19:45:50 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 19:46:23 rscano has changed the topic to: +1 617.761.6200 passcode 9224 ("WCAG") 19:47:50 rellero has joined #wai-wcag 19:47:59 Hi 19:48:15 hi 19:58:24 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 19:58:31 +[Microsoft] 19:59:13 +??P1 19:59:35 +Wendy 19:59:47 +Alex_Li 19:59:48 zakim, ??P1 is Bengt_Farre 19:59:48 +Bengt_Farre; got it 19:59:53 bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag 19:59:56 zakim, I am Bengt_Farre 19:59:56 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre 20:00:12 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 20:00:15 Gez has joined #wai-wcag 20:00:37 zakim, who's making noise? 20:00:53 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 20:01:09 zakim, who's making noise? 20:01:19 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:01:19 On the phone I see [Microsoft], Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Alex_Li 20:01:23 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (58%) 20:01:25 zakim, mute Microsoft 20:01:25 sorry, wendy, I do not see a party named 'Microsoft' 20:01:28 +Michael_Cooper 20:01:32 zakim, mute [Microsoft] 20:01:32 [Microsoft] should now be muted 20:01:36 +Tom 20:01:42 zakim, mute Bengt 20:01:42 Bengt_Farre should now be muted 20:01:47 zakim, mute Alex 20:01:47 Alex_Li should now be muted 20:01:48 Zakim, I am Tom 20:01:48 ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom 20:01:53 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:01:53 On the phone I see [Microsoft] (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Alex_Li (muted), Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted) 20:01:55 wasnt me :) 20:02:08 zakim, unmute Alex 20:02:08 Alex_Li should no longer be muted 20:02:16 +??P5 20:02:49 zakim, mute Alex 20:02:49 Alex_Li should now be muted 20:02:49 zakim, ??P5 is Takayuk_Watanabei 20:02:50 +Takayuk_Watanabei; got it 20:02:57 zakim, unmute [Microsoft] 20:02:57 [Microsoft] should no longer be muted 20:03:05 zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta 20:03:05 +Mike_Barta; got it 20:03:12 +??P7 20:03:17 +Becky_Gibson 20:03:20 +[IBM] 20:03:24 zakim, ??P7 is David_MacDonald 20:03:24 +David_MacDonald; got it 20:03:25 Becky has joined #wai-wcag 20:03:29 zakim, [IBM] is Andi 20:03:29 +Andi; got it 20:03:33 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:03:33 On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Alex_Li (muted), Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Takayuk_Watanabei, David_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Andi 20:03:38 +??P6 20:03:48 zakim, ??P6 is Roberto_Ellero 20:03:48 +Roberto_Ellero; got it 20:03:49 +??P10 20:03:53 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 20:04:01 zakim, I am Takayuki_Watanabe 20:04:01 sorry, nabe, I do not see a party named 'Takayuki_Watanabe' 20:04:02 -??P10 20:04:02 zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero 20:04:03 ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero 20:04:06 +John_Slatin 20:04:07 +??P11 20:04:09 zakim, mute me 20:04:09 Roberto_Ellero should now be muted 20:04:19 zakim, ??P5 is Takayuki_Watanabe 20:04:19 I already had ??P5 as Takayuk_Watanabei, nabe 20:04:20 zakim, ??P11 is Ben_and_Gregg 20:04:20 +Ben_and_Gregg; got it 20:04:22 zakim, I am Becky_Gibson 20:04:22 ok, Becky, I now associate you with Becky_Gibson 20:04:28 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:04:28 On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Alex_Li (muted), Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Takayuk_Watanabei, David_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Andi, Roberto_Ellero 20:04:31 ... (muted), John_Slatin, Ben_and_Gregg 20:05:11 +??P10 20:05:28 zakim, ??P10 is Roberto_Scano 20:05:28 +Roberto_Scano; got it 20:05:35 +JasonWhite 20:05:37 zakim, I am Takayuk_Watanabei 20:05:37 ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuk_Watanabei 20:05:38 zakim, I'm Roberto_Scano 20:05:38 I don't understand 