19:47:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:47:43 <wendy> RRSAgent, make log world
19:54:36 <rellero> rellero has joined #wai-wcag
19:54:48 <rellero> Hi
19:55:54 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:56:01 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
19:56:53 <Yvette_Hoitink> Yvette_Hoitink has joined #wai-wcag
19:56:58 <Yvette_Hoitink> Hi guys
19:58:48 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
19:59:06 <Yvette_Hoitink> Typical Microsoft, always trying to beat the competition ;-)
19:59:38 <rcastaldo> rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
19:59:38 <Zakim> +Michael_Cooper
19:59:41 <Michael> zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
19:59:41 <Zakim> ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
19:59:47 <rcastaldo> Hi folks :-)
19:59:58 <rellero> Ciao
20:00:04 <Yvette_Hoitink> Did anyone receive the agenda? I don't see any items on the list since yesterday afternoon
20:00:14 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre
20:00:36 <rcastaldo> Ciao
20:00:40 <Yvette_Hoitink> ciao
20:00:45 <Zakim> -Bengt_Farre
20:00:54 <Zakim> +??P5
20:01:04 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, ??P5 is Yvette_Hoitink
20:01:04 <Zakim> +Yvette_Hoitink; got it
20:01:08 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre
20:01:24 <Zakim> +Wendy
20:01:26 <Zakim> +??P7
20:01:32 <bcaldwell> zakim, ??P7 is Ben
20:01:32 <Zakim> +Ben; got it
20:01:50 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:01:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, [Microsoft], Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt_Farre, Ben, Wendy
20:01:51 <bengt> strange getting code not valid ?
20:02:11 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre.a
20:02:13 <Zakim> +Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:02:24 <bengt> btw I am not on yet ...
20:02:46 <wendy> i bet the 2 bengts are the 2 robertos
20:03:22 <rellero> yes, without microphone
20:03:41 <wendy> zakim, Bengt_Farre may be Roberto_Ellero
20:03:41 <Zakim> +Roberto_Ellero?; got it
20:03:49 <rellero> :-)
20:03:57 <wendy> zakim, Bengt_Farre.a may be Roberto_Castaldo
20:03:57 <Zakim> +Roberto_Castaldo?; got it
20:04:05 <bengt> passcode is not valid ?
20:04:06 <wendy> ok bengt, you're right. you're not here yet. :)
20:04:07 <rellero> zakim, rellero is Roberto_Ellero
20:04:07 <Zakim> sorry, rellero, I do not recognize a party named 'rellero'
20:04:18 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, [Microsoft], Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero?, Ben, Wendy, Roberto_Castaldo?, Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:04:33 <wendy> zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:04:33 <Zakim> +Mike_Barta; got it
20:04:37 <rellero> zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
20:04:37 <Zakim> ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero?
20:04:50 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, who's on the phone
20:04:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's on the phone', Yvette_Hoitink
20:04:59 <Zakim> +JasonWhite
20:05:01 <bcaldwell> Scribe: Ben
20:05:07 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:05:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero?, Ben, Wendy, Roberto_Castaldo?, Kerstin_Goldsmith, JasonWhite (muted)
20:05:14 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
20:05:14 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:05:19 <wendy> Topic: TTF summary (Michael Cooper)
20:05:21 <bcaldwell> agendum 1: techniques task force update from Michael
20:05:26 <rcastaldo> zakim, mute me
20:05:26 <Zakim> sorry, rcastaldo, I do not see a party named 'rcastaldo'
20:05:44 <bcaldwell> publishing internal working drafts of CSS, HTML and Gateway tomorrow (Sept. 3)
20:05:54 <rcastaldo> 01zakim, rcastaldo is Roberto_Castaldo
20:06:11 <bcaldwell> zakim, I am Ben
20:06:11 <Zakim> ok, bcaldwell, I now associate you with Ben
20:06:12 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+ to say "f2f: what month?"
