IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-08-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:50:40 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:50:44 [wendy]
RRSAgent, make log world
19:50:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
I liked looking into the excavation they undertook and got to talk with the archaeologists
19:50:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
The whole convent was dug up
19:51:08 [wendy]
Meeting: 26 August 2004 WCAG WG telecon
19:51:26 [wendy]
agenda+ TTF update
19:52:04 [wendy]
agenda+ AUWG proposal
19:52:21 [wendy]
agenda+ action item assignments
19:52:54 [wendy]
agenda+ javascript and alternatives
19:53:21 [wendy]
yvette - cool.
19:53:36 [wendy]
19:57:52 [Michael]
Michael has joined #wai-wcag
19:58:10 [Yvette_Hoitink]
Hi Michael
19:58:51 [Michael]
Hi all
19:59:28 [wendy]
Regrets: Gregg, Ben, Roberto Castaldo, Roberto Ellero, Doyle
20:00:05 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
20:00:59 [nabe]
nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:17 [wendy]
zakim, this is WCAG
20:01:17 [Zakim]
ok, wendy; that matches WAI_WCAG()4:00PM
20:01:22 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:01:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [Microsoft], Chris_Ridpath, John_Slatin, Wendy
20:01:26 [Zakim]
20:01:49 [Zakim]
20:02:03 [Zakim]
20:02:07 [Michael]
zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
20:02:07 [Zakim]
ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
20:02:12 [wendy]
zakim, +[IBM] is Andi
20:02:12 [Zakim]
sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '+[IBM]'
20:02:13 [Zakim]
20:02:14 [Zakim]
20:02:17 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:29 [wendy]
zakim, +[Microsoft] is Jenae
20:02:29 [Zakim]
sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '+[Microsoft]'
20:02:32 [Zakim]
20:02:45 [wendy]
zakim, ??P8 is Yvette
20:02:45 [Zakim]
+Yvette; got it
20:02:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, I am Yvette
20:02:53 [Zakim]
ok, Yvette_Hoitink, I now associate you with Yvette
20:03:12 [Zakim]
20:03:16 [Zakim]
20:03:22 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 is Takayuki
20:03:22 [Zakim]
+Takayuki; got it
20:03:37 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Jenae
20:03:37 [Zakim]
+Jenae; got it
20:03:42 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:03:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jenae, Chris_Ridpath, John_Slatin, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, [IBM], Michael_Cooper, Alex_Li, Matt, Yvette, Takayuki, Becky_Gibson
20:03:50 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:03:50 [Zakim]
+Andi; got it
20:04:08 [Zakim]
20:04:16 [nabe]
zakim, I am Takayuki
20:04:16 [Zakim]
ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki
20:04:25 [Zakim]
20:04:43 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
20:04:43 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "TTF update" taken up [from wendy]
20:04:46 [james]
zakim, I am James_Craig
20:04:46 [Zakim]
ok, james, I now associate you with James_Craig
20:04:57 [wendy]
mc there are 3 things the TTF has been working on
20:05:03 [wendy]
1. end-to-end anlyses
20:05:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
20:05:08 [Zakim]
Yvette was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
20:05:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
20:05:11 [Zakim]
Yvette should now be muted
20:05:14 [Zakim]
20:05:55 [wendy]
noticed that examples in gateway/techniques are not the same as guidelines. decided to to complete end-to-end analysis of each to ensure saying the same thing throughout all documents
20:06:06 [wendy]
that process has grown into one of our quality assurance processes
20:06:23 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:42 [Andi]
Wendy, I can scribe now
20:06:43 [wendy]
it forces us to follow the chain (from principle to technique) need to have the mapping. have discovered we don't always have a mapping or one that we weren't sure we agreed with.
20:06:47 [wendy]
andi - thank you!
20:07:01 [wendy]
Scribe: Andi
20:07:29 [Zakim]
20:07:29 [Andi]
Process - take guideline, look at all relevant documents, identify issues between the documents
20:07:57 [Andi]
do we have guidelines without techniques, techniques without guidelines, enough detail, too much detail?
