20:51:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:51:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/02/24-wai-wcag-irc
20:51:16 <wendy> Meeting: WCAG WG weekly telecon
20:51:40 <Yvette_Hoitink> Yvette_Hoitink has joined #wai-wcag
20:51:42 <wendy> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0527.html
20:51:45 <Yvette_Hoitink> Hi everyone
20:51:48 <wendy> Chair: Gregg
20:52:02 <Yvette_Hoitink> Wendy, is next week's F2F for the techniques subgroup only?
20:52:14 <wendy> yes
20:52:16 <rscano> hi Yvette
20:52:21 <Yvette_Hoitink> ciao Roberto
20:52:30 <rellero> Hi
20:52:33 <Yvette_Hoitink> ok, then I don't have to clear my schedule
20:52:41 <rscano> :)
20:52:57 <Yvette_Hoitink> when will the WG F2F be?
20:55:29 <Michael> Michael has joined #wai-wcag
20:55:39 <LucaMascaro> LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag
20:55:43 <Michael> I may be a bit late for this meeting
20:56:30 <rscano> hi Michael
20:56:31 <nabe> nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:56:42 <Yvette_Hoitink> Hi Michael, hi Takayuki
20:56:53 <nabe> good morning!
20:57:26 <wendy> Regrests: Roberto Castaldo 
20:58:05 <wendy> the WCAG WG F2F is 20 and 21 March in LA after CSUN.  gregg announced on 23 January: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0287.html
20:58:16 <ChrisR> ChrisR has joined #wai-wcag
20:58:37 <rscano> hi Chris
20:58:38 <Yvette_Hoitink> OK, I thought next week would be a f2f too. It was only when I noticed the agenda that I saw it was all techniques
20:58:41 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
20:58:42 <Yvette_Hoitink> thanks wendy
20:58:47 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
20:59:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
20:59:42 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:59:44 <Zakim> +??P4
20:59:47 <Zakim> +[Microsoft.a]
20:59:48 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre
20:59:49 <Zakim> +John_Slatin
20:59:51 <rscano> zakim, ??P4 is Roberto_Scano
20:59:51 <Zakim> +Roberto_Scano; got it
20:59:57 <nabe> zakim, IPCaller is Takayuki
20:59:57 <Zakim> +Takayuki; got it
20:59:58 <rscano> zakim, I am Roberto_Scano
20:59:58 <Zakim> ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
21:00:00 <bengt> hmm, its not me yet
21:00:00 <LucaMascaro> Zakim, mute me
21:00:00 <Zakim> sorry, LucaMascaro, I do not see a party named 'LucaMascaro'
21:00:18 <Zakim> +[IBM]
21:00:19 <Zakim> -Bengt_Farre
21:00:21 <nabe> zakim, I am Takayuki
21:00:21 <Zakim> ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki
21:00:22 <Zakim> +??P10
21:00:35 <Zakim> +Wendy
21:00:39 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, ??P10 may be Yvette_Hoitink
21:00:39 <Zakim> +Yvette_Hoitink?; got it
21:00:42 <Zakim> +Alex_Li
21:00:45 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
21:00:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Takayuki, [IPcaller.a], Roberto_Scano, [Microsoft], [Microsoft.a], John_Slatin, [IBM], Yvette_Hoitink?, Wendy, Alex_Li
21:00:49 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
21:00:49 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink? should now be muted
21:00:54 <Andi> Andi has joined #wai-wcag
21:01:03 <wendy> zakim, IBM is Andi
21:01:03 <Zakim> +Andi; got it
21:01:07 <Zakim> +Luca_Mascaro
21:01:17 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, Yvette_Hoitink? is Yvette_Hoitink
21:01:17 <Zakim> +Yvette_Hoitink; got it
21:01:31 <LucaMascaro> Zakim, i am Luca_Mascaro
21:01:31 <Zakim> ok, LucaMascaro, I now associate you with Luca_Mascaro
21:01:33 <Zakim> +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:01:36 <LucaMascaro> Zakim, mute me
21:01:36 <Zakim> Luca_Mascaro should now be muted
21:01:39 <Zakim> +??P12
21:01:43 <Yvette_Hoitink> I'm hearing a lot of noise
21:01:47 <wendy> zakim, ??P12 is David
21:01:47 <Zakim> +David; got it
21:01:55 <LucaMascaro> Hi to all
21:01:57 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, who's on the phone?