'I'm Roberto_Scano', rscano 20:05:45 zakim, I am Roberto_Scano 20:05:45 ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano 20:06:01 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 20:06:08 skype is free 20:07:06 zakim, who is here? 20:07:06 On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Alex_Li (muted), Michael_Cooper, Tom (muted), Takayuk_Watanabei, David_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Andi, Roberto_Ellero 20:07:09 ... (muted), John_Slatin, Ben_and_Gregg, Roberto_Scano (muted), JasonWhite 20:07:10 On IRC I see gregg, Andi, Becky, Gez, nabe, bcaldwell, rellero, RRSAgent, Zakim, bengt, rscano, Michael, wendy, MDuerst, sh1mmer 20:07:23 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 20:08:30 Topic: TTF update 20:08:37 mc spent most of the day talking about checklists. 20:09:09 mc how checklists, test files, techniques, etc. relate to each other. primary topic for f2f. 20:09:27 mc experimentally started linking from techniques to test files. 20:09:53 mc internal drafts this friday 20:10:37 mc public in november. trying to address as many issues as can before then. 20:10:46 Topic: 1.2 20:11:27 David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag 20:13:28 wac really close to sending to the group, but not quite. trying to list which issues it closes. have several questions but doesn't make sense to address until people have had a chance to review. 20:14:32 wac working to close 32 issues 20:15:31 Next: moving to open issues, moved JIS dicussion to last 30 minutes 20:15:47 Thank you for rearranging the agenda. 20:16:36 nabe it is nice that you are happy to participate so early. 20:16:55 http://tinyurl.com/44j2v 20:17:19 bc currently 400+ issues for WCAG 2.0...not all of the issues are in the mailing list. 20:17:26 bc need help to close the issues 20:17:48 bc good to see upward trend of issues that are being closed, but also open increasing. 20:17:55 first set (above uri) - need people to take action items. 20:18:07 going through them: 20:18:08 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=307 20:18:38 looking at xx-small support in user agents and asst. technologies. 20:18:49 which browsers? how far back? 20:19:08 [question from dmd] 20:19:27 bc particularly need background check with screen readers and screen magnifiers 20:20:07 js not much of an issue for screen readers 20:20:24 bg braille? 20:21:04 js hpr and jaws can be set to tell it that "pronounce bold in lower voice" 20:21:15 wac do that for font sizes? 20:21:28 wac want it? 20:23:51 action: david test 307 with screen magnifiers and screen readers, john test with screen readers 20:24:51 action: nobody do some research on xx-small....xx-* support on mobile phones 20:25:12 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=368 20:25:19 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=501 20:25:44 lumping these 2 together - both are talking about differences between 1.0 and 2.0 and audience/understandability. 20:26:11 bc someone need to look at Appendix C: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040730/#id4518765 20:26:19 bc bring this section up-to-date 20:26:57 bc good to clarify before the next public draft 20:27:17 js draft overview of wcag 2.0 - there is clear language there. 20:28:42 action: wendy approach shawn about overview/appendix/intro and coordinating issues related to issues 368 and 501 20:28:57 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=381 20:29:07 js think this is moot 20:29:12 action: john address issue 381 20:29:21 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=592 20:29:57 for tomorrow's draft, lots of work on normative sections on 1.4/1.5, but did not touch informative (examples) 20:30:47 action: gregg look at examples for 1.4/1.5 20:30:57 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=702 20:31:03 bc examples related to guideline 3.3 20:31:25 there is no 3.3 20:32:08 js i rewrote the "concrete concept" example, didn't get incorporated. will resend. 