IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-04-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:42:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:47:19 [sh1mmer]
hey Ben
19:47:31 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
19:47:31 [Zakim]
ok, sh1mmer; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
19:49:58 [bengt]
bengt has joined #wai-wcag
19:53:42 [DoyleB]
DoyleB has joined #wai-wcag
19:53:49 [DoyleB]
Hello all
19:54:01 [sh1mmer]
hello Doyle
19:54:11 [bengt]
19:54:32 [DoyleB]
is anyone on conference yet (telephone)?
19:54:46 [bengt]
zakim, what conferences
19:54:46 [Zakim]
bengt, you need to end that query with '?'
19:54:50 [bengt]
zakim, what conferences ?
19:54:50 [Zakim]
I see no active conferences
19:54:50 [sh1mmer]
19:54:51 [Zakim]
scheduled at this time are WAI_UAWG()2:00PM, WAI_WCAG()4:00PM
19:55:02 [sh1mmer]
I set the conference
19:55:07 [bengt]
zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
19:55:07 [Zakim]
ok, bengt; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
19:55:29 [DoyleB]
5 minutes - got it
19:56:09 [sh1mmer]
hmm K Magnifier is better than I thought
19:56:33 [DoyleB]
what is K magnifier
19:56:56 [sh1mmer]
an AT magnifier for system running X11 (unix/linux)
19:57:15 [DoyleB]
thanks I'll give it a try someday
19:58:39 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:58:46 [Zakim]
19:59:32 [Zakim]
20:01:01 [Zakim]
20:01:11 [Zakim]
20:01:13 [Zakim]
20:01:14 [wendy]
zakim, drop wendy
20:01:14 [Zakim]
Wendy is being disconnected
20:01:15 [Zakim]
20:01:17 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, ??P2 is Tom
20:01:17 [Zakim]
+Tom; got it
20:01:25 [Zakim]
20:01:29 [bengt]
zakim, ??P2 is Bengt_Farre
20:01:29 [Zakim]
I already had ??P2 as Tom, bengt
20:01:38 [bengt]
zakim, ??P1 is Bengt_Farre
20:01:38 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:01:42 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:45 [Zakim]
20:01:51 [Zakim]
20:01:52 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:01:52 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:01:59 [Zakim]
20:02:01 [Zakim]
20:02:06 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute me
20:02:06 [Zakim]
sorry, sh1mmer, I do not see a party named 'sh1mmer'
20:02:07 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:02:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Tom, ??P3, [Microsoft], Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt
20:02:11 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, I am Tom
20:02:11 [Zakim]
ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
20:02:12 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, mute me
20:02:12 [Zakim]
Tom should now be muted
20:02:26 [wendy]
zakim, ??P0 may be David_MacDonald
20:02:26 [Zakim]
+David_MacDonald?; got it
20:02:26 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:27 [Zakim]
20:02:33 [sh1mmer]
hi Michael
20:02:35 [MichaelC]
zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
20:02:35 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
20:02:35 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:02:36 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:02:44 [MichaelC]
hi Tom
20:02:45 [Zakim]
20:02:49 [DoyleB]
who am I today?
20:02:58 [MichaelC]
wendy, FYI I have to leave an hour into the call today
20:02:59 [sh1mmer]
DoyleB you first in?
20:03:00 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 is Ben-and-Gregg
20:03:00 [Zakim]
+Ben-and-Gregg; got it
20:03:11 [silvia]
silvia has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:14 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
20:03:14 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:03:23 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:03:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_MacDonald?, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Tom (muted), ??P3, Mike_Barta, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt, JasonWhite, Ben-and-Gregg
20:03:28 [DoyleB]
Wendy, I Am on the phone am I showing up?
20:03:30 [Zakim]
20:03:33 [wendy]
zakim, ??P3 may be Doyle_Burnett
20:03:33 [Zakim]
+Doyle_Burnett?; got it
20:03:47 [wendy]
doyle - now you are. :)
20:03:52 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:03:57 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:02 [DoyleB]
thanks Wendy
20:04:02 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle_Burnett? (4%), Mike_Barta (10%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (19%)
20:04:23 [GVAN]
GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:49 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:53 [bengt]
zakim, who is making noise
20:04:53 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', bengt
20:04:56 [bengt]
zakim, who is making noise ?
20:05:04 [wendy]
zakim, mute Doyle
20:05:04 [Zakim]
Doyle_Burnett? should now be muted
20:05:07 [Zakim]
bengt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Doyle_Burnett? (8%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (4%), Ben-and-Gregg (8%)
20:05:13 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:05:25 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike_Barta (11%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (7%), Ben-and-Gregg (37%)
20:05:32 [bengt]
who is on P0 ?