20:06:43 <Yvette_Hoitink> q-
20:06:44 <bcaldwell> integrating notes and pointers related to open issues in drafts
20:06:48 <Yvette_Hoitink> thx :-)
20:07:08 <rcastaldo> 01zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo
20:07:14 <bcaldwell> techniques testing: not much new since last week, but testing is going to become a high priority in the near future
20:07:35 <bcaldwell> currently working on process for that and developing proposed test resources
20:07:45 <Zakim> -Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:08:00 <Zakim> +Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:08:16 <bcaldwell> work on additional techniques drafts is beginning
20:08:25 <bcaldwell> q?
20:08:35 <bcaldwell> ack Kerstin
20:08:47 <Zakim> +John_Slatin
20:09:00 <bcaldwell> KG: if you had an xtra person to help w/ techniques a) do you need extra help and b) where is most help needed?
20:09:30 <bcaldwell> MC: definately need xtra bodies - especially with combing lists and resources for new techniques and issues that have been raised, but not yet processed...
20:09:49 <bcaldwell> also need help propsing, revising and writing techniques, test files, conducting user-agent tests, etc...
20:10:00 <bcaldwell> across all technologies?
20:10:31 <bcaldwell> yes - more help with technologies that have not yet received much attention
20:10:34 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:10:52 <bcaldwell> MC: anyone who is looking to help, the TTF can find something for you...
20:11:01 <bcaldwell> WC: face to face
20:11:11 <Andi> Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:11:25 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, unmute me
20:11:25 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:11:26 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+
20:11:27 <bcaldwell> 90% certain to have it in Dublin 19-22 October, first 2 days techniques, then working group
20:11:38 <bcaldwell> currently looking for hotel alternatives
20:12:43 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0489.html
20:13:22 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
20:13:22 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:13:31 <bcaldwell> Topic: 1.2 issue summary
20:14:03 <bcaldwell> (30 minutes)
20:14:20 <wendy> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0528.html
20:15:34 <bcaldwell> wendy's issue summary and proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0532.html
20:16:13 <bcaldwell> issues summarized in notes linked to from mail
20:17:05 <bcaldwell> open issues indicated that there was a great deal of confusion around exceptions in guideline 1.2
20:17:33 <bcaldwell> some of the exceptions may be part of policy - ex. Telecom Act 1996 
20:18:26 <Yvette_Hoitink> q-
20:18:29 <wendy> ack yvette
20:18:31 <Andi> q+
20:18:33 <bcaldwell> ? do people agree that excptions are confusing? can the be dealt with in policy?
20:18:38 <bcaldwell> ack John
20:18:39 <wendy> ack john
20:18:43 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
20:18:43 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:18:52 <bcaldwell> JS - agree that exceptions are policy issues 
20:19:17 <bengt> bengt has joined #wai-wcag
20:19:30 <bcaldwell> JS - might be a good idea to look at legislation in other countries to find comparable examples (perhaps in gateway rather than guidelines, but might be useful)
20:19:32 <wendy> ack jason
20:20:21 <bcaldwell> JW - concerned that policy should be kept out of guidelines 
20:21:16 <bcaldwell> ex. anti-descrimination laws in some countries may conflict w/ exceptions in guidelines that address policy 
20:21:40 <wendy> ack andi
20:21:46 <bcaldwell> JW - agree with wendy's suggestion to keep policy references out
20:22:07 <bcaldwell> ASW - agree with approach, but  how will policy makers know that they should adress this issue?
20:22:15 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+ to say "tech equivalent for policy makers"
20:22:35 <wendy> ack yvette
20:22:35 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, unmute me
20:22:36 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "tech equivalent for policy makers"
20:22:38 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
20:23:22 <bcaldwell> YH - we've talked about this before - handle in document that is targeted to policy makers?