20:32:22 702 overlaps 381 20:32:31 action: john address 702 (related to 381) 20:32:43 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1021 20:32:55 action: becky proposal to close issue 1021 20:35:08 bc next batch are public comments that need answers 20:35:24 action: wendy and becky talk at the f2f about editing xml source 20:35:41 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=487 20:35:57 Are tables used for layout (i.e. to structure content) a violation of guideline 1.3? 20:36:16 bc guidelines themselves don't make it clear, has been work on html techniques. 20:36:53 js not technically a violation, if using a data table, must make the relationships perceivale, but doesn't say "can't use talbes for layout" 20:37:13 ack john 20:37:23 q+ 20:37:26 js if you use tables for layout, still have to make other relationships clear. can't just use tables to indicate relationships, have to markup structure 20:37:32 ack loretta 20:38:01 lgr initial intention of tables is that they be data, but the reality is that if we limit to data, we'd be "swimming upstream" 20:38:08 ack gregg 20:38:15 q+ 20:38:46 gv what does the html spec do? 20:38:57 T_SEKI has joined #wai-wcag 20:39:17 http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.1.1 20:39:20 gv nothing to prevent you from using a table for layout, if you do don't need to do headers. 20:39:29 good morning Seki san! 20:39:43 q- 20:40:10 Good morning 20:40:39 Ohayou :) 20:40:48 gv propose to close by saying, "nothing in 1.3 that prevents use of tables for layout. If there is a relationship in info between the cells, then you must expose it." 20:40:55 js i've got that in general techniques. 20:41:16 we can refer to "old" WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 5.4 20:41:22 gv furthermore, 4.1 says to use things according to spec, and it is up to html wg to answer if use of layout for tables is allowed. 20:41:33 gv thus, we don't prevent it and don'thav ethe authority to reinterpret. 20:42:00 js html-specific question, thus not in guidelines. 20:42:09 gv perhaps a comment for techs doc. 20:42:13 zakim, who's making noise? 20:42:27 wendy, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Takayuk_Watanabei (42%), Ben_and_Gregg (3%), John_Slatin (91%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (3%) 20:42:37 q+ 20:42:39 bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag 20:42:49 zakim, mute takayuk 20:42:49 Takayuk_Watanabei should now be muted 20:42:56 q+ to say "I wonder how many audience can undersrtand these things?" 20:43:04 ack john 20:43:18 zakim ,unmute me 20:43:56 Zakim, unmute nabe 20:43:56 sorry, sh1mmer, I do not see a party named 'nabe' 20:44:01 gv anyone want to speak against that conclusion 20:44:17 ack Tom 20:44:18 ack tom 20:44:19 q+ 20:44:47 tc see the use of tables as degrading the experience of someone using a screen reader. w/current css support, no need to do it. 20:45:14 q+ 20:45:39 tc unacceptable that peoplehave to switch between navigation modes (time it takes to do it0 20:45:41 ack takayuk 20:45:43 Takayuk_Watanabei, you wanted to say "I wonder how many audience can undersrtand these things?" 20:46:02 tw no one can understand this discussion by only reading the guideline. 20:46:19 tw we need an explanation. 20:46:44 ack gregg 20:46:51 gv there are 2 places that we will make it clear. one is in the technology-specific techniques and the other is the checklist. 20:47:01 gv we will not make it clear in the guidelines because it is an html-specific topic. 20:47:51 gv we don't want to be ambiguous, so will provide information but not at the guideline level 20:48:14 ack bcaldwell 20:48:16 ack ben 20:48:34 zakim ,mute me 20:48:38 bc in response, specifically include a recommendation. "we don't prohibit tables, but we suggest use css" 20:48:52 bc prohibiting tables issue related to authoring tools 20:49:12 gv perhaps at level 3, say don't use tables 20:49:27 gv need to figure what guideline that would fit under 20:49:30 ack andi 20:49:52 asw like ben's approach. "recommend css, but if you use tables for layout we give you guidance for how to use" 20:49:55 ack jason 20:50:07 jw agree with gregg and ben's proposals. 