LVTF Meeting Minutes - Thursday, December 8th

Link to minutes pasted below and at:
http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html erich

Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
08 Dec 2016


See also: IRC log


Attendees
Present
      allanj, Erich, AlastairC, Shawn, Glenda, Laura, wayne
Regrets
      JohnR
Chair
      JimAllan
Scribe
      Erich
Contents
      Topics
         1. December meetings
            https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/LVTF-telecons/results

         2. SC Manager
         3. WCAG survey New SCs
            https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/

         4. Overlaps/reconcilliation between LFTF and COGA
         5. LVTF FAQs
         6. Issues 8 and 80
         7. Close Text Size
         8. Finish low vision requirements -
         9. graphics contrast
      Summary of Action Items
      Summary of Resolutions



<allanj> who is here?


<allanj> s/


<scribe> Scribe: Erich


scribe+ erich


December meetings
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/81151/LVTF-telecons/results



JA: open to meeting on the 22nd if others are


AC: likely to miss at least 1 due to work


GS: will be off


SH: if everyone could go update the survey to reflect, that would help


<laura> I can attend 22 but not 29th


SH: Survey currently suggests next week (12/15) we are good, but the
following 2 weeks are questionable


SC Manager


<allanj>
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1#Current_SC_Managers



JA: This page talks about various roles and responsibilities of SC manager
... Alastair, Glenda, Laura, David MacDonald have picked up some SC to
shepherd, so we have 6 of 11 covered
... John Rochford has agreed also to take up any (3) that overlap with COGA
group SC
... Seeing All Interface Elements is Issue 80, so will clarify with David
MacDonald that we have the correct one


<laura> See All Elements #80 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80



<allanj> issue 10 (interactive images), Issue 78 (spacing), Issue 80
(seeing all interface elements) overlap with COGA


JA: Alastair, was there a procedure to sign up?


AC: NO


JA: Do you need GitHub account?


AC: Likely that we'll just be keeping in the wiki, and place link to
current version of the wiki on GitHub


JA: For example, on Font Family, rather than having SC text in the
description, I would write 'here is the latest version' and link back to
the wiki?


<alastairc> Example:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9#issuecomment-265720386



AC: yes, i've already done this on Informational Graphics Contrast, noting
anything I've changed in it


GS: I like the idea of including in the description, so people don't
necessarily need to read the comments to get it


JA: I will wait to hear from Josh and Andrew, and then I can go update and
link back to the wiki


WD: I have a process question
... When we were developing we had a few contending statements of the
criteria, and it looks like in the larger community we'll have that again,
so are we going to have the possibility of having take 1, take 2, take 3 in
the SC statement, or how are we going to do that?


AC: That's why I suggested SC manager, so that there is really 1 person
looking after it
... If fresh eyes are used, a concern that they would lack the history of
how a SC got to that point


WD: So part of the thing as a manager is to keep the most updated comments
... I understand


JA: Another thing, I believe all discussion will happen on WCAG, so need to
watch that list
... It's imperative for us to be involved in the WCAG group and to comment


AC: I think when an SC has only positive comments and feedback has died
down, they may open to a survey


LC: Participating in the surveys is really important too, there's one out
there now on the Contrast issues, if people haven't filled that out they
should


WD: I have difficulty with some of those really long WCAG threads


<alastairc> Email archive: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/



<laura> WCAG List in Thread:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/thread.html



EM: I agree, and point of regard can be tricky also on where to pick up the
discussion


WCAG survey New SCs https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/



<shawn> Shawn: I find it easier to read long threads from the archives. You
can get a list "by thread" then read a message and select "[ Next in
thread ]"


JA: Here is the survey, it is also useful to review what people are saying
in the comments


<laura> Results:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results



GS: Was having a hard time with how to do the SC work, but sharing a Google
sheet with each comment and how I plan to handle


<Glenda>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17uFopFpjdpCB1yHgkz11fEJ8IGYfPioGsvFUX1Zq96k/edit#gid=0



<allanj> close item 1


<allanj> close item 6


JA: Thank you for sharing that Glenda. Let's please all jump in and add
your comments


Overlaps/reconcilliation between LFTF and COGA


JA: Let's go to Overlap, let me add the link


<alastairc>
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=1491179377



JA: For those who are SC Managers, and COGA has a similar sort of thing


AC: The first 5 are a current AAA issue


JA: And this table also has a summary of all the new SC's proposed by
different people, and what level if modifications
... There is more to this spreadsheet than just overlaps, but wanted to
focus, to see where we have commonalities


WD: In the case between Issue 8 and 51, this has a whole bunch


AC: Issue 51 on COGA appears to be an update to 1.4.8, so best to get that
sorted before SC manager does any major work on it


<allanj> ACTION: jim to contact David update issue 8 to 80. 80 is more
current [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html#action01]


<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Contact david update issue 8 to 80. 80 is
more current [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-15].


LVTF FAQs


<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/LVTF_2.1_SC_FAQ



LC: I saw that Lisa had an FAQ for the COGA group, thought it might be a
good idea for us too
... Many of the duplicates as Glenda has seen, questions that come up
repeatedly, can be included


WD: angry about Issue 8, feels it should be scratched


JA: That one is closed, I closed it a few days ago


Issues 8 and 80


AC: Would say the same about Issue 80, thinks it's a duplicate


<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/8



<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80



WD: Should we do a resolution to just remove that?