21:01:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see Takayuki, [IPcaller.a], Roberto_Scano, [Microsoft], [Microsoft.a], John_Slatin, Andi, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Wendy, Alex_Li, Luca_Mascaro (muted),
21:02:00 <Zakim> ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, David
21:02:08 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre
21:02:26 <Andi> be back in a minute
21:02:26 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, unmute me
21:02:26 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:02:27 <wendy> zakim, Microsoft may be Mike
21:02:27 <Zakim> +Mike?; got it
21:02:39 <wendy> zakim, Microsoft.a may be Jenae
21:02:39 <Zakim> +Jenae?; got it
21:02:39 <rscano> zakim, who is making noise?
21:02:50 <Zakim> rscano, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Takayuki (21%), Bengt_Farre (63%)
21:02:51 <ben> ben has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:04 <Zakim> +??P14
21:03:04 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:07 <wendy> zakim, mute Takayuki
21:03:07 <Zakim> Takayuki should now be muted
21:03:12 <David> test
21:03:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:03:14 <Zakim> +??P16
21:03:16 <Zakim> +Matt
21:03:17 <rellero> zakim, ??P14 is rellero
21:03:17 <Zakim> +rellero; got it
21:03:24 <rellero> zakim, mute me
21:03:24 <Zakim> rellero should now be muted
21:03:33 <Zakim> +??P17
21:03:36 <wendy> zakim, IPcaller is Alistair
21:03:36 <Zakim> +Alistair; got it
21:03:43 <wendy> zakim, ??P15 is Neil_Soiffer
21:03:43 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as Bengt_Farre, wendy
21:03:44 <ben> zakim, ??P17 is Gregg_and_Ben
21:03:45 <Zakim> +Gregg_and_Ben; got it
21:03:49 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
21:03:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Takayuki (muted), [IPcaller.a], Roberto_Scano, Mike?, Jenae?, John_Slatin, Andi, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Alex_Li, Luca_Mascaro (muted), Loretta_Guarino_Reid,
21:03:52 <Zakim> ... David, Bengt_Farre, rellero (muted), ??P16, Alistair, Matt, Gregg_and_Ben
21:04:03 <bengt> hmmm
21:04:33 <wendy> zakim, ??P16 is Neil_Soiffer
21:04:33 <Zakim> +Neil_Soiffer; got it
21:04:41 <Neil> Neil has joined #wai-wcag
21:04:41 <Zakim> +JasonWhite
21:04:44 <Zakim> +??P18
21:05:14 <Andi> back now
21:05:38 <gregg> gregg has joined #wai-wcag
21:05:40 <rscano> zakim, ++P18 is Sebastiano_Nutarelli
21:05:40 <Zakim> sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '++P18'
21:05:55 <wendy> zakim, Ipcaller.a is Chris
21:05:55 <Zakim> +Chris; got it
21:05:59 <rscano> zakim, ??P18 is Sebastiano_Nutarelli
21:05:59 <Zakim> +Sebastiano_Nutarelli; got it
21:06:04 <Zakim> +[ATTcaller]
21:06:13 <wendy> zakim, ATTcaller is Doyle
21:06:13 <Zakim> +Doyle; got it
21:06:16 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
21:06:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Takayuki (muted), Chris, Roberto_Scano, Mike?, Jenae?, John_Slatin, Andi, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Alex_Li, Luca_Mascaro (muted), Loretta_Guarino_Reid, David,
21:06:20 <Zakim> ... Bengt_Farre, rellero (muted), Neil_Soiffer, Alistair, Matt, Gregg_and_Ben, JasonWhite, Sebastiano_Nutarelli, Doyle
21:06:33 <AliG> AliG has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:55 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:56 <David> scribe: David
21:07:10 <wendy> agenda+ TTF Update
21:07:14 <wendy> agenda+ new concept
21:07:19 <wendy> agenda+ baseline, uaag, scripts
21:07:24 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
21:07:24 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:07:28 <wendy> zakim, take up item 1
21:07:28 <Zakim> agendum 1. "TTF Update" taken up [from wendy]
21:07:32 <rscano> zakim, who is making noise?