20:08:24 [Zakim]
20:08:25 [wendy]
20:08:46 [Andi]
invite review and feedback from the group - nothing specific to discuss today
20:09:09 [Zakim]
20:09:09 [Andi]
Wendy: action items may be related to this end to end analysis
20:09:22 [wendy]
zakim, ??P7 is Takayuki
20:09:22 [Zakim]
+Takayuki; got it
20:09:25 [Andi]
Michael: next topic is test process and file
20:09:48 [Zakim]
20:09:51 [Andi]
test process is one task of techniques task force
20:10:26 [Andi]
demonstrate techniques, test benefit, determine if eval tool can use
20:11:07 [Andi]
looking at W3C QA WG general test process
20:11:20 [wendy]
W3C QA Activity:
20:11:39 [Andi]
have WCAG specific detailed test process now
20:12:01 [Andi]
coordinating with other WAI working groups - want to have WAI test suite
20:12:08 [Andi]
HTML task force is the most active right now
20:12:30 [wendy]
s/HTML task force/WCAG WG (Techniques Task Force)
20:12:47 [Andi]
WCAG 2.0 test suite draft available for review
20:13:14 [wendy]
20:13:32 [Andi]
for every technique, there should be at least one test file demonstrating correct implementation and one demonstrating incorrect implementation
20:14:28 [Andi]
test process and test files will probably generate issues that WCAG WG must deal with
20:14:40 [Andi]
on to the Techniques documents
20:15:03 [Andi]
expect proposals posted to mailing list
20:15:21 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:15:26 [Andi]
receiving public comments on draft techniques documents
20:15:40 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 18 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Cooper (71%), Takayuki (5%), JasonWhite (2%)
20:16:03 [Andi]
plan a few more working drafts
20:16:07 [nabe]
zakim, I am Takayuki
20:16:07 [Zakim]
ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki
20:16:09 [Andi]
internal - 9/3
20:16:12 [wendy]
zakim, mute takayuki
20:16:12 [Zakim]
Takayuki should now be muted
20:16:13 [nabe]
zakim, mute me
20:16:13 [Zakim]
Takayuki was already muted, nabe
20:16:16 [wendy]
20:16:25 [Andi]
public review draft period ends 9/10
20:16:27 [Zakim]
20:16:34 [Zakim]
20:17:03 [Andi]
internal drafts September and October (didn't get the dates)
20:17:14 [Andi]
Wendy - next public draft early November
20:17:19 [wendy]
internal drafts: 3 sept and 8 oct. public on 3 november
20:17:39 [Andi]
Michael - lot of changed content in upcoming drafts
20:18:27 [Andi]
John - gateway techniques discussion
20:18:42 [Andi]
request feedback on 7/30 draft
20:19:06 [Andi]
different way of chunking GW techniques as individual pages
20:19:28 [Andi]
navigation issues, placeholders, draft content for 1.1 level 1 success criteria
20:19:35 [Andi]
currently working on content for 1.3
20:20:24 [Andi]
need to know if fundamental concept of structure is sound before producing too much content
20:20:43 [Andi]
also feedback on level of detail and abstractness
20:21:13 [wendy]
20:21:14 [Andi]
1.3 draft to the list by end of day 8/27
20:22:15 [wendy]
ack jason
20:22:49 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:23:04 [Andi]
Jason: need to make sure that dependencies and relationships between guidelines are clear
20:24:08 [Andi]
gateway is a good place for examples for things that pass and things that fail
20:25:22 [Andi]
wendy: we need to be using the same examples throughout
20:25:45 [Andi]
issues list - many of examples are very visual, need some that aren't
20:25:58 [Andi]
John: and some that represent multiple technologies
20:26:56 [Zakim]
20:26:59 [ChrisR]
ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
20:27:11 [Zakim]
20:27:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.216.aaaa
20:27:23 [Andi]
next topic: ATAG proposed paragraph for introduction
20:27:39 [wendy]
zakim, +1.202.216.aaaa is Katie
20:27:39 [Zakim]
+Katie; got it
20:29:06 [Andi]
wendy reads proposed paragraph
20:29:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
20:29:13 [wendy]
20:29:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
20:29:20 [Zakim]
Yvette should no longer be muted
20:29:42 [Andi]
general agreement with idea - needs editing
20:30:07 [Andi]
jason - might need to introduce UA as well - need wording for that
20:30:31 [Andi]
katie - thought we were going to have wording discussion about how all 3 fit together
20:30:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
20:30:44 [Andi]
wendy - might not be in our document - might be EO deliverable
20:31:17 [Andi]
wendy - have overviews that should be where people begin
20:31:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:31:36 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Kerstin_Goldsmith (65%), JasonWhite (5%)
20:31:43 [wendy]
ack john
20:31:45 [Andi]
many people haven't found techniques documents
