IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-10-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:34:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:34:23 [wendy]
zakim, this will be wcag
19:34:23 [Zakim]
ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
19:35:39 [JibberJim]
This isn't techniques is it?
19:35:43 [JibberJim]
you said wednesday
19:40:46 [bengt]
it is thursday ?
19:56:05 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:56:12 [Zakim]
19:56:22 [Makoto]
Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:38 [Zakim]
19:57:58 [Zakim]
19:57:58 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, I am Tom
19:57:59 [Zakim]
ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
20:00:52 [Zakim]
20:00:52 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, ??P5 is Makoto
20:00:53 [Zakim]
+Makoto; got it
20:01:03 [bcaldwell]
bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:01:19 [Zakim]
20:01:30 [bcaldwell]
zakim, ??P9 is Gregg_and_Ben
20:01:30 [Zakim]
+Gregg_and_Ben; got it
20:01:52 [Zakim]
20:01:53 [Zakim]
20:02:04 [Zakim]
20:02:18 [Becky]
Becky has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:21 [Zakim]
20:02:24 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, ??p10 is David
20:02:24 [Zakim]
+David; got it
20:02:56 [Zakim]
20:03:03 [Zakim]
20:03:04 [Zakim]
20:03:12 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
20:03:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Tom, [Microsoft], Makoto, John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon (muted), David, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, [IBM], Wendy, JasonWhite (muted)
20:03:21 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:03:21 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:03:40 [wendy]
zakim, [IBM] is Andi_Snow-Weaver
20:03:40 [Zakim]
+Andi_Snow-Weaver; got it
20:04:00 [Zakim]
20:04:22 [bengt]
zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre
20:04:22 [Zakim]
+Bengt_Farre; got it
20:04:35 [bengt]
zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:04:35 [Zakim]
ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:06:22 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, who's making noise?
20:06:27 [bengt]
zakim, who is making noise ?
20:06:34 [Zakim]
sh1mmer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (17%), Gregg_and_Ben (45%), David (13%)
20:06:44 [Zakim]
bengt, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (45%), Gregg_and_Ben (39%)
20:06:58 [David_MacDonald]
David_MacDonald has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:58 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
20:06:58 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:07:13 [sh1mmer]
bcaldwell actually your line is kinda quiet
20:07:44 [sh1mmer]
20:07:46 [sh1mmer]
i got it
20:08:06 [Andi]
Andi has joined #wai-wcag
20:08:11 [gregg]
gregg has joined #wai-wcag
20:11:35 [wendy]
JIS comments -
20:11:37 [wendy]
interdependent components -
20:11:38 [wendy]
wcag 2.0 presentation proposal -
20:11:40 [wendy]
1.1/1.2 proposal -
20:12:24 [sh1mmer]
wc: first two days techniques, next two wcag
20:12:35 [sh1mmer]
wc: run in to problems having to write techniques
20:12:54 [sh1mmer]
wc: talked about baselines, discussion about general techniques and split into groups to try and write techniques
20:13:04 [sh1mmer]
wc: still came up with problems
20:14:31 [sh1mmer]
wc: many techniques for level 1 sucess criteria may not be appropriate at level 1
20:14:44 [sh1mmer]
wc: did some straw polls and looked at how they fit
20:15:05 [sh1mmer]
wc: 5 categories, p1, p2, p3, optional, "kill" [technique]
20:15:17 [sh1mmer]
wc: area of work from discussion needed to do
20:15:36 [sh1mmer]
wc: attempt to do 1.3 general techniques as a group came back to baseline
20:16:07 [sh1mmer]
wc: talkd about bottom up approach, write techniques as we want them and then adjust them to the criteria (or vice versa)
20:16:39 [sh1mmer]
wc: went through the rest of the JIS comments, and gave a report about authored/deliervy/percived units after the meetings with DI
20:16:58 [sh1mmer]
wc: looked at Shaun's prototype site
20:17:36 [sh1mmer]
wc: looked at techniques specifics issues yesterday at TF teleconference
20:17:53 [sh1mmer]
wc: summary probably tmw (20041029)
20:18:18 [wendy]
20:18:24 [sh1mmer]
gvh: next part is baseline
20:19:08 [sh1mmer]
gvh: big part of the guidelines, decided to go ahead and use UAAG user agents as a baseline.