20:50:53 q+ 20:51:42 ack john 20:52:05 js where put something related to layout tables? perhaps 2.4 20:52:47 js at level 3? 20:53:11 ack tom 20:53:59 tc everyone seems to agree that pages w/out layout tables are better. perhaps not instead of put it somewhere, make it similar to scoping? (e.g., phase-in of multimedia) make it a scoping issue. 20:54:31 dmd don't think css support is there yet to totally abandon tables 20:56:24 gv any objection to saying that nothing in 1.3 prevents use of tables for layout? 20:56:59 no one objects 20:57:26 gv add a note that says we may (at level 3) say that no tables are used for layout 20:57:27 +??P15 20:57:51 no one objects to that statement 20:58:12 gv whether tables are allowed under 4.1 is something that is not determined by this committee but by html wg 20:58:16 zakim, who's making noise? 20:58:27 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Andi (9%), Ben_and_Gregg (19%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (27%), ??P15 (76%), Wendy (28%) 20:58:54 zakim, mute ??P15 20:58:54 ??P15 should now be muted 20:59:09 no one disagrees 20:59:37 zakim, unmute ??P15 20:59:37 ??P15 should no longer be muted 20:59:38 zakim, dial Martin-617 20:59:38 ok, MDuerst; the call is being made 20:59:40 +Martin 20:59:52 zakim, ??P15 is Makoto 20:59:52 +Makoto; got it 21:00:04 zakim ,unmute me 21:01:06 zakim, mute Makoto 21:01:06 Makoto should now be muted 21:01:20 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:01:20 On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Alex_Li (muted), Michael_Cooper (muted), Tom (muted), Takayuk_Watanabei, David_MacDonald, Becky_Gibson, Andi, 21:01:23 ... Roberto_Ellero (muted), John_Slatin, Ben_and_Gregg, Roberto_Scano (muted), JasonWhite, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Makoto (muted), Martin 21:02:33 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1140 21:02:58 (1) We find some part of WCAG 2.0 is difficult to understand because they are 21:03:00 too abstract and too precise. Reader of WCAG 2.0 may need a manual or handbook. 21:03:01 WCAG had better have more examples that show an example to at least one SC. 21:04:27 gv checklist should help clarify 21:05:12 gv e.g., checklist say "use alt-text with img" and "provide captions with movies" the specificity and concreteness you will find in the checklist 21:05:18 gv would that help? 21:05:24 gv or would it still exist? 21:05:44 tw understand the strategy, but guidelines are difficult to read. 21:06:39 gv we agree with the comment and are attempting to write them in as simple language as we can 21:07:11 gv we will see what we can do to provide more examples 21:07:22 ack john 21:07:36 +??P14 21:07:52 js agree that the guidelines are still more difficult to understand than they should be, intrigued about the "handbook" comment 21:08:06 js don't think we should dismiss that. part of the function that the techniques documents will serve. 21:08:09 zakim, mute ??P14 21:08:09 ??P14 should now be muted 21:08:14 q+ 21:08:36 js no matter how carefully we write the guidelines they will not be self-explanatory. this is why we rely on EOWG and will have books and manuals to explain. 21:09:01 js can't make everything self-explanatory. additonal explantory material will be required. 21:09:24 gv we also agree that [some] reader[s] of WCAG 2.0 will need a manual or handbook 21:10:01 ack bcaldwell 21:10:19 bc i related this issue to the "O'reilly version of wcag 2.0" matt already has action item to propose. 