LVTF Meeting Minutes - Dec 15th, 2016

Minutes at link, and pasted below:
http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-lvtf-minutes.html erich

Low Vision Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15 Dec 2016


See also: IRC log


Attendees
Present
      allanj, alastairc, shawn, Laura, Scott, Erich, Marla, Glenda, John
Regrets
      Wayne
Chair
      Jim
Scribe
      erich
Contents
      Topics
         1. Meeting during next 2 weeks
         2. Review Current Active SCs
         3. Informational Graphics Contrast
            https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9

         4. Interactive Element contrast
            https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10

         5. Reflow to single column https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/58

         6. Resize Content https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77

         7. Font Family https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79

         8. overlap with coga 36 and LVTF 10 contrast disabled elements
      Summary of Action Items
      Summary of Resolutions



<allanj> Font Family https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79



<allanj> Resize Content https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77



<allanj> Interactive Element contrast
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10



<allanj> Informational Graphics Contrast
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9



<allanj> Reflow to single column https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/58



<allanj> scrible: eric


<laura> Scribe list:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Scribe_List


<allanj> scribe: erich


Meeting during next 2 weeks


JA: Seemed like there were 4 or 5 available to meet next week, 2 for the
week between Christmas and New Years
... Proposing we don't meet for next 2 wks, any objections?


<shawn> next meeting: Thur 5 Jan 2017


JA: Sounds like none, so next meeting will be Thurs Jan 5th


Review Current Active SCs


JA: 5 of current active SC's have had comments


Informational Graphics Contrast https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9



JA: Let's start with number 9, and go in numeric order


AC: #9 has been fairly overhauled, description at top does not really match
latest version


JA: Have you chatted with Andrew or Joshua?


AC: Yes, they cannot make me admin on GitHub without losing comments
... My suggestion was to simply lose the description at the top


<allanj> ACTION: jim review the wiki for Informational Graphic Contrast.
Import to Github issue 9 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-lvtf-minutes.html#action01]


<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Review the wiki for informational graphic
contrast. import to github issue 9 [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-22].


<allanj>
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Informational_Graphic_Contrast_(Minimum)


AC: Seems it has been considerably overhauled since Dec 1st, and seems to
be in a good state


JA: Have the benefits or examples/pie charts changed?


AC: Yes, had to be restructured, so would be good to include the related
information


JA: OK, I will slog through that


AC: David also sent around link to spreadsheet he's been developing, he's
not convinced that this one is testable, that it's a condition and does not
apply across technologies. I will take that up with David


LC: LVTF has had 2 that were accepted


<alastairc> David's spreadsheet, useful to find out what he isn't convinced
by yet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=0



Interactive Element contrast https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10



<Glenda> For Issue 10, I have at least 46 comments to work through,
documented at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17uFopFpjdpCB1yHgkz11fEJ8IGYfPioGsvFUX1Zq96k/edit#gid=0



GS: Struggling with where to make these changes, got rejected on the wiki
in WCAG group, so I have documented every comment I can find in an Excel
spreadsheet - I am up to 46 not including David's latest - so for issue 10
I have at least 46 comments to work through
... I've been giving them a unique counter, dating them to keep straight as
new comments come in, and also re-sort so I can look at every comment level
... I have started to work through them, and stopped, because I don't want
to go off on my own. Want to stay in lock-step with Alastair
... many of same questions from issue 9 are identical to those being asked
for issue 10


JA: So Glenda if you want to edit in the wiki, let me know and I will do
updates


GS: I think issue 9 is set at AA, is that true?


AC: Yes, set to match text contrast


GS: The other thing that seemed to be mentioned at Tues WCAG meeting,
seemed Andrew and Josh were suggesting we close 9 and 10 and reopen them
where the owners are Alastair (9) and Glenda (10) so Jim isn't stuck making
the updates


LC: I think they were working so assignees could assign it, but Michael
Cooper was doing that


GS: I'll go again and see what I can find, but that's all I have to report
right now


Reflow to single column https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/58



JA: Next up, Reflow
... Alastair, not sure you are the SC manager


AC: I had to give this one up, they wouldn't let me take on so many
... Have a comment from Greg which I have replied to


<allanj> proposed language: All content can be viewed as a single column
with reflow except where reflow would cause distortion or loss of
information


AC: He likes it, but suggests all content can be viewed as a single column
... I replied to him this morning, and have not heard back... inclined to
leave it as-is until we get an answer


JA: So if we change the wording as proposed, does rest of SC still hold?
... I think techniques would stay close, as well as testing


LC: They could go through survey too, and there would be lots of updates


JA: So we have this one, and may also get some changes on 77
... Resize Content we just talked about, anything else going on with that?