20:05:45 [sh1mmer]
who was first in?
20:05:50 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:05:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see David_MacDonald?, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Tom (muted), Doyle_Burnett? (muted), Mike_Barta, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt, JasonWhite,
20:05:53 [Zakim]
... Ben-and-Gregg, Sailesh_Panchang
20:05:56 [DoyleB]
I still hear the buzz a bit not as loud, however
20:05:56 [bengt]
ok fixed alread
20:06:02 [Zakim]
20:06:32 [wendy]
20:06:38 [wendy]
assign action items for open issues
20:07:29 [wendy]
defn of structure, issue 506:
20:08:25 [wendy]
action: david write proposal for bug 506
20:08:47 [wendy]
Issue 556 - Guideline is difficult to understand
20:08:47 [wendy]
20:08:47 [wendy]
Action: Write a proposal to clarify the level 1 #1 criterion.
20:10:42 [sh1mmer]
20:11:17 [Zakim]
20:12:00 [wendy]
zakim, ??P10 is Gian_Sampson-Wild
20:12:00 [Zakim]
+Gian_Sampson-Wild; got it
20:12:14 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:12:19 [wendy]
ack Tom
20:12:50 [wendy]
action: Tom write proposal for Issue 556 <
20:13:01 [wendy]
Issue 669 - What is meant by "emphasis"
20:13:01 [wendy]
20:13:01 [wendy]
Action: Write a proposal to address or clarify use of "emphasis" and visual
20:13:01 [wendy]
20:13:55 [sh1mmer]
20:13:57 [sh1mmer]
20:15:19 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:15:39 [wendy]
does it need research, or just good wording?
20:15:53 [wendy]
"any formatting that contains meaning and..."
20:16:04 [wendy]
action: tom write proposal for issue 669
20:16:25 [wendy]
Issue 405 - General issue about knowing how to interpret how apply to html
20:16:25 [wendy]
w/out reading the techniques.
20:16:25 [wendy]
20:16:25 [wendy]
Action: Write a proposal that clarifies the Level 1 #1 success criterion.
20:18:34 [wendy]
attach this to the checklist question and revisit.
20:18:41 [wendy]
Issue 704 - In-line warnings and options to deactivate are good, but a User
20:18:41 [wendy]
Agent could also handle this in most cases
20:18:41 [wendy]
20:18:41 [wendy]
Action: This issue could be addressed with some additional text in the
20:18:41 [wendy]
benefits describing how user agents may handle this in the future.
20:21:56 [wendy]
action: david write proposal for issue 704
20:22:03 [wendy]
Issue 707 - Example is vague
20:22:03 [wendy]
20:22:03 [wendy]
Action: Write a proposal that clarifies the example or propose a different
20:22:03 [wendy]
example that will help clarify the intent of the guideline.
20:22:42 [wendy]
action: mike write proposal for issue 707
20:22:55 [wendy]
Issue 374 - How do AT users learn what makes structure distinct and how
20:22:55 [wendy]
these distinctions can be specified?
20:22:55 [wendy]
20:22:55 [wendy]
Yvette proposes this is a user agent issue. Does anyone disagree?
20:24:12 [wendy]
Harvey Bingham's suggestions and concerns are beyond the scope of WCAG.
20:24:12 [wendy]
These are user agent issues. This guideline should make structure seperate
20:24:12 [wendy]
from presentation, and then the user agent guidelines will make sure the
20:24:12 [wendy]
structure is used by the user agents in an appropriate way. I propose to
20:24:12 [wendy]
take a vote to close this issue.
20:24:23 [wendy]
(from yvette's email:
20:24:31 [bengt]
nay :)
20:24:34 [wendy]
resolved: this issue is closed
20:24:49 [wendy]
20:24:51 [wendy]
20:25:48 [wendy]
proposals in agenda:
20:27:16 [sh1mmer]
20:27:33 [wendy]
does human testable mean "9 out of 10 humans will come up with the same solution"?
20:28:21 [wendy]
gian does not think that all levels should be testable.
20:29:07 [GVAN]
20:29:24 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:29:27 [wendy]
saying "all sites should be testable" makes it difficult to find work-arounds. concern that people with disabilities will not benefit.
20:29:41 [DoyleB]
Wendy are you still hearing the buzzing? Am I still muted?
20:29:49 [wendy]
yes, i'm hearing the buzz.