20:23:44 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
20:23:44 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:24:05 <bcaldwell> WC: f2f in July raised this (policy maker document) and Katie has an action item to dig deeper
20:24:12 <Andi> q+
20:24:25 <wendy> ack jason
20:25:31 <bcaldwell> JW: 1.) a time-dependent of other multimedia presentation is likely to have a URI - so given the kind of conformance claims we've been discussing, scoping can be addressed in the claim
20:26:17 <wendy> ack john
20:26:30 <bcaldwell> 2.) we should make it very clear in the guidelines that policy decisions about unjustifiable hardship, diffucult to implement requirements, etc. are (deliberately) not included in guidelines. we need to point that out to policy makers
20:27:23 <bcaldwell> JS: indication that some nations already have laws on the books regarding what should and should not be captioned might be enough to say to policy makers that this issue need to be addressed and that other policies provide some guidance for how to do that
20:27:24 <wendy> ack andi
20:27:43 <Zakim> -Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:28:00 <bcaldwell> ASW: re: jason's comment about scope - scoping is helpful, but only solves the problem if claiming confomrnace is voluntary (you can't scope it out if you're required by law to do it)
20:28:07 <Zakim> +Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:28:20 <bcaldwell> ASW: not sure policy maker document is still the right thing to do
20:30:33 <bcaldwell> WC: issues with multimedia that is only available for a short time, phase-in plans
20:30:36 <wendy> ack Katie
20:32:15 <bcaldwell> JS: we may need more information about how others handle captioning requirements - where there are already captioning requirments, how are phase-in and exceptions for types of broadcast content handled
20:33:03 <bcaldwell> KHS: one of the things that was the issue at the f2f was about content aggregation - also an area where policy document could be helpful
20:34:26 <bcaldwell> action: Katie and Wendy to do some research related to policy for the multimedia guideline
20:34:30 <wendy> ack jason
20:36:15 <bcaldwell> JW: problems with setting policy in guidelines are sufficiently significant that we shouldn't go there. providing informative material somewhere is a good idea. factors that contribute to policy (ex. resources) are different that factors that are taken into account for a technical specification
20:37:11 <bcaldwell> WC: not sure if we created an issue specifically related to creating an informative policy document
20:38:36 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+
20:38:49 <wendy> ack jason
20:38:49 <bcaldwell> WC: 1.2 addresses "interactive" propose that this is covered by guidelines 4.1 and 4.2 - item 5 in the proposal. would like to get input about whether this is covered or not
20:39:04 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
20:39:04 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
20:39:13 <bcaldwell> JW: objection to classifying something as an application and using that distinction to determine what applies
20:39:47 <bcaldwell> JW: suggest that we say something about conformance profiles or a specific type of interaction instead of classifying as an application
20:40:04 <wendy> ack yvette
20:40:41 <bcaldwell> YH: seems strange to say that a specific type of content should follow other guidelines since all web content should follow all guidelines
20:40:53 <Zakim> -Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:41:28 <bcaldwell> WC: something like, characteristics that are interactive go with 4.1 and 4.2 and characteristics of content that is multimedia follow 1.2?
20:41:50 <Zakim> +Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:42:27 <bcaldwell> YH: makes it sound like certain guidelines are specifically designed for certain types of content and guidelines should apply to all web content
20:42:51 <Andi> q+
20:43:33 <bcaldwell> WC: similar to other guidelines where we refer to other parts of the guidelines
20:43:44 <wendy> ack John
20:44:15 <Michael> zakim, mute me
20:44:15 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:44:26 <bcaldwell> JS: I have a graduate student who just submitted public comments, has done a lot of work on accessibility and application development - he might be able to help.
20:44:33 <Zakim> + +1.973.944.aaaa - is perhaps Roberto_Castaldo?
20:45:07 <Zakim> -Roberto_Castaldo?
20:45:18 <rcastaldo> I'm always on line
20:45:21 <bengt> bengt has joined #wai-wcag
20:46:38 <Zakim> +??P12
20:46:51 <bcaldwell> JS: seems that one of the problems we're running into with 1.1, 1.2 and maybe the 4.x guidelines is that 1.1 is about non-text content and 1.2 is about a specific type of non-text content and we're trying to get interactive out -- wonder if we can handle by having nontext that is (interactive, multimedia, audio, etc.)