20:31:53 [wendy]
zakim, mute kerstin
20:31:53 [Zakim]
Kerstin_Goldsmith should now be muted
20:32:55 [Andi]
john - WCAG documents are part of a whole concept that includes ATAG and UAAG - brief paragraph and then refer people to EO information
20:33:21 [MattSEA]
20:34:54 [Andi]
action: Matt and Yvette will work on editing the paragraph
20:35:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute mike_barta
20:35:20 [Zakim]
Mike_Barta should no longer be muted
20:35:27 [wendy]
action 1 = m3m clean up auwg paragraph, include uaag, sentence or two about how 3 fit together and link to EOWG overviews
20:35:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
20:35:29 [Zakim]
Yvette should now be muted
20:37:01 [Andi]
mike - suggests that one of the examples be an aggregator example, not just simple flat HTML files
20:37:04 [wendy]
action: yvette send comments/corrections to auwg proposal
20:37:08 [Zakim]
20:37:09 [wendy]
ack matt
20:37:12 [wendy]
ack mike
20:37:42 [Zakim]
20:37:42 [Andi]
matt - with regard to text for UAAG, can include it but it is not as directly relevant as ATAG
20:37:57 [wendy]
zakim, mute mike
20:37:57 [Zakim]
Mike_Barta should now be muted
20:37:58 [Andi]
people reading WCAG document are consumers of ATAG
20:38:20 [Andi]
UAAG audience is more advocacy oriented
20:38:22 [Zakim]
20:38:49 [Zakim]
20:39:06 [wendy]
20:39:11 [Andi]
wendy - next topic is action items
20:39:13 [Zakim]
20:39:15 [Zakim]
20:39:16 [Michael]
zakim, mute me
20:39:16 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:41:56 [Andi]
need 14 volunteers - each one monitors all issues/work related to one guideline
20:41:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
20:41:57 [Zakim]
Yvette should no longer be muted
20:42:11 [Andi]
need people to write proposals for issues
20:42:17 [Andi]
editorial notes in the draft
20:42:33 [Andi]
need people to run tests, create test files, write techniques
20:42:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "adopt guidelines"
20:43:14 [Andi]
contact editor of any document about getting involved
20:43:46 [wendy]
ack yvette
20:43:46 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "adopt guidelines"
20:44:03 [Andi]
yvette - some already did summaries for particular guidelines
20:44:25 [Andi]
perhaps same people can be the monitors for the same guidelines
20:44:36 [wendy]
yvette: 2.4, 4.1, and one other
20:44:41 [Andi]
john: 3.1
20:45:22 [Andi]
kerstin - doesn't remember which ones she did but will be happy to take them again
20:45:28 [Yvette_Hoitink]
yvette: 1.3
20:45:47 [Andi]
katie - one hour per week
20:46:41 [Zakim]
20:47:14 [Andi]
issues raised on WCAG mailing list and interest group list
20:47:32 [Andi]
need to get these into bugzilla
20:47:34 [Zakim]
20:47:49 [Andi]
wendy - need help closing issues too
20:47:56 [Zakim]
20:48:10 [Andi]
next topic - JavaScript
20:48:38 [Michael]
ack Michael
20:48:54 [Andi]
issues twofold
20:49:20 [Andi]
is text alternative to non-text content required if the non-text content itself is accessible
20:49:29 [Zakim]
20:49:39 [Zakim]
20:50:16 [Andi]
2nd - how widely supported must the accessibility features of the non-text content be?
20:51:15 [Andi]
other issues are cross platform and difference between public Web site and intranet sites
20:52:02 [wendy]
summary of issues at:
20:52:08 [Andi]
yvette - WCAG 1.0 required site to be usable if scripts disabled
20:52:16 [Andi]
not in WCAG 2.0 - was that deliberate?
20:52:17 [wendy]
ack jason
20:52:31 [Andi]
jason - series of confusions on this issue
20:53:02 [Andi]
approach with regard to various technologies was to confine the issues to guideline 4
20:54:38 [Andi]
guidelines have to deal with all the issues that are involved in making user interfaces accessible
20:54:53 [Michael]
q+ to say even simple use of script in question
20:55:07 [Andi]
scripts are not "non-text" content
20:55:31 [wendy]
ack michael
20:55:31 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say even simple use of script in question
20:55:37 [Andi]
if it can't be made directly accessible, provide a text alternative - this may be missing from WCAG 2.0
20:56:43 [Andi]
michael - simple example - document.write to put a link on a page - do you need a <noscript> tag for this?
20:57:27 [Andi]
if concerned about it working without scripts, then need <noscript> tag but with regard to accessibility, don't need <noscript> tag
20:57:42 [JibberJim]
NOSCRIPT should never be recommended, there is never a case where noscript is a solution, noscript is a mistake!
20:58:46 [Andi]
wendy - do we need a success criteria that says the page has to be usable with scripts disabled
20:58:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "accessibility problems?"