20:30:05 [wendy]
is this exact wording proposed? if so, need something better than "human testing."
20:30:14 [wendy]
we should define that more specifically.
20:30:32 [wendy]
how to define, should be an action item. someone should do research to find out a good number.
20:30:47 [wendy]
a recommendation for how many testers should be used to make a decision.
20:31:26 [wendy]
zakim, mute gian
20:31:26 [Zakim]
Gian_Sampson-Wild should now be muted
20:31:41 [wendy]
zakim, who's muted?
20:31:41 [Zakim]
I see Bengt_Farre, Tom, Mike_Barta, Gian_Sampson-Wild muted
20:32:00 [wendy]
20:32:02 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:32:20 [wendy]
"inter-rater reliability" is not plain language.
20:32:28 [wendy]
if we mean 80% or greater, we should say that.
20:33:13 [Zakim]
20:33:29 [Zakim]
20:34:17 [wendy]
q+ to say, "hearing several things: 1. that this interpreted to mean sites must be testable. 2. or that how many people are required to test your site 3. too much emphasis on testing 4. HIRR should be more explicit"
20:34:45 [wendy]
feel that we're locking out people. saying "it is testable" means can only say "yes/no." could technically be a no, but find a solution that also works.
20:38:34 [sh1mmer]
20:38:41 [GVAN]
20:39:06 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:39:06 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "hearing several things: 1. that this interpreted to mean sites must be testable. 2. or that how many people are required to test your site 3. too much
20:39:09 [Zakim]
... emphasis on testing 4. HIRR should be more explicit"
20:39:17 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:39:37 [wendy]
ack gvan
20:40:26 [wendy]
the working group believes these are human testable in a fashion that is consistent among testers.
20:40:54 [wendy]
this is not a description of what you need to do on your site. these are judgements made by this group.
20:41:37 [MichaelC]
Regarding tables for layout - as I said in my list response [] I think we have to "permit" and describe the accessible use of layout tables. But I don't think the guidelines should address this, it should be an issue for HTML techniques. The one guideline under which this could be an issue is 4.1 []. Layout tables do not violate Leve
20:41:41 [wendy]
it (the wcag wg) either believed it was machine-testable (b/c of knowledge about a test). or believe to be human testable.
20:41:43 [MichaelC]
20:42:01 [wendy]
q+ gian
20:42:27 [wendy]
ack Paul
20:42:47 [wendy]
it sounds as if the type of thing that gian is doing on her own sites is human testing.
20:43:37 [wendy]
don't like talking about percentages. if talking about HIRR, there is a scale (8 out of 10). but then have to talk about
20:43:42 [wendy]
how many people out of 10 are acceptable.
20:43:52 [wendy]
don't want to pin down an exact number.
20:43:59 [wendy]
instead, describe the process/what we mean.
20:44:11 [wendy]
ack gian
20:44:30 [wendy]
we don't really know the requirements that people have for their sites.
20:44:30 [joeclark]
joeclark has joined #wai-wcag
20:44:59 [wendy]
if you have a site aimed at helping dyslexics at school audience will be different than a medical site.
20:45:39 [wendy]
is "clear and simple" testable in that example. no.
20:46:22 [wendy]
are we allowing for people to have different sets of requirements? (depending on audience, requirements, goals, etc.)
20:46:33 [wendy]
not testable in a way that we can clarify in wcag
20:46:37 [wendy]
ack michael
20:47:25 [wendy]
we could test teh guidelines and see how reliable the results are. help us determine if we are correct in our belief that these are reliably testable.
20:48:31 [wendy]
yes there is implementation testing phase (CR) but would not have the formality of data that michael describes.
20:49:48 [wendy]
q+ to say, "would like to hear more about michael's proposal"
20:49:54 [wendy]
ack matt
20:50:12 [wendy]
when it comes to human communication, absolute is not an option.
20:50:29 [wendy]
there are no broadly applicable rules
20:50:51 [wendy]
not knocking the needs of people with cognitive disabilities, but that people with 180 iqs can talk past each other.
20:51:13 [wendy]
we can not (via the web) determine when we have lost a user (i.e., they are not understanding us)
20:51:28 [wendy]
do not think we will ever be able to test any bit of human communication
20:51:34 [wendy]
gian - but we still want people to try
20:51:49 [wendy]
matt sure. but we can't put it in a normative document
20:52:21 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:52:21 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "would like to hear more about michael's proposal"
20:53:28 [wendy]
would like to see for each guideline that is not automatically testable, see a test made (sample web pages), have reviewers review against criteria (stats? not sure how many reviewers need)
20:53:40 [wendy]
could be done scientifically by usability expert.
