point out flaws)
<jon_avila> scribe: Jon_avila
<shawn> Jon: Maybe talk about material design
JimA: might be reasonable thing
to bring them into a call and get a group to seriously share
ourn concerns and issues
... good idea to share with people who have low vision day in
and day out
... we are good on this topic
Shawn: other topics are color wheel and updated images.
<shawn> new text -- "The Task Force decided to keep the original images, because users do not need to distinguish the slices from each other. The purpose is to show that colors look different to different people."
JimA: Laura redid color wheel for
contrast requirements. Last week on call we decided that it
wasn't important to see individual but to really show that
different people see color different ways and so we decided we
didn't need white boundaries
... we created wiki page to explain that rationale
... wanted to get feedback from Jon and JoAnn. She had
mentioned white lines made it harder
Shawn: I would add -- that adding the white complicates and increase visual complexity and makes it uncomfortable to look at images.
JoAnn: differentiation between
shades - the white complicates how things are located and how I
see the wheel. Really complicates visual experience for
me.
... the white makes no difference to me personally in
understanding what other see when it comes to wheel
<shawn> JonA: Don't have preference personally. First is more smooth. White interrupts it a little bit.
shawn: with just the black lines
there isn't enough contrast. You don't need to differentiate --
you only need to get the gestalt
... Do you are with that.
<shawn> JonA: The point is not to differeneite between the slices of the pie. So white not provide value. The point is to compare what people see. So maybe to make that easier, place one wheel inside of the other.
JoAnn: could we have comparative images.
Shawn: could take first wheel and put in other that might show a better comparison or even more side by side.
<shawn> JonA: Don't need to do that. But might be easy to try it, and see what we think.
shawn: right now we have 4 wheel. Now we would have 3 wheel. Make full color and stick it in the middle of each of those.
JimA: might be interesting. As for rationale -- we all agree that we don't need to separate pieces of pie as they don't have any meaning.
RESOLUTION: Use color wheels with black lines and not with white and black lines for reasons discussed.
JimA: Cite resolution on wiki page as well
JimA: Listing is complete for
UAAG requirements for user needs. Shawn and I will work to
merge that and get into main document. Just to let people
review and let them note it's there.
... thanks to all you contributed JoAnn and Eric.
... Anything else to talk about?
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 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/Joa:/JonA:/ Present: Shawn JoAnne Jon jon_avila Regrets: Laura Jason Found Scribe: Shawn Inferring ScribeNick: shawn Found Scribe: Jon_avila Inferring ScribeNick: jon_avila Scribes: Shawn, Jon_avila ScribeNicks: shawn, jon_avila Found Date: 30 May 2019 People with action items: 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]