20:46:52 <bengt> zakim, ??P12 is Bengt_Farre
20:46:52 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre; got it
20:47:05 <bengt> zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:47:05 <Zakim> ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:47:06 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
20:47:06 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:47:46 <bcaldwell> WC: wrestled with this too - started rewriting 1.1 to incorporate multimedia, but felt that was too much
20:47:53 <bcaldwell> action: john, ben and wendy to discuss
20:48:00 <Yvette_Hoitink> <curious>which holiday?</curious>
20:48:22 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
20:48:22 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
20:48:27 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, unmute me
20:48:27 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:48:34 <bcaldwell> Topic: Issue Summary on 2.4 
20:48:51 <bcaldwell> ~52 issues summarized - a lot of work
20:49:34 <bcaldwell> summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0512.html
20:50:09 <bcaldwell> 3 underlying issues to discuss 
20:51:12 <bcaldwell> 1.) "large documents" - ex. 50,000 is a big number - ex. WCAG guidelines themselves is only 14,000 and needs some additional navigation
20:51:24 <wendy> ack andi
20:51:32 <wendy> ack jason
20:52:45 <bcaldwell> JW: one option would be to place an upper limit on what is considered "large" -- so we can say anything above X is too much, but it's open to tools or implementers to take documents that are less than this and provide a warning rather than an error.
20:53:35 <wendy> ack john
20:53:51 <bcaldwell> JS: I'm wondering if this is actually an accessibility or a usability issue
20:54:43 <bcaldwell> YH: I think this does effect pwds disproportionately
20:55:15 <bcaldwell> .. much easier to navigate content and move within it when navigation aids are present
20:55:53 <bcaldwell> WC: there have been usability studies about how people deal with text on the web - skimming and scanning are primary modes of operation -- if that is not available, then this is an accessibility issue
20:56:22 <bcaldwell> JS: a 4 page print document isn't very long, but a 4 screen electronic document feels longer. that's nowhere near 50,000 words
20:56:41 <bcaldwell> YH: not sure how many screens are in WCAG and we can multiply by 3 and still not hit the 50,000 limit
20:57:14 <Zakim> -Kerstin_Goldsmith
20:57:15 <bcaldwell> JS: "long" is relative from one medium to another 
20:57:50 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+
20:58:05 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+ to say "screen is resolution depended"
20:58:33 <bcaldwell> WC: the term "screen" might be a better measure than the number of words, but screen size will depend on resoution and font size
20:58:40 <Yvette_Hoitink> q-
20:59:34 <bcaldwell> need to define a rule of thumb or best practice 
21:00:14 <Zakim> +??P6
21:01:29 <rcastaldo> Have to leave the call for two minutes
21:01:56 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
21:02:16 <bcaldwell> action: Yvette and Kerstin to do some research about alternative ways to represent what constitues a large document
21:02:52 <wendy> ack jason
21:02:53 <bcaldwell> JW: sentences rather than word could be a better measure - more language independent and representative of complexity
21:04:10 <bcaldwell> YH: underlying issue 2: make structure perceivable (was guideline 1.5) - wanted to verify that we did intent to remove these criterion - if this is what we intended, then we can close the issues
21:04:13 <bcaldwell> q+
21:04:31 <Zakim> -??P6
21:04:47 <rcastaldo> I'm back in the call
21:05:06 <Zakim> -Bengt_Farre
21:05:11 <wendy> bc doing work w/css techs, there are some associated with this criterion that no longer have a home.
21:05:21 <wendy> bc e.g., border properties - highlighting that chunks go together.
21:05:26 <wendy> js can go under 1.3
21:06:25 <Zakim> + +1.973.944.aabb - is perhaps Roberto_Castaldo?
21:06:44 <rcastaldo> no, it's not me
21:07:04 <bengt> back but no message from zakim ?
21:07:39 <bengt> zakim, +1.973.944.aabb is Bengt_Farre
21:07:39 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '+1.973.944.aabb'
21:07:49 <bcaldwell> wc: could be covered under 1.3, but doesn't seem to fit
21:08:12 <bengt> zakim, 1.973.944.aabb is Bengt_Farre
21:08:12 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '1.973.944.aabb'
21:08:30 <bengt> zakim, ?1.973.944.aabb is Bengt_Farre
21:08:30 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '?1.973.944.aabb'
21:09:05 <wendy> q?