20:58:51 [Andi]
lots of disagreement
20:59:01 [JibberJim]
[sorry for jumping in, and sorry for not making the call, I really did try]
20:59:06 [wendy]
ack yvette
20:59:06 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "accessibility problems?"
20:59:22 [Andi]
yvette - what are the accessibility problems?
20:59:36 [Michael]
q+ to say never-ending question of supporting old technology
20:59:45 [wendy]
ack jason
21:00:49 [Andi]
jason - need criteria under guideline 4 for determining if a technology can be accessible at various levels and then apply to scripts
21:01:54 [Andi]
jason - position on scripts depends on how well the DOM work is going, how AT support is coming along, etc.
21:02:27 [Andi]
if authors know that users will have technology that supports scripts, then it should be okay to use it
21:02:42 [wendy]
ack michael
21:02:42 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say never-ending question of supporting old technology
21:03:22 [Andi]
michael - WCAG 1.0 had requirement for alternative to scripts because it was a relatively new technology at the time
21:03:48 [Andi]
because ATs will be one or two generations behind
21:04:29 [Andi]
it will always be the case that some new technology is not supported by ATs and some technologies that are now supported that were previously not supported
21:04:50 [Andi]
issue a is support for new technologies
21:05:03 [Andi]
issue b is does the technology present some accessibility issues
21:06:31 [wendy]
q+ to say, "this why 4.1/4.2 reference UAAG - to describe direct accessibility. +previous idea of 'baseline'"
21:06:52 [wendy]
ack alex
21:07:22 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:07:22 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "this why 4.1/4.2 reference UAAG - to describe direct accessibility. +previous idea of 'baseline'"
21:07:36 [Zakim]
21:07:37 [Andi]
alex - should not outlaw any particular technology
21:08:08 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "Javascript techniques"
21:08:23 [Andi]
wendy - partly why guideline references UAAG - deals with direct accessibility if you are doing something that is not HTML
21:09:07 [Andi]
previously talked about authors defining a baseline that is required to operate their site
21:09:27 [Andi]
doesn't address issue of widely available technologies
21:09:36 [Andi]
should be bring back the idea of a baseline
21:09:39 [wendy]
ack john
21:10:37 [Andi]
john - how do we provide guidance to someone who is providing content in the developing world
21:10:49 [Andi]
where users are unlikely to have access to current generation screen readers
21:11:59 [wendy]
ack yvette
21:11:59 [Zakim]
Yvette, you wanted to say "Javascript techniques"
21:12:40 [Andi]
yvette - for end to end examples, can think of many JavaScript examples
21:13:04 [Andi]
may find that we need some additional success criteria
21:13:05 [wendy]
ack jason
21:13:23 [Andi]
jason - suggest drawing a distinction between using something and relying on it
21:13:55 [Andi]
some scripts, if disabled don't make the content, as a whole unusable, just eliminate some function
21:14:30 [wendy]
ack alex
21:14:33 [Andi]
agree that issues of baseline and wide support for technologies need to be addressed in guideline 4
21:15:10 [Andi]
alex - technology is a resource that is not always available to everyone you want to give it to
21:15:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:15:20 [Zakim]
Yvette should now be muted
21:15:29 [Andi]
could be because of proprietary nature of it or because of cost
21:15:44 [Zakim]
21:16:04 [Andi]
AOL may want to distribute proprietary software to all subscribers, it doesn't matter if it only works with Netscape and not IE
21:16:10 [wendy]
ack john
21:16:42 [Michael]
zakim, ??P1 is Kerstin_Goldsmith
21:16:42 [Zakim]
+Kerstin_Goldsmith; got it
21:16:58 [Andi]
john - scenario envisioning - globally, there are over 700 million people with disabilities who live under seriously disadvantaged economic conditions
21:17:08 [Andi]
even in the US, 70% are unemployed
21:17:28 [Michael]
q+ to say we're entering into multiple definitions of accessibility
21:17:52 [Andi]
some need access in order to improve economic or health condition
21:18:58 [wendy]
q+ to say, "public web site vs [adjective] web app?"
21:19:42 [wendy]
ack michael
21:19:42 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say we're entering into multiple definitions of accessibility
21:20:55 [Andi]
michael - getting into different definitions of accessibility
21:21:00 [Andi]
WAI's primary mission is to describe accessibility for people with disabilities all other things being equal
21:22:12 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:22:12 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "public web site vs [adjective] web app?"
21:23:01 [Andi]
wendy - baseline didn't survive because it got into too many issues about what it means to support a technology
21:23:18 [Andi]
21:23:45 [Andi]
need to really consider public Web site vs 'restricted access' web site
21:23:48 [Becky]
q+ to say yahoo, hotmail, gmail?