20:54:40 [wendy]
people should send example sites to the list, WG could review and determine which cause problems or not.
20:54:53 [wendy]
however, want to ensure reliability to results and formality would help.
20:56:49 [MichaelC]
I have to go now. I hit the wrong button and posted my thoughts on the layout table discussion early. If we get to that in the agenda, my thoughts are up there in the IRC log.
20:56:58 [wendy]
action: gian, michael, doyle once we have a process for reviewing, do reviews.
20:57:05 [Zakim]
20:57:15 [wendy]
action: wendy and jenae work out process for testing guidelines against real sites.
20:57:53 [wendy]
ack paul
20:58:21 [wendy]
there are tools/tests (fog, etc.). we could say in one sense it is not testable, in another it is.
20:58:25 [MattSEA]
20:58:58 [wendy]
do we decide, it's not testable and get rid of it OR kind of testable and keep?
20:59:00 [wendy]
ack matt
20:59:13 [wendy]
fog - testable, but not proven to be beneficial.
20:59:36 [wendy]
if run fog on medical, accounting, etc. type of site, just by shrinking syllables is not sufficient.,
20:59:41 [wendy]
must look at the words you are using.
20:59:45 [DoyleB]
hand up
21:00:19 [wendy]
it is people's difficulty to communicate. numbers can not dictate what "understandable" is. it changes from person to person.
21:00:44 [wendy]
in determining if we keep, we either drop it as a success criteria or say "on some level testable" and keep or drop testability
21:01:30 [wendy]
ack gian
21:01:44 [wendy]
propose drop requirement for testability.
21:02:33 [wendy]
we can't really say, "you should comply to test x"
21:02:57 [wendy]
instead, "make it aimed at your audience." then it is up to the site owner to define what they want to comply with.
21:03:09 [wendy]
ack doyle
21:03:32 [wendy]
we can't force developers to write for anyone other than whom they presume who their audience is
21:03:50 [wendy]
if we do write something, then we need to say that authors know their audience.
21:04:19 [sh1mmer]
21:04:46 [wendy]
does that mean a graphics site does not need to provide text b/c don't expect person who is blind to visit?
21:04:49 [GVAN]
21:04:52 [MattSEA]
21:04:58 [wendy]
don't expect someone on medical site to use non-medical words. e.g., drug names.
21:05:02 [MattSEA]
q+ to say perceivable is perceivable
21:05:05 [wendy]
if person doesn't understand, not the author's fault
21:05:27 [wendy]
graphics sites, that's a different issue. it's similar in that we derive visual info in a way that needs to be perceived in a different way. apples and oranges.
21:05:29 [wendy]
ack loretta
21:05:48 [wendy]
if we let go of making things testable, crashes into our goal of guidelines that are usable in legislation.
21:06:05 [wendy]
we could go back and decide which is more important, but tied together.
21:06:08 [wendy]
ack sailesh
21:06:16 [wendy]
requirement for testability is important. should not drop.
21:06:31 [wendy]
for clear and simple: could say level 1 and 2 are testable. level 3 are best practices.
21:06:48 [wendy]
ack tom
21:07:36 [wendy]
language is unique in that the ability to comprehend complex language, indicates that someone might have trouble interpreting other parts of the site.
21:08:03 [wendy]
it's important that if there is a distinction, we need guidance. we can't ignore language, but it may need to be treated differently.
21:08:26 [wendy]
it's unreasonable for a site to dumb-down language if the concepts are beyond the understanding of some readers.
21:08:34 [wendy]
ack gvan
21:08:49 [wendy]
using plain language is currently at level 3.
21:08:57 [wendy]
have not talked about "dumbing things down."
21:09:13 [wendy]
we do have a provision for things that are not testable (in the gateway)
21:09:25 [wendy]
if they are not testable, should not be in guidelines
21:09:38 [wendy]
gian - that's what afraid of. won't be in guideline.
21:09:40 [wendy]
ack matt
21:09:40 [Zakim]
MattSEA, you wanted to say perceivable is perceivable
21:09:55 [wendy]
should image sites say people who are blind are not in target audience?
21:10:03 [wendy]
perceivable is own category
21:10:34 [wendy]
gvan concern that people say "people with disabilities are not in the target audience"
21:10:48 [wendy]
ack gian
21:12:05 [wendy]
concern that everything related to cog disabilities relegated to level 3
21:12:09 [wendy]
ack jason
21:12:42 [wendy]
if a success criterion is not reliably testable then it is not possible for anyone to detremine reliably if they have met it and thus should not be part of conformance scheme.