21:10:43 md working with the publisher or using that word to say "good books" 21:10:44 that's a good idea. 21:10:47 gv it is used generically 21:11:17 next comment: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1141 21:11:37 hello seki-san - did you just join the call? 21:12:01 yes I am sit in 21:12:03 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:12:03 On the phone I see Mike_Barta, Bengt_Farre (muted), Wendy, Alex_Li (muted), Michael_Cooper (muted), Tom (muted), Takayuk_Watanabei, David_MacDonald (muted), Becky_Gibson, Andi, 21:12:06 ... Roberto_Ellero (muted), John_Slatin, Ben_and_Gregg, Roberto_Scano (muted), JasonWhite, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Makoto (muted), Martin, ??P14 (muted) 21:12:13 ok. i think you are P14. 21:12:21 zakim, ??P14 is T_Seki 21:12:21 +T_Seki; got it 21:12:33 ISO/CD 23973 referred has a long way before become standard.... 21:12:51 welcome to the call. if you would like to speak, please type "q+" in IRC and you will be added to the speaker queue. 21:13:21 gv our charter says we can only work on accessibility issues. in the comments it say, "they are related to each other." 21:13:27 Thank you, wendy 21:13:54 gv where they interact (usability and accessibility), it does trigger on accessibility, but if it is a problem for everyone then it is outside of our charter. 21:14:17 gv it would be good if there were usability guidelines, but there are many books that talk about usability. 21:15:03 gv the best that we have is a standard for documenting usability testing - the CIF. 21:15:11 gv however, no standard for usability. 21:15:25 q+ 21:15:33 ack Takayuk 21:15:47 zakim, Takayuk_Watanabei is Takayuki_Watanabe 21:15:47 +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it 21:16:13 tw someone did a user test of WCAG 1.0 and found that most of the problems are not accessibility issues but usability issues. 21:17:09 tw understand the opinion, but we should treat usability issues as much as we can. otherwise, it is difficult to use a web site. 21:17:52 gv it is true that often the people with disabilities have the same problems as everyone else, however, we do not have authority to work on that unless it is a much great problem for someone with a disability. 21:18:33 q+ to say, "perhaps we can talk about a specific example? perhaps we cover more than we think? or is there a usability problem we are not aware of?" 21:20:15 gv ideas for how to address? 21:20:19 ack wendy 21:20:19 wendy, you wanted to say, "perhaps we can talk about a specific example? perhaps we cover more than we think? or is there a usability problem we are not aware of?" 21:21:58 action: takayuki provide example of usability issue don't feel is covered. [we'll discuss at f2f] 21:22:04 ack loretta 21:22:14 lgr what would you like to see covered? 21:22:25 gv yes, would be good to see what have in mind. 21:22:34 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1142 21:22:48 gv reads issue 21:23:11 gv you said it should be more explicit. we could do that in the examples. 21:23:23 gv could add "an older person who is experiencing..." 21:23:48 gv our guidelines are called, "accessibility guidelines" but don't mention who they are accessible to. so, mention both disabilities as well as older. 21:23:53 "older person" isn't a disability 21:23:57 gv some older people do not have disabilities. 21:24:18 gv could say "people who are older and often develop single and often mixed disabilties" to clarify that is one of our target audiences. 21:24:30 q+ 21:24:33 gv that is a good comment. we need to clarify our language to reflect that. 21:24:36 ack takayuki 21:25:01 tw if a person who is old and cognitive function is deteriorated, is he disabled? 21:25:11 gv he or she is experiencing a disability. 21:25:27 ack andi 21:25:42 asw we would consider them to have a disability but they may not consider themselves to have a disability. 21:25:57 asw the paragraph about the design principles could use work. we could include issues withg aging. as well as in user needs. 21:26:24 Well done Andi! 21:26:44 yep! 21:26:53 action: asw incorporate aging into paragraph about the design principles as well as user needs. 