21:23:55 [JibberJim]
JibberJim has joined #wai-wcag
21:24:03 [wendy]
ack andi
21:24:13 [wendy]
wac perhaps conformance profiles?
21:25:02 [wendy]
asw perhaps other: public sector (government, transportation, education, health) other public sites but are not public sector (don't depend on for life function) then there are non-public (some sort of restricted access)
21:25:20 [wendy]
asw if we want the guidelines to be technology-agnostic, have to stay away from issue of "widely supported"
21:25:32 [wendy]
ack becky
21:25:32 [Zakim]
Becky, you wanted to say yahoo, hotmail, gmail?
21:25:45 [Andi]
becky - what about things like hotmail, yahoo mail, etc?
21:25:59 [Andi]
have to sign up for them but they are free
21:26:09 [Andi]
another category of what we have to deal with as well
21:26:15 [Andi]
they're not restricted sites
21:26:20 [wendy]
ack jason
21:26:54 [Andi]
jason - one proposed rule would be to identify the major types of assistive technologies that people with different disabilities use
21:27:34 [Andi]
if there's at least on AT that supports a technology, then it should be capable of meeting at least level 1
21:27:40 [Andi]
21:27:48 [wendy]
q+ to say, "re: jason's point, would need a time element. what about platform? ala discussion on the list."
21:27:56 [wendy]
ack john
21:28:29 [Michael]
q+ to say we have possible situation in which UAAG says "follow WCAG" and WCAG says "there must be a UAAG compliant tool"
21:28:48 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:28:48 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "re: jason's point, would need a time element. what about platform? ala discussion on the list."
21:28:50 [Andi]
john - some of these things are matters of government policy - want a way to provide guidance even if it is not part of the standard
21:29:17 [Andi]
wendy - concerned that issues regarding platform and time are a factor
21:29:58 [Andi]
hope we can find a way to address without creating a rule as jason suggests
21:30:12 [wendy]
ack michael
21:30:12 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say we have possible situation in which UAAG says "follow WCAG" and WCAG says "there must be a UAAG compliant tool"
21:31:13 [Andi]
michael - UAAG says content should be rendered such that WCAG works. WCAG says there needs to be a UAAG conforming tool in order for WCAG to work
21:31:31 [Andi]
matt - there are no plans for UAAG 2.0 and UAAG 1.0 points to WCAG 1.0
21:32:50 [wendy]
action: jason think about expanding concept of rule (working on 4.2)
21:32:51 [Andi]
jason - will think about minimum conditions that must be satisfied - 4.2
21:33:03 [Zakim]
21:33:16 [Andi]
wendy - exploring idea of conformance profiles might help us
21:33:51 [Andi]
jason and alex will help. michael is interested.
21:34:36 [Andi]
conformance profile - different sets of success criteria for different types of content
21:36:04 [Andi]
becky can help
21:36:19 [Andi]
andi would like to provide input and feedback
21:36:33 [Andi]
wendy would like to have 1 1/2 hour brainstorming session
21:37:02 [Andi]
action: wendy will schedule call
21:37:12 [Andi]
kerstin would like to be involved
21:37:32 [JibberJim]
JibberJim has joined #wai-wcag
21:37:33 [Zakim]
21:37:35 [Zakim]
21:37:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
21:37:36 [Zakim]
Yvette should no longer be muted
21:37:37 [Zakim]
21:37:38 [Zakim]
21:37:39 [nabe]
21:37:39 [Zakim]
21:37:40 [Zakim]
21:37:41 [Zakim]
21:37:42 [Zakim]
21:37:43 [Zakim]
21:37:44 [Zakim]
21:37:46 [Zakim]
21:37:48 [Zakim]
21:37:51 [Zakim]
21:37:52 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:37:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Chris_Ridpath, Wendy, John_Slatin, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Matt, Alex_Li, Yvette, Becky_Gibson, Takayuki, Jenae, Andi, JasonWhite, James_Craig,
21:37:54 [wendy]
andi - thank you for minuting
21:37:57 [Zakim]
... Bengt_Farre, Mike_Barta, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Katie, [Microsoft]
21:38:15 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:40:50 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:46:49 [MattSEA]
MattSEA has left #wai-wcag
21:50:40 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:50:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:50:45 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items:
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: m3m clean up auwg paragraph, include uaag, sentence or two about how 3 fit together and link to EOWG overviews [1]
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: yvette send comments/corrections to auwg proposal [2]
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jason think about expanding concept of rule (working on 4.2) [3]
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: wendy will schedule call [4]
21:50:45 [RRSAgent]
recorded in