21:13:25 [Zakim]
21:14:01 [wendy]
we have to distinguish between testable requirements to determine conformance and [case 1]
21:14:51 [wendy]
case 1 = providing best advice possible irrespective if testable or not
21:15:02 [wendy]
ack gian
21:16:13 [wendy]
we need to allow for human judgement
21:17:26 [sh1mmer]
21:17:31 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
21:17:31 [wendy]
identify that people have to do something, even if they define what that something is
21:17:32 [wendy]
ack tom
21:17:53 [wendy]
do we have to make sure that any site w/any type of content has to conform to all levels?
21:18:20 [wendy]
if someone has a tv station, do we have to make sure they can get level a w/all of their content? all multimedia, programs (captioning), alt-language version of captions, etc.
21:18:21 [wendy]
21:19:04 [wendy]
do we require all conformance levels for all types of content (including scientific content)? the actual meaning and language? achieve all levels w/all of those?
21:19:59 [wendy]
asking question "do things need to be testable" but we're only talking abut one example.
21:20:22 [wendy]
this is a fundamental question that we need to answer to move forward.
21:20:31 [wendy]
at minimum, a working answer to try on for the next while.
21:20:59 [wendy]
however, jason suggests it is not a question we can ask. do we have a choice if requirements need to be testable?
21:23:17 [wendy]
can you have "advice" in w3c doc that is separate from what is required? yes, "informative vs normative" sections are common.
21:24:53 [wendy]
gian proposes that success criteria do not need to be testable. she doesn't want to lock out some guidelines.
21:26:05 [wendy]
if you lock out guidelines b/c we can not define them in a testable manner, then we run the risk of locking out guidelines that people find useful and that increase the accessibility of content.
21:26:19 [wendy]
onus should be on site owner how they apply the checkpoint.
21:26:32 [wendy]
those checkpoints that help should be in there, even if not testable.
21:26:47 [wendy]
they should not be relegated to highest level (3) because we can not define them in a certain way.
21:26:58 [wendy]
they should be defined in way that is most assistive to people with disabilities.
21:29:15 [joeclark]
joeclark has left #wai-wcag
21:29:35 [sh1mmer]
21:29:36 [wendy]
does anyone object to having untestable success criteria
21:29:41 [wendy]
many objections
21:29:42 [sh1mmer]
21:30:12 [wendy]
does anyone object to having all success criteria be testable? gian
21:30:23 [MattSEA]
21:30:34 [wendy]
those that are testable are fine
21:32:07 [MattSEA]
21:36:49 [wendy]
the distinction between level 1 and level 2 is that level 1 doesnot constrain author and level 2 does.
21:37:02 [wendy]
the point of "minimum accessibility" is nowhere in defn of level 1, 2, or 3
21:37:29 [wendy]
now, we are adding that. when we categorize as level 1 and 2, was this considered? or do we need to retake a look at the success criteria from that standpoint?
21:37:40 [wendy]
"minimum" came from discussion of last week.
21:38:08 [wendy]
if author doesn't do it, no one can do it later.
21:38:28 [wendy]
(that's level 1)
21:38:38 [wendy]
level 2 - things the author can do to make content more directly accessible
21:41:14 [bengt]
21:41:15 [Zakim]
21:41:16 [Zakim]
21:41:17 [Zakim]
21:41:18 [Zakim]
21:41:19 [Zakim]
21:41:20 [Zakim]
21:41:21 [Zakim]
21:41:22 [Zakim]
21:41:23 [Zakim]
21:41:24 [Zakim]
21:41:26 [Zakim]
21:41:31 [Zakim]
21:41:32 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:41:33 [Zakim]
Attendees were Wendy, Tom, Bengt_Farre, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt, David_MacDonald?, JasonWhite, Mike_Barta, Ben-and-Gregg, Sailesh_Panchang, Doyle_Burnett?,
21:41:35 [Zakim]
... Paul_Bohman, Gian_Sampson-Wild
21:41:46 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:41:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:41:50 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
I see 7 open action items:
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david write proposal for bug 506 [1]
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Tom write proposal for Issue 556 < [2]
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: tom write proposal for issue 669 [3]
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david write proposal for issue 704 [4]
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: mike write proposal for issue 707 [5]
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gian, michael, doyle once we have a process for reviewing, do reviews. [6]
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy and jenae work out process for testing guidelines against real sites. [7]
21:41:50 [RRSAgent]
recorded in