20:19:55 [sh1mmer]
gvh: only require wcag sites to work with UAAG 1.0 user agents
20:20:24 [sh1mmer]
gvh: the model says there is a point which the user agents should meet and a point the content should meet and a point the AT should meet
20:20:57 [sh1mmer]
gvh: the problem is that there is a shortfall between the UAs and ATs and UAAG
20:21:07 [sh1mmer]
gvh: we have always produced guidelines which meet the shortfall
20:21:39 [sh1mmer]
gvh: we have talked about repair techniques which authors can do to make up for the shortfalls in UA/ATs
20:21:58 [sh1mmer]
gvh: and there are things ATs can do to make up for shortfalls in content and UAs
20:22:07 [sh1mmer]
gvh: and there are things UAs can do to make up for shortfalls in content and ATs
20:23:15 [sh1mmer]
gvh: the difference in this new proposal is that the repair techniques would be seperate from the repair techniques
20:23:27 [sh1mmer]
gvh: we need to figure out how bad the shortfall would be
20:24:27 [sh1mmer]
gvh: has to fit UAAG but also be portable and economic and available in various countries
20:24:59 [sh1mmer]
gvh: there is a possible problem that we could create a guideline which would always fall short because the UAs never reach a point to make the guidelines work properly
20:25:35 [wendy]
q+ to say, "adverse reaction by some wrt repair techniques"
20:25:46 [sh1mmer]
gvh: Also need tools to author to that
20:26:17 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:26:17 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "adverse reaction by some wrt repair techniques"
20:26:35 [sh1mmer]
wc: people worried about providing too much of the repair techniques
20:27:01 [sh1mmer]
wc: "if you build a temporary bridge then people will never build a perminant bridge"
20:27:21 [sh1mmer]
wc: people were also concerned about people seeing anything w3 branded as condoned and ok
20:27:54 [sh1mmer]
gvh: wcag 1.0 was suggested as the bridge between the state of UAs and wcag 2.0
20:28:36 [sh1mmer]
gvh: more screen readers comming out, non seem to be very UAAG compliant
20:29:17 [sh1mmer]
gvh: good if industry were helping and not leaving the whole burden on IBM
20:29:25 [sh1mmer]
ack jason
20:30:00 [sh1mmer]
jw: serverside transformations can deal with this
20:30:01 [sh1mmer]
20:30:11 [sh1mmer]
jw: not available in every environment
20:30:32 [Andi]
I'll be glad to provide a bank account number for any industry partners who would like to help IBM. :)
20:31:13 [sh1mmer]
jw: endorse the line being suggested, anything not the UAAG guideline would undercut it
20:32:06 [sh1mmer]
jw: good to seperate the stable parts from the repair techniques as the only way to get a stable 2.0 which works over time
20:32:28 [sh1mmer]
gvh: also talked about repair techniques for UA and AT
20:32:36 [sh1mmer]
gvH: there will always be a shortful somewhere
20:32:42 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:33:52 [wendy]
tc we're talking about having accomodation for people who requests content to be accessible. we should accomodate it solves some of the baseline issues. then people don't need a baseline, they get accessible content onr equest.
20:34:37 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:34:49 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Makoto (31%), Gregg_and_Ben (51%)
20:34:57 [wendy]
zakim, mute Makoto
20:34:57 [Zakim]
Makoto should now be muted
20:35:11 [wendy]
makoto - I muted you. There was noise coming from your line.
20:35:21 [Makoto]
20:35:21 [sh1mmer]
gvh: if the user picks the transcoder then its a user agent, if the author picks the transcoder then its deliverery content
20:35:23 [wendy]
To unmute and talk, please type, "zakim, unmute me"
20:36:13 [sh1mmer]
20:36:19 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:36:56 [wendy]
tc we've struggled to deal with learning difficulties, transcoding is possibly the only way to address those issues in a more general context.
20:40:19 [sh1mmer]
gvh: people should try and think about it from the perspective of it makes a problem go away but we should consider where it goes and who it affects
20:40:54 [sh1mmer]
gvh: should we make sure the authors always fix the shortcomming or take a hard stance and lean on AT
20:41:11 [sh1mmer]
dmd: is there a list somewhere of the shortfall?
20:41:17 [wendy]
20:41:30 [sh1mmer]
wc: that is covered by the evaluation reports for UAAG
20:42:13 [sh1mmer]
wc: This url points the report where user agents' shortfalls from UAAG are looked at.
20:43:00 [sh1mmer]
gvh: until user agents get to UAAG then we don't reccomend noone uses WCAG 2.0 by itself
20:43:17 [sh1mmer]
gvh: it feels right although it feels scary
20:43:35 [wendy]
this uri are the 6 evaluations for UAAG 1.0 including: IE6, Moz 1.6, safari 1.2, jaws, window eyes 4.5, opera 7.5
20:43:47 [sh1mmer]
js: might be useful what alister said, about a timeline for adoption
20:44:16 [wendy]
also: UAAG Implementation report for HTML 4.01 - summarizes support by UAAG 1.0 checkpoint
20:44:36 [sh1mmer]
js: we aren't talking about WCAG 2.0 universly as it is released, we are talking about 2years before it is adopted. In those 2yrs where will UAs be?