AC: In GitHub terms "closed" means you've dealt with it, it's gone


JA: Issue 80 says users can see and interact with all content..., we're
saying this is covered by reflow and text size


WD: So it seems we want to keep 80 and not 8


<laura> 80 SC Text: Users can see and interact with all content and user
interface controls presented visually, including when users have changed
display settings such as text size.


JA: So Alastair is saying this one can be closed because it's covered


AC: Yes, I think they even use those graphics in the description of resize


WD: We could drop it


JA: Let's verify
... If I put the benefits example, we can close Issue 80?


<Glenda> +1


<allanj> +1


<laura> +1


<Wayne> +1


RESOLUTION: Move benefits from Issue 80 to Issue 77 and close Issue 80 -
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80



<allanj> ACTION: Jim to write DavidM to say issue 80 is closed and
superseded by 77 and 58 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html#action02]


<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Write davidm to say issue 80 is closed and
superseded by 77 and 58 [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-15].


Close Text Size


JA: This was one piece of information about very old SC from back in
September, that has also been superceded by several and didn't want people
spending time trying to deal with it


<Wayne> +111


Finish low vision requirements -


WD: The resize content that Alastair did really covered it globally


JA: Last week we discussed communicating to WCAG that these are our SC's,
but that more are needed


<shawn> [ Shawn hopes to work on the low vision user requirements over
vacation ]


AC: It would be helpful to highlight the things which haven't been tackled
yet


<shawn> +1 for documenting what's not included in the 2.1 SCs and what
needs are met in UAAG 2.0 and if there are any others not included in
either yet


WD: The pushback seem to be getting is on the user agent side


AC: some pushback about including user agent and authoring tools, some on
using incubation for sliver


<allanj> +1 for documenting what's not included in the 2.1 SCs and what
needs are met in UAAG 2.0 and if there are any others not included in
either yet


+1


<Glenda> +1


<laura> +1


<Glenda> I agree with Alastair, let’s focus on moving our proposed SC
forward


<allanj> current Requirements document -
http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html



<laura> agree with focusing on moving our proposed SC forward


JA: Shawn was going to work on requirements over vacation, so if anyone has
thoughts, contact her


SH: I can plug away at that, but not take taskforce time until stuff
settles down, so can keep a list of what open issues are, but not slow down
the SC work


JA: That is the agenda, we have lots to do and SC to shepherd. Happy to let
us go early to get to it


AC: Question for the group - could you see VR having an impact on other SC?


graphics contrast


<allanj>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0713.html



GS: One thing I keep bouncing back and forth, I love where you said VR
isn't content, it's a monitor. I am leaning in that direction, but we've
been talking about static images, as opposed to moving images. What about
exceptions for live video, how do I describe that?


<alastairc>
http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/jet/jetCookbook.html?component=pieChart&demo=default



AC: James pinged me off list, and has an example
... Basically a pie chart, but if you mouse over to it, it has pop-ups that
have the label and the value
... This is an interactive version of the plain pie chart


<alastairc>
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/index.php?title=Informational_Graphic_Contrast_(Minimum)&oldid=2609


AC: I changed the test procedure in Graphics Contrast
... To say check whether there is an input agnostic way
... Not sure we need to change the text, but open to others thoughts


<alastairc> New part of the test criteria: Check whether there is an input
agnostic way of showing more information (e.g. pop-overs or enhanced
contrast shown with mouse, touch or keyboard interaction), if so that
element can be skipped.


WD: This is much like what we see in the higher education realm


AC: Oracle example is good


<allanj> overlap between graphics and interactive


GS: My brain keeps going back and forth between interactive and immersive
content. Remember things like Second Life. What if I'm doing VR to walk
through a video of downtown Rome


<alastairc> NB: Good article on VR accessibility:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/IanHamilton/20161031/284491/VR__accessibility.php



GS: Maybe we want to limit this to 2D images, static images, I don't want
to get in to video. I think will be a whole other area we need to consider,
and I don't think we have the time for it


AC: We could possibly even say things like 'for a photo-realistic
environment'
... we have plenty in WCAG already that covers video


GS: though nothing that covers real vs. fake things, don't have time to go
there


<alastairc> Sensory: Non-text content that is primarily intended to create
a visual sensory experience has no minimum contrast requirement.


<alastairc> I'll add that to the graphics contrast SC


<Glenda> Should we add that we want to defer VR to silver?


<shawn> +1 for your attention moved to the scolling then have to find your
way back to the line


+1 for your attention moved to the scolling then have to find your way back
to the line


GS: Do we want to document that we're moving VR to Silver, or add to agenda
to discuss next time


<Glenda> +1 to defer VR to silver


+1


<allanj> +1 defer VR to silver


<laura> +1


RESOLUTION: Defer any VR SC's to Silver group


<allanj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/LVTF_2.1_SC_FAQ



Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: jim to contact David update issue 8 to 80. 80 is more current
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jim to write DavidM to say issue 80 is closed and superseded
by 77 and 58 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2016/12/08-lvtf-minutes.html#action02]

Summary of Resolutions
   1. Move benefits from Issue 80 to Issue 77 and close Issue 80 -
      https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/80

   2. Defer any VR SC's to Silver group
[End of minutes]
                                                                                       
                    Erich Manser                                                       
                    IBM                                                                
                    Accessibility,                                                     
                    IBM Research                                                       
                    Littleton,                                                         
                    MA / tel:                                                          
                    978-696-1810                                                       
                    Search for                                                         
                    accessibility                                                      
                    answers                                                            
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       



You don't need eyesight to have vision.