Resize Content https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77



AC: Don't think so, just David needs to be convinced it applies across
technologies


<laura> WCAG Surveys: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/



JA: The only other one we have is 79


Font Family https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/79



JA: Font Family, there were some comments on that


<Glenda> Earlier I said I thought AWK had said we should close the issues
on github and have the SC Manager open a new issue. I think I
misunderstood. Here is one quote from the WCAG Dec 13 Mtg Minutes
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html “AWK: SC manager
probably should not be editing the proposal but elevating issues and
guiding TF lead to make changes in response to issues


<Glenda> ... discussion could happen on git hub but also by email if
absolutely neccessary. threads on github are prefereable”


JA: Comments from Liam Quinn, but nobody has been assigned to this one -
comment is that SC is unacceptable for non-western fonts


<Glenda> Oh, but then AWK said something about branching: “AWK: sc could
restate what they are hear. sc manager empowered to for and manage branch
of modifications”


EM: I can pick up as SC manager for Font Family


<allanj> suggested text: suggest, <li>Confirm that font samples appear in
the appropriate fonts</li>


<allanj> <li>Select font which appears readable</li>


<allanj> <li>Confirm that the choice is then used to render text.</li>


LC: Just put your name in the comment field, they'll pick it up and assign
it to you


JA: Have questions on the testability


<alastairc> Erich: THis is the page -
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1



<laura> SC Managers Phase1:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1



LC: There is also a wiki page you need to also put your name in
... We still need managers for some of our SC


JA: Text Color, Metadata and Printing still need managers
... Also no comments on these yet, likely due to WCAG orderly fashion
... I have been looking at the overlaps with COGA, there are 2 - 1 overlaps
with 10, another seemingly with several


JR: Who are they (who say there's overlap)


JA: David MacDonald expressed the opinion, not anything official, just
helping people out


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



JA: Spreadsheet has all SC's by group, has all the overlaps, and several
other things, 4 or 5 sheets in there
... That is all that I had, unless we want to discuss any in more detail or
if an SC manager would like to get more input from the group
... One thing from last week was things needed for Silver
... Shawn, I know you were working on requirements doc


GS: Would value group feedback on overlap between COGA 36 and Issue 10


SH: Jim, let's see if we already have the info in a table, we did something
awhile back


overlap with coga 36 and LVTF 10 contrast disabled elements


<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/10



GS: What to do about color contrast for disabled interactive elements


<allanj> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/36



GS: I am becoming more convinced that we should not require Color Contrast
on disabled interactive elements for 2.1, but that we should leave it for
preferences in Silver
... I clearly see from a low-vision viewpoint that being able to tell what
a disabled element is, is important
... Hearing enough dissonant feedback that I am thinking we should delay it
to Silver


<allanj> difference between 3:1 and 4.5:1 is not very great


AC: Would tend to agree, unless there is a magic solution. Probably worth
calling out as such and raising as one of the discussions at WCAG


SM: Kind of on the fence on this one
... Would seem almost a AAA
... I can certainly see how people would want to be able to tell what the
controls are, even though they're disabled
... It's a pain for testing, because all the checkers will flag whether
disabled or not
... May be exchanging one problem for another


JR: I can see why you would want to reduce to AAA for low-vision
population, but for COGA population it's more important than that, which is
why AA


GS: If we force Color Contrast at AA in 2.1, I think we hurt COGA


JA: Shawn had a comment about not conveying by color alone
... If you have disabled element, is there some other way, or does that
just get in to serious rats nest


AC: May be worth checking current techniques


GS: Could we add to agenda for next time so we could also get Wayne's
opinion?


JA: Sure


GS: There just seem to be conflicting needs, which is why I am proposing
Silver


<allanj> ACTION: jim add moving contrast of disabled controls to silver and
removing from LVTF10 [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2016/12/15-lvtf-minutes.html#action02]


<trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Add moving contrast of disabled controls to
silver and removing from lvtf10 [on Jim Allan - due 2016-12-22].


JA: I did a table which was the Lumosity Brightness, trying to remember
where I posted it
... Will find the link again for the discussion


<alastairc> Shawn: Good point, disabled elements are mentioned in
https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html

 but there doesn't appear to be a good technique or failure for it.


<Glenda> Luminosity Brightness of Enabled/Disabled Form Controls using
default browser styling
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2016Nov/0024.html



GS: Think I have found it in GitHub - reference pasted in chat


JA: I will add that link to 10


<Glenda> This is the table of Luminosity Brightness of Enabled/Disabled
Form Controls


<Glenda> using default browser styling
http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-SC/luminosity-form-controls.html



GS: Putting in my notes with anything related to Disabled, Color Contrast,
as another piece of evidence
... I would change it up in the top of Issue 10, and add it to Resources


JA: I will put it in there, and let you know where
... Anything else?


HAPPY HOLIDAYS ALL!


<laura> bye
                                                                                       
                    Erich Manser                                                       
                    IBM                                                                
                    Accessibility,                                                     
                    IBM Research                                                       
                    Littleton,                                                         
                    MA / tel:                                                          
                    978-696-1810                                                       
                    Search for                                                         
                    accessibility                                                      
                    answers                                                            
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       



You don't need eyesight to have vision.