<jeanne2> scribe: Shari
color contrast is not ready to show but they as a status report. when they last met they had Andrew participating and have been using his expertise to evaluate and expand on the current cc standards.
they believe that they have a way to bring in the old standards and align with current research without contradicting the old standards.
they don't want the standards to be published and then instantly have every cite be broken. they believe they can use the new research without breaking the old stuff. kudos to andrew for expanding our understanding.
JF: there has been a lot of discussion in AG working group on CC and how we measure. wouldn't new requirements go beyond the bronze bucket?
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about old stuff versus new stuff and Bronze
we are hoping that for purposes of bronze we can add value. the idea of bringing over the existing standards but perhaps bring over some value added to the standards. we don't want to be tied to them as pure standards or we are not adding any value to the bronze but not contradict existing standards.
<KimD> +1 to Janina - this hasn't been decided yet (how to "grandfather" entities into Silver)
the way we are behaving for color contrast is that for bronze the new standards will not break existing work or product.
chuck: is still for see hours of work before we have something to present on cc
Jeanne: let's take 15 more minutes and then move on to conformance work.
<jeanne2> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#
on tuesday's call we left off at orientation and reflow.
<jeanne2> SC 1.4.4 Resize text, SC 1.4.5 Images of Text, SC 1.4.9 Images of Text (No Exception), SC 1.4.8 Visual Presentation, SC 1.4.12 Text Spacing
<jeanne2> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Text_Style
<jeanne2> Low Vision User Requirements
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17lC7W9t-mV2ikRBlK4qhJN3Q13rA8yYZ7mcA-mcUqC8/edit
<Rachael> The link above is the typeface guideline suggestions from BBC.
the above is a new doc and came out of the original conformance prototype
lets looks through these issues and identify what needs to be prioritized.
we want to tie the results of conformance more closely to the experiences of pwd.
Peter: i've skimmed through the issues and the exceptions, it almost feels to me like the first exception is more of an issue
JS will move it an issue. Peter asked if we could reword it as well.
peter will put in IRC some new language for that one.
Note: if you don't have edit privileges on this doc please send Jeanne your email address and she will add you.
Let's dig into #3. it is a really important one that we identified months ago and has come up again in the point system proposals.
<jeanne2> Proposal to define scoring parameters https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit
<pkorn> "Conformance in WCAG 2.x is defined at the page & collection of pages level, and is difficult to apply to large, complex, and/or dynamic websites. Such sites update so rapidly they are impossible to guarantee they are 100% conformant - e.g. Facebook that updates tens of thousands of times a second, and so is impossible to test "
peter has added the language above.
peter wonders if there is a potential ranking that ties into what sc have potential user work arounds and if that is a useful tool for doing prioritization
when there is no possible way to get around a problem versus when there are things that a user can do to get around the issue.
i have a concern with this idea from a coga point of view...
clarify above - shari did not express the concern but didn't catch who was speaking.
<Chuck> Rachael was speaking
<JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-levels-head
JF: concerned about assumptions being made in doc. from 2.0 it clearly states that it is based not only on user needs but also the amount of effort required by content creater
this whole idea that it is only based on user needs is concerning because if it can't be achieved by the developer then it can't be scaled. so i am saying this is based on assumptions that are not 100% accurate.
chuck - i am going back to Peter's comment, the work around might have an impact on ranking. e.g. language of page
if a page doesn't provide the language, it is probably provided by the os.
rachael: with looking at the work around as a measure, how would we do that as it ages and new ones are put in?
technology and AT is changing at a rapid pace and we measure this by work around and then next year they have a work around how would we measure that as a standards body?
peter: i would use a slightly different example. we've seen the intro of automated captioning of speech recognitioin being built into android. i 5 years you can imagine everyone has it built in and you could posit that it is as good as any person. so, would you even need that criterion anymore?
<JF> +1 to ending the call
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) Default Present: Rachael, shari, janina, KimD, Chuck, jeanne, pkorn, JF, MichaelC, AngelaAccessForAll Present: (no one) Rachael shari janina KimD Chuck jeanne2 pkorn JF MichaelC AngelaAccessForAll Jan Regrets: Shawn Bruce Leonie Jake Found Scribe: Shari Inferring ScribeNick: shari Found Date: 23 Aug 2019 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]