21:07:39 <Yvette_Hoitink> I hear music
21:07:42 <rscano> me too
21:07:43 <Zakim> rscano, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (5%), Gregg_and_Ben (25%), Sebastiano_Nutarelli (48%)
21:07:51 <Becky_Gibson> Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
21:07:53 <rscano> zakim, mute Sebastiano_Nutarelli
21:07:53 <Zakim> Sebastiano_Nutarelli should now be muted
21:07:54 <wendy> zakim, mute Sebastiano
21:07:55 <Zakim> Sebastiano_Nutarelli was already muted, wendy
21:07:56 <Zakim> +Becky_Gibson
21:08:26 <wendy> zakim, close this item
21:08:26 <Zakim> agendum 1 closed
21:08:27 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:08:29 <Zakim> 2. new concept [from wendy]
21:08:33 <wendy> zakim, take up item 2
21:08:33 <Zakim> agendum 2. "new concept" taken up [from wendy]
21:08:41 <David> gv:presume people have read post
21:08:43 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0543.html
21:08:54 <wendy> david - thanks again for scribing!
21:09:00 <David> :-
21:09:04 <tecks> tecks has joined #wai-wcag
21:09:09 <David> oops no smile
21:09:24 <wendy> ack john
21:09:26 <Zakim> +Michael_Cooper
21:09:30 <Yvette_Hoitink> q+
21:09:39 <Doyle> hand up
21:09:42 <David> js: like new approach clearer better gooder
21:10:17 <David> mc: covers next week tons of stuff
21:10:50 <David> didn't get to some issues mostly did test last week 
21:11:02 <David> mc: maeet pf and uaag next wk
21:11:40 <David> gv: back to ttopic re new format
21:11:52 <wendy> ack loretta
21:12:08 <Yvette_Hoitink> ack y
21:12:11 <David> lg: like it refects what our map issues did finding sc in that process, read o0ur minds well
21:12:21 <David> yh: too logical
21:12:40 <David> yh: so good but 
21:12:55 <David> yh likes it a lt
21:13:03 <David> lt = lot
21:13:55 <Yvette_Hoitink> zakim, mute me
21:13:55 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:13:56 <David> gv: still lots of work to do model but it solves big issues we think, but lets really look for ugly corners
21:14:09 <David> doyle: lots of work but a lot better
21:15:28 <David> gv: some hard stuf is ....ben looked at me and said how wil we make expanding cheklist
21:15:43 <wendy> q+ to ask, "expnding checklist 'tool' - required for recommendation?"
21:15:47 <wendy> ack doyle
21:16:04 <David> gv: a least 1.0 had checklist, we leverage that idea
21:16:39 <David> gv: guidelines>tech doc> checklist
21:17:29 <Neil> Neil has joined #wai-wcag
21:17:52 <David> gv: annotated check list in checklist order rather thatn tech doc
21:18:14 <David> gv: go from there to techs which help understand guidelines
21:19:33 <David> gv: explains the way it works
21:20:47 <wendy> ack wendy
21:20:47 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to ask, "expnding checklist 'tool' - required for recommendation?"
21:21:14 <LucaMascaro> i'm sorry, but is not more siple for the tester say "if the technology support that assistive tecnology, then...."