21:09:11 <bcaldwell> q-
21:09:51 <bcaldwell> JW: wider issue is that we don't include the counterpart to 1.3, which is to provide style for the structure that is there
21:12:18 <bcaldwell> action: wendy and jason to work on a proposal to look at how to deal with techniques that were associated with removed criterion (ex CSS 4.1 and 11.1) and consider whether these ideas need to be reintroduced in the guidelines
21:13:00 <bcaldwell> YH: 3) confusion about why we need 2.4 because they believe it is a usability, rather than an accessibility issue
21:14:01 <bcaldwell> YH: guideline 1.3, level1, sc1 overlaps with several of the items in 2.4 
21:14:40 <wendy> ack john
21:14:52 <bcaldwell> YH: 2.4 and 1.3 are closely linked - need to figure out how to decide which criterion belong in each.
21:15:08 <Zakim> -Roberto_Castaldo?
21:15:32 <bcaldwell> ex. you need table headers to mark structure, but also to navigate 
21:15:37 <rcastaldo> I'm always here :-)
21:16:01 <bengt> my line is dropping all the time and it is weird
21:16:27 <bcaldwell> js: are there structural things that are necessary to support navigation and orientation that would not fit under 1.3?
21:16:53 <bcaldwell> yh: there are some things (like a site map) that are not part of structure
21:16:57 <Zakim> + +1.973.944.aacc - is perhaps Roberto_Castaldo?
21:17:14 <rcastaldo> Zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo?
21:17:14 <Zakim> sorry, rcastaldo, I do not see a party named 'Roberto_Castaldo?'
21:17:15 <bengt> zakim, ?+1.973.944.aacc is Bengt_Farre
21:17:15 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '?+1.973.944.aacc'
21:17:44 <rellero>  zakim, ?+1.973.944.aacc is Roberto_Ellero
21:17:44 <Zakim> sorry, rellero, I do not recognize a party named '?+1.973.944.aacc'
21:17:55 <rellero>  zakim, ?+1.973.944.aacc is rellero
21:17:55 <Zakim> sorry, rellero, I do not recognize a party named '?+1.973.944.aacc'
21:18:11 <bengt> rellero thats my line 
21:18:16 <bcaldwell> additional navigation that is added becomes part of structure after it is added
21:18:21 <rellero>  ok
21:18:28 <bengt> zakim, ??1.973.944.aacc is Bengt_Farre
21:18:28 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named '??1.973.944.aacc'
21:18:35 <rcastaldo> 01Zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo
21:18:55 <Yvette_Hoitink> q_
21:18:57 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+
21:18:58 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
21:19:00 <wendy> ack jason
21:20:00 <wendy> zakim, 1.973.944.aacc is Bengt
21:20:00 <Zakim> sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '1.973.944.aacc'
21:20:02 <bcaldwell> JW: in confomance,a delivery unit is something that has a URI - consequence of that is that a navigation mechanism is considered separately for each page. if you've evaluating conformance of each one, then the navigation isn't looked at as a whole
21:20:13 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
21:20:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero? (muted), Ben, Wendy, Roberto_Castaldo?, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], Roberto_Castaldo?,
21:20:16 <Zakim> ... Katie_Haritos-Shea
21:21:27 <wendy> ack yvette
21:21:28 <bcaldwell> yh: 1.3 and 2.4 overlap - sounds like 1.3 is about marking structure and 2.4 tells authors to supply additional structure, where 1.3 makes sure that existing structure is available to user agent
21:21:30 <wendy> ack john
21:22:15 <bcaldwell> js: interesting approach, but gets weird because 2.4 comes after 1.3 - logically, you want to say, provide structure and then make it perceivable 
21:22:16 <bengt> zakim, Roberto_Castaldo? is roberto2
21:22:16 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named 'Roberto_Castaldo?'
21:22:31 <bengt> zakim, Roberto_Castaldo is roberto2
21:22:31 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named 'Roberto_Castaldo'
21:22:32 <Zakim> -Roberto_Castaldo?
21:22:44 <bcaldwell> js: linearity of the guidelines is somewhat misleading here because they interact with one another
21:22:48 <bengt> zakim, who is on the phone ?