20:44:46 [sh1mmer]
ack Jon
20:44:49 [sh1mmer]
ack John
20:45:03 [wendy]
for more info look at UAWG current work:
20:45:41 [sh1mmer]
dmd: critical issues are going to be something dropped between WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 1.0 which is a critical feature but now deemed the responsibility of the UA
20:46:02 [sh1mmer]
Guideline 2.4 proposal from John Slatin
20:46:40 [wendy]
Topic: rewording of 2.4
20:46:46 [wendy]
20:47:05 [wendy]
20:47:17 [wendy]
20:47:57 [sh1mmer]
js: To sumarise the differences, one goal was to achieve better clear and plain language
20:48:29 [sh1mmer]
js: The current wording has certain numbers 50k words of 50 percieved pages
20:48:38 [sh1mmer]
js: bagged counting anything as a trigger
20:49:02 [sh1mmer]
js: lvl2 has "long documents" and long is undefined
20:49:39 [sh1mmer]
js: one of them had a series of cases if x then y and z, I tried to get rid of those
20:51:08 [sh1mmer]
js: trying to get rid of facilitate and a comment about "what does it mean to 'move within content'?"
20:51:20 [sh1mmer]
js: "find content and identify their location"
20:51:32 [gregg]
20:51:46 [sh1mmer]
ack gregg
20:52:20 [sh1mmer]
gvh: "to make it as easy as possible" assumes the author knows what is easy for users
20:52:33 [sh1mmer]
js: would you accept "help" ?
20:52:46 [sh1mmer]
ack mike
20:54:14 [sh1mmer]
mb: "find content that they need" is subjective, can we focus more on "provide mechanism for users to identify their location in content"
20:54:28 [sh1mmer]
gvh: something in the old guidelines was "orientation"
20:54:39 [sh1mmer]
gvh: having some overview
20:56:26 [sh1mmer]
gvh: we only seem to be capturing two of three, location, overview, movement
20:56:37 [sh1mmer]
js: try a rewording
20:57:19 [sh1mmer]
js: worried about the word 'orient'
20:57:32 [sh1mmer]
gvh: does 'orient' translate well?
20:58:05 [wendy]
makoto - does "orient" as in "to find where you are" translate easily?
20:58:11 [ben]
q+ to say, "Provide mechanisms to help users navigate structure and identify their location in the content?"
20:58:36 [Makoto]
wendy - no problem.
20:58:41 [sh1mmer]
ack Ben
20:58:41 [wendy]
20:58:42 [Zakim]
ben, you wanted to say, "Provide mechanisms to help users navigate structure and identify their location in the content?"
20:58:43 [wendy]
20:59:12 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
20:59:12 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
21:00:11 [sh1mmer]
gvh: good to have one which says "structure is programmatically determinable" at lvl 1
21:00:24 [sh1mmer]
gvh: maybe useful to put it here
21:00:40 [sh1mmer]
gvh: good way to allow AT to do this
21:00:51 [sh1mmer]
AT: would give you the facility to navigate
21:00:52 [sh1mmer]
21:00:57 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
21:01:27 [wendy]
tc movement and understanding hwere youa rei n content is not something AT can do without semantic understanding.
21:02:03 [wendy]
tc you can arrange accesskey that they have meaning to the person using them. generic structural elements, while they help you skip a list of links, do not have the same impact as stuff made by the author for direct facilitation of movement.
21:02:25 [wendy]
gv saying that level 2 and 3 better than level 1? true of all the guidlines?
21:02:36 [wendy]
tc if you have properly sturctured pages, you'd have something sufficient to navigate by.
21:02:39 [wendy]
tc it'snot quite that simple.
21:03:01 [wendy]
gv suggesting adding this at level 1 not that we delete anything at level 2 or 3
21:04:03 [Andi]
21:04:40 [sh1mmer]
gv: primary reason people who are blind want the structure
21:05:08 [wendy]
i agree with jason. let's cross reference not duplicate.
21:05:22 [sh1mmer]
jw: if something is required at lvl 1 but somewhere else lets cross reference it
21:05:39 [wendy]
q+ to say, "john and i talked about that 1.3 is about providing sturcture, 2.4 is about making it easier to use. therefore, shouldn't have anything at level 1..."