21:21:33 <David> wc: litness test...what do we need for recommendation rather than all the cool views that can be generated aftter
21:21:42 <wendy> s/litness/litmus
21:21:50 <David> thx
21:22:33 <David> gv: needs ot be te version with guidelines, "what was in their minds whenthey wrote the guidelines version
21:22:46 <David> ot=to
21:23:35 <David> js: in list of guidelines  to test but Ididn't hear any from 2.x list, there was 1.1, 3.x, 4.x but you didn't mention 2.x
21:23:44 <David> gv: sure
21:24:54 <David> jw: found proposal, issue, for 1.3 (faily general nature) what you do depends on the content you write, different tech have differnt structures
21:25:47 <wendy> s/differnt/different
21:25:56 <wendy> ack john
21:25:58 <wendy> ack jason
21:26:03 <David> gv: never should we be exhaustive, should be comprehensive instead
21:27:46 <David> gv: we want to be able to make sure sc are in fact faily clear, some lplaces we were wishy washy becasue wanted to cover more, but we sacrificed the line that "you can't cross" our new approach will cause us to be disaplined and sometimes wring our hands but its ok, 
21:27:56 <David> gv: it worries me a bit
21:28:46 <David> jw: my concern that the would not withstand strict interpretation not writtin like legislations, would be better to keep level of exactness that people try to achieve in legislations
21:28:53 <wendy> s/faily/very
21:28:57 <wendy> s/lplaces/places
21:29:15 <David> gv: what will happen as we do that is "plain& simple " will take beating but that's where tech docs come to therescue
21:29:18 <wendy> w/writtin/written
21:29:59 <wendy> ack john
21:30:38 <David> no its cool, I use a zero force 1/2 size keyboard , that's my excuse & I'm sticking to it
21:30:58 <wendy> :) no worries. i really appreciate that you're taking minutes.
21:31:00 <David> js: we need to come up with a wordcount
21:31:55 <David> gv:we should not put to high a premium on being short
21:32:04 <David> to=too
21:32:35 <wendy> ack matt
21:33:12 <David> mm: suggest if requirements for content comprehensibility into doc, we would not be credible unless we did it on our own work
21:33:29 <David> mm: we use some difficult terms and we need to keep it simple
21:33:43 <David> mm: reading level should be easy
21:33:47 <David> gv: agree
21:34:12 <David> gv: readability up comprehsibility up
21:34:38 <David> gv: must practise what we preach, or withhold our rocks
21:35:24 <David> cr: nice end to end, may affect test suite, seems narrowly defined
21:36:01 <wendy> q+ to say, "we don't want to say that we are making test tools...ppl will interpret as w3c creating own evaluation tool"
21:36:51 <David> gv: "test tools" better name, none of them will allow them to conform run them as procedures or as code, 
21:37:09 <David> gv: very few of sc can be entirely automatically
21:38:05 <David> gv: determined
21:38:28 <Michael> zakim, mute me
21:38:29 <Zakim> Michael_Cooper should now be muted
21:38:57 <David> gv: a pdf image based "declaration of independence" is next to a link to text version. This is accessible but would flunk tool test
21:39:01 <wendy> ack w
21:39:01 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "we don't want to say that we are making test tools...ppl will interpret as w3c creating own evaluation tool"
21:39:27 <David> wc: concerned of direction...don't want to call it a test tool,
21:39:38 <ChrisR> q+
21:39:39 <rscano> "Test Criteria"
21:39:52 <David> wc: test suite better becaue "tool" has baggage as a word
21:40:40 <David> gv: ok, if we have a suite of tests, different from test suite, we have suite of tests, 
21:41:26 <David> gv: test suite for testing tools, here will tell you if it is a good tool for auto
21:41:39 <David> wc: we want to mke sure we include human judgement
21:41:56 <David> gv: yup erase last line of mine
21:42:48 <David> gv: let's create a test suite for testing tools
21:42