21:22:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero? (muted), Ben, Wendy, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], Roberto_Castaldo?, Katie_Haritos-Shea
21:23:21 <bengt> zakim, Roberto_Castaldo? is beng
21:23:21 <Zakim> +beng; got it
21:23:22 <Zakim> + +1.973.944.aadd - is perhaps beng
21:23:26 <Yvette_Hoitink> q?
21:23:35 <bengt> zakim, beng is Bengt_Farre
21:23:35 <Zakim> sorry, bengt, I do not recognize a party named 'beng'
21:23:41 <bcaldwell> issue: make it clear that numbered sequence of guidelines isn't meaningful
21:23:49 <bengt> zakim, who is on the phone ?
21:23:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink, Roberto_Ellero? (muted), Ben, Wendy, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], beng, Katie_Haritos-Shea, beng
21:24:11 <rcastaldo> I'm on the phone too :-)
21:24:56 <bcaldwell> wc: publishing a suite of internal drafts tomorrow - have a series of milestones to hit for another internal draft on the 8th of october
21:25:08 <bcaldwell> next public WD on 3rd of november
21:25:20 <bcaldwell> planning page includes milestones and agenda items
21:25:44 <bcaldwell> planning page: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html
21:25:46 <wendy> ack john
21:25:52 <bcaldwell> Topic: 1.3 Feedback for gateway
21:26:03 <Zakim> -beng
21:26:07 <bcaldwell> js: not much feedback
21:26:22 <rellero> so I am Beng :-/
21:26:45 <rcastaldo> :-)
21:27:38 <Zakim> + +1.973.944.aaee - is perhaps beng
21:27:41 <rellero> I am on the phone again now
21:27:59 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+ to say "doc is called Gateway Techniques, not Gateway TO techniques"
21:28:32 <bcaldwell> js: gateway to techniques or gateway techniques?
21:29:08 <Yvette_Hoitink> q-
21:29:17 <bcaldwell> wc: plan is to incorporate John's proposed text into internal WD tomorrow - any objections?
21:29:32 <bcaldwell> -- no objections raised --
21:30:36 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
21:30:37 <rcastaldo> bye all
21:30:45 <rellero> Bye!
21:30:49 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
21:31:29 <bcaldwell> next week: discussion on conformance profiles
21:31:53 <Zakim> -Roberto_Ellero?
21:31:54 <Zakim> -Mike_Barta
21:31:55 <Zakim> -John_Slatin
21:31:57 <Zakim> -Wendy
21:31:57 <rcastaldo> rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
21:31:58 <Zakim> -Yvette_Hoitink
21:31:59 <Zakim> -beng
21:31:59 <Zakim> -beng
21:32:00 <Zakim> -Ben
21:32:02 <wendy> ben - thank you for minuting
21:32:02 <Zakim> -[IBM]
21:32:07 <bcaldwell> sure thing
21:32:20 <bengt> bye
21:32:24 <Zakim> -JasonWhite
21:32:25 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:32:25 <bengt> bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:32:26 <Zakim> Attendees were Katie_Haritos-Shea, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Ben, Kerstin_Goldsmith, Roberto_Ellero?, Mike_Barta, JasonWhite, John_Slatin, [IBM], +1.973.944.aaaa,
21:32:28 <Zakim> ... Bengt_Farre, +1.973.944.aabb, +1.973.944.aacc, beng, +1.973.944.aadd, +1.973.944.aaee
21:33:16 <Yvette_Hoitink> agenda?
21:33:22 <Yvette_Hoitink> action items?
21:34:19 <bcaldwell> RRSAgent, bye
21:34:19 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items:
21:34:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Katie and Wendy to do some research related to policy for the multimedia guideline [1]
21:34:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T20-34-26
21:34:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: john, ben and wendy to discuss [2]
21:34:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T20-47-53
21:34:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Yvette and Kerstin to do some research about alternative ways to represent what constitues a large document [3]
21:34:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T21-02-16
21:34:19 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wendy and jason to work on a proposal to look at how to deal with techniques that were associated with removed criterion (ex CSS 4.1 and 11.1) and consider whether these ideas need to be reintroduced in the guidelines [4]
21:34:19 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/09/02-wai-wcag-irc#T21-12-18