21:05:53 [sh1mmer]
jw: anyone objecting to it would be objecting to 1.3
21:06:03 [sh1mmer]
ack Jason
21:06:12 [sh1mmer]
ack gregg
21:06:41 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, who's muted
21:06:41 [Zakim]
sh1mmer, you need to end that query with '?'
21:06:44 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, who's muted?
21:06:44 [Zakim]
I see Tom, Makoto, Gez_Lemon, Bengt_Farre muted
21:06:54 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, unmute all
21:06:54 [Zakim]
sorry, sh1mmer, I do not see a party named 'all'
21:07:04 [sh1mmer]
ack mike
21:07:31 [wendy]
21:07:35 [wendy]
wend agrees with mike
21:07:49 [sh1mmer]
mb: this is more about navigation structure of the content rather than that structure being accessible
21:08:26 [sh1mmer]
mb: not necesarlly a single page
21:09:03 [sh1mmer]
mb: one focuses on navigation one focuses on discovery of component parts
21:09:56 [sh1mmer]
wc: in 1.3 you wouldbe providing the structure and in 2.4 you would be providing the metadata saying "this group in the nav bar"
21:10:53 [wendy]
who was going to minute?
21:10:55 [wendy]
21:11:20 [wendy]
asw i agree with the points that mike made. although, now i'm confused about the difference between the two.
21:11:22 [sh1mmer]
asw: agrees with what mike says, now little confused with how they are distinct
21:11:52 [sh1mmer]
gvh: two different sections
21:12:49 [sh1mmer]
gvh: one about perception one about operable
21:13:31 [wendy]
q+ to ask, "does john have enough feedback to go rework? have gone very deep"
21:13:36 [wendy]
ack andi
21:13:37 [wendy]
ack jason
21:13:55 [sh1mmer]
jw: conformance claimed seperately for each of those units
21:14:07 [gregg]
21:14:22 [wendy]
agenda+ 2.3
21:14:23 [sh1mmer]
jw: if it true for each of them, we need to be careful how we word it because of the way conformance is done
21:14:30 [sh1mmer]
jw: can't have cross unit scope
21:14:37 [wendy]
agenda+ 4.1
21:14:54 [sh1mmer]
jw: the same structures relevent to 1.3 are to 2.4
21:15:19 [sh1mmer]
jw: some way to work out the dependancy
21:15:28 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:15:28 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask, "does john have enough feedback to go rework? have gone very deep"
21:16:43 [sh1mmer]
ack gregg
21:16:55 [sh1mmer]
gvh: lvl 1 sc doesn't satify 1.3
21:17:02 [sh1mmer]
gvh: what about lvl2 and lvl3?
21:17:07 [sh1mmer]
ack mike
21:17:54 [sh1mmer]
gvh: ~ "if documents were 50k words or 50 pages" changed
21:18:39 [wendy]
gvh the new one says, "content has explicit structure"
21:18:43 [wendy]
js goes into level 1
21:18:55 [wendy]
gvh level 1 says "if structure is tehre can determine" not "add structure"
21:19:31 [wendy]
#2 ednote - satisfy via UAAG
21:19:52 [wendy]
js if we're going to take UAAG 1.0 as abseline, may not need this one b/c users can do this (9.3. and 10.4 in UAAG)
21:20:01 [wendy]
js UAAG should be able to generate TOC if structure is there
21:20:30 [wendy]
gv these are both priority 2 in UAAG
21:20:36 [wendy]
gv is our baseline p1 or p2 UAAG
21:20:40 [wendy]
21:20:54 [wendy]
js obviously if our baseline in p1, then that note is irrelevant
21:21:00 [wendy]
js we need to think about
21:21:27 [wendy]
21:21:46 [wendy]
21:22:09 [wendy]
21:22:22 [wendy]
gv what does that mean? zoom in? view by components?
21:22:24 [wendy]
js zoom and pan etc
21:22:29 [wendy]
js all user agent?
21:22:42 [wendy]
bc replaces navigating struct of diagrams?
21:22:54 [wendy]
js no, something at level 2 that can use html and scripting and level 3 svg
21:23:11 [wendy]
js if zoom, that's a UAAG function, not author
21:24:50 [wendy]
gv zoom is more about perception than navigation
21:25:14 [wendy]
ack jason
21:25:43 [gregg]
21:25:53 [wendy]
jw wrt discussion of search engines and site maps, if check delivery unit and claim conformance on each one, none happen to be site map/search, which delivery units should fail to conform when evaluate?
21:26:31 [wendy]
jw only way to do, would be to say that certain material must be listed in the TOC/site map or accessible search facility, then that material fails to conform b/c those components don't exist.