21:26:53 thank you! 21:27:14 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1143 21:27:28 gv we talked about that earlier in this call. the techniques doc says "avoid layout tables" 21:27:43 gv the conclusion we came to today is: 21:27:58 gv 1.3 does not preclude using tables for layout 21:28:33 gv 4.1 says "use according to spec" and we don't decide the specification -it is up to the HTML WG 21:29:08 gv open question: perhaps at least at level 3 it would be good to have suggestion to avoid tables for layout. it is not there currently. 21:29:10 I think we've talked about that on techniques. I think the techniques taskforce is still up i the air about that. I don't think we are leaning in the direction "avoid layout tables" 21:29:35 gv in techniques: describe problems. 21:29:47 gv in 4.1 could describe problem in an example 21:30:25 gv we are reluctant to state "avoid tables for layout" because there is still issues with css development (tools and widely used practices) 21:30:30 tw that's ok 21:30:37 gv we are at the end of the call 21:31:04 gv will set aside time at f2f to further discuss these questions 21:31:56 q+ to say "need to follow-up at better time of day for japan?" 21:32:12 q+ 21:32:16 ack tom 21:33:50 -Loretta_Guarino_Reid 21:34:51 -JasonWhite 21:35:24 -Michael_Cooper 21:36:02 -Roberto_Scano 21:36:11 -Roberto_Ellero 21:36:15 and I thought 9pm was a PITA 21:36:25 by to all 21:36:28 Well done nabe :) 21:36:59 thank you Tom, 21:37:15 -Mike_Barta 21:37:16 -Alex_Li 21:37:17 -Andi 21:37:18 -Becky_Gibson 21:37:20 -Bengt_Farre 21:37:20 -Ben_and_Gregg 21:37:21 -Wendy 21:37:22 -Tom 21:37:24 -John_Slatin 21:37:27 -Martin 21:37:28 -David_MacDonald 21:37:35 RRSAgent, make log world 21:37:43 -T_Seki 21:37:53 Hi 21:38:10 Tnak you Gregg, thank you Wendy. 21:38:41 nabe has left #wai-wcag 21:38:51 You are welcome. Thank you for commenting and attending. Thanks also to Martin, Makoto, and Seki-san 21:38:56 -Makoto 21:39:32 Thank you Gregg ,thank you wendy, see again Brussels 21:39:53 See you in Brussels. 21:40:54 Yes I going to EU work Shop 21:42:12 Good. It should be interesting. 21:42:47 I sit in 3 days 21:43:56 disconnecting the lone participant, Takayuki_Watanabe, in WAI_WCAG()4:00PM 21:44:00 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended 21:44:01 Attendees were Wendy, Alex_Li, Bengt_Farre, Michael_Cooper, Tom, Mike_Barta, Becky_Gibson, David_MacDonald, Andi, Roberto_Ellero, John_Slatin, Ben_and_Gregg, Roberto_Scano, 21:44:03 ... JasonWhite, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Martin, Makoto, T_Seki, Takayuki_Watanabe 21:44:14 zakim, bye 21:44:14 Zakim has left #wai-wcag 21:44:19 RRSAgent, bye 21:44:19 I see 10 open action items: 21:44:19 ACTION: david test 307 with screen magnifiers and screen readers, john test with screen readers [1] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-23-51 21:44:19 ACTION: nobody do some research on xx-small....xx-* support on mobile phones [2] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-24-51 21:44:19 ACTION: wendy approach shawn about overview/appendix/intro and coordinating issues related to issues 368 and 501 [3] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-28-42 21:44:19 ACTION: john address issue 381 [4] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-29-12 21:44:19 ACTION: gregg look at examples for 1.4/1.5 [5] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-30-47 21:44:19 ACTION: john address 702 (related to 381) [6] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-32-31 21:44:19 ACTION: becky proposal to close issue 1021 [7] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-32-55 21:44:19 ACTION: wendy and becky talk at the f2f about editing xml source [8] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T20-35-24 21:44:19 ACTION: takayuki provide example of usability issue don't feel is covered. [we'll discuss at f2f] [9] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T21-21-58 21:44:19 ACTION: asw incorporate aging into paragraph about the design principles as well as user needs. [10] 21:44:19 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/07-wai-wcag-irc#T21-26-53 21:44:34 bye