TPAC review...Plans for the rest of the year

LVTFers,
as you know I will be not be at meetings until November.
As a start please read the minutes from the WCAG meeting at TPAC
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-
tf/2016Sep/0060.html
Search for:
"AWK: Intro to Jim, the facilitator of the Low Vision TF

We will need to review COGA's SC on Personalization and see how LV issues
can be integrated. John R. can you help us with this. Many of our SC have
to do with personalizing the rendered view of content to maximize the
reading of and interaction with that content. The task for the content
authors is to write the content such that it can be manipulated to meet the
view needs of the individual low vision user. Our task is to write
measurable SCs that clearly state what LV folks need from authors.

In general, WCAG had issues with the clarity of our wording. They pushed
back on all of presented SCs. Either, the SCs were not clear and too open
for interpretation; or, the SCs were too specific. The focus was all on the
wording...would the SC work in all situations...is this something authors
can/will do...

That said, we wanted feedback and we got it. Look carefully at the minutes
from the discussion. WCAG thinks very broadly, while we are focused on Low
Vision issues. They are aware that there are low vision issues, BUT,
specific LV issues and SCs must fit within the general framework of WCAG,
apply to all webpages on all devices, and not interfere with others
accessibility needs.

In the coming weeks, we need to REVIEW our issues list, and the
Requirements Document to ensure we have everything covered. Then NO MORE
SCs should be created. All of the SCs must be sent to WCAG by Dec 15.
Removing the week of American Thanksgiving, we have 11 weeks (including
this week) to complete our task. We currently have 18 SC. I suspect we will
add 2 more. We will have to finalize 2 SCs a week with language that meet
the requirements of measurable, apply to all webpages in all situations,
and are something that authors can/will do.

We will need to leave the "what browsers should do" till WCAG NEXT
(Silver). If any of the current 20 SCs fit in the browser category, mark it
DEFERRED and spend no more time on it. Move on.

Laura and Andrew were also at the meeting, I am sure that they have their
own perspectives. Additionally, Alastair Campbell from WCAG will be joining
the group.
Below are my notes from comments during the WCAG meeting:

SC Contrast Minimum (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/
Contrast_(Minimum)
1. interactive images - why 4.5:1, seems too much. images could be any
size.

2. is a border around a button sufficient. images of text already convered.
need to disambiguate from other SC.
3. @@may need a definition of interactive images - need more clarity
4. why is SC so specific. why not more general..or ... perhaps get more
granular and create 3 separate SC
5. what about focus and selected state - keyboard vs mouse indicator.
6. radio buttons- focused vs selected
7. LVTF should exclude custom focus indicator. (focus indicators -
personalized vs. default)
8. @@LVTF do a test check default contrast rectangle of all browsers - who
has them, who does not (as part of research information about the SC)
9. perhaps move the interactive images to a separate SC to more clearly
define what we are talking about.
10. what if something something in the control has sufficient contrast but
not all of it.
11. must balance the needs of all users.
12. general comment about 4.5:1 for everything ... if all is dark then no
text is important. Can’t prioritize the interface.
*SC *Informational Graphic Contrast (Minimum)
(
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Informational_Graphic_Contrast_(Minimum)
1.there are other design ways to make an informational graphic accessible
besides 4.5:1. don't limit creativity.
2. how is this different from you "can't use color alone"
3. seems more of a technique rather than an SC.
4. 4.5:1 contrast ratio with what

*SC *

*Seeing all interface
elementshttps://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Seeing_All_Interface_Elements
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Seeing_All_Interface_Elements>*
1.increase text size only is an issue. conflicts with responsive design
2. sc should be reworded to specificall talk about overlapping content not
obscuring other content.
3. what is difference between this and WCAG 1.4.4 - seems identical.

*SC** Size All content*
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Size_of_all_elements

1. seems more like 1.4.4.
2. worry about browser capability.
3. SC wording does not reflect the description - Zoom functions preserve
all spatial relationships on the page and all functionality continues to be
available.
4. perhaps making content truly responsive - tho this seems a technique.
5. zooming images is not in 1.4.8
6. AAA to A is too big of a jump.
7. may need a new guideline or SC to expand these concepts
8. different user preferences depending on what part of content they were
interacting with. May only want 1 part of content magnified. have to be
careful of very broad SC. User needs - user experience, different size
screens. Text size vs zoom ... all are variable depending on situation. SCs
apply to all situations.
9. youtube videos of lowvision folks explaining issues - useful research.
10. 1 px fonts. stroke width to color contrast ratio.


*SC Text Size*https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Text_Size

1. need a maximum. if higher than 200, need a higher conformance level (AA
or AAA)
2. need and SC about not losing content.
-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964