21:26:45 [wendy]
gv if there is a site map, is that an accessibility issueor usability issue?
21:27:07 [wendy]
gv if you're asking for conformance at the delivery unit, don't deliver a site but parts of the site. therefore, site map falls out of the guidelines.
21:27:20 [wendy]
js same if it is a long document split between delivery units.
21:27:24 [wendy]
21:27:43 [wendy]
jw splitting for my mobile device is different from how split on my desktop
21:27:51 [wendy]
js still a single perceivable unit?
21:30:06 [wendy]
perhaps need idea of conceptual unit
21:30:47 [wendy]
gv caption and movie can't come in separate http requests, can no longer be delivery unit
21:31:11 [wendy]
gv you have to make several requests to assemble one page
21:33:40 [Andi]
gotta go - bye
21:33:42 [Andi]
Andi has left #wai-wcag
21:34:06 [wendy]
"To process the image tag, the browser actually initiates a second HTTP request to retrieve the image. When the server returns the image, it includes a Content-type header indicating the format of the image (e.g., image/gif). From the declared content type, the browser knows what kind of image it will receive and can render it as required. The browser shouldn't guess the content type based...
21:34:08 [wendy]
...on the document path; it is up to the server to tell the client."
21:34:12 [wendy]
21:34:49 [Zakim]
21:37:01 [wendy]
wac some guidelines scope to delivery units others scope to site/application-wide
21:37:19 [wendy]
wac doesn't make sense to provide a site map for a delivery unit
21:38:17 [Zakim]
21:38:25 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:38:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Barta (muted), Makoto (muted), John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon (muted), David, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre
21:38:28 [Zakim]
... (muted)
21:38:34 [gregg]
ack g
21:38:36 [gregg]
ack j
21:38:39 [wendy]
ack jason
21:39:21 [wendy]
jw impose requirement on a single component. if delivery unit is a major section, it is linked to a site map/toc. therefore, the rquirement is on the delivery unit.
21:40:42 [wendy]
21:40:47 [wendy]
zakim, take up item 1
21:40:47 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "2.3" taken up [from wendy]
21:40:59 [wendy]
gv move technical info out of the guideline
21:41:11 [wendy]
gv instead of marked to detect say marked to avoid appearance
21:41:28 [wendy]
q+ to ask, "why Move definitions of conformance to Test Tool Kit and not to glossary?"
21:43:48 [wendy]
"international standards" - basically smoke and mirrors?
21:44:00 [ben]
21:44:51 [wendy]
ack wendy
21:44:51 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask, "why Move definitions of conformance to Test Tool Kit and not to glossary?"
21:45:05 [wendy]
gv concern is that there is an internaional effort to create a standard.
21:46:36 [wendy]
wac since this is a WD then say "international standard which is likely to look like xya and state that in an appendix or glossary"
21:46:44 [wendy]
gv concern that the numbers are for tv and not for computers
21:49:43 [wendy]
ack ben
21:49:51 [wendy]
21:49:53 [bengt]
zakim, mute me
21:49:53 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
21:50:04 [wendy]
bc move to general techniques?
21:51:03 [wendy]
gv need to keep testable info in somewhere normative
21:53:29 [wendy]
jw UAAG do cover this matter, it should come out in the analysis
21:54:11 [wendy]
gv use the new wording w/international standard linking to glossary, glossary specify details?
21:54:34 [wendy]
anyone want to speak against?
21:54:47 [wendy]
action: gv post w/chnges to list
21:54:53 [wendy]
action: js rework 2.4
21:54:57 [wendy]
next week: 4.1
21:54:58 [Zakim]
21:55:24 [wendy]
please read 4.1 - there are 3 alternatives
21:55:28 [wendy]
choose the one you like most
21:55:53 [wendy]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:55:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Barta (muted), Makoto (muted), John_Slatin, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon (muted), David, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Wendy, Bengt_Farre (muted)
21:56:24 [Zakim]
21:56:25 [Zakim]
21:56:25 [Zakim]
21:56:25 [wendy]
those who have action items, please finish ASAP so we can get on the agenda and close
21:56:26 [Zakim]
21:56:27 [Zakim]
21:56:28 [Zakim]
21:56:29 [Zakim]
21:56:29 [Zakim]
21:56:31 [Zakim]
21:56:42 [Zakim]
21:56:43 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:56:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were Tom, John_Slatin, Makoto, Gregg_and_Ben, Gez_Lemon, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, David, Wendy, JasonWhite, Mike_Barta, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bengt_Farre
21:56:50 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:56:50 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:56:53 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gv post w/chnges to list [1]
21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: js rework 2.4 [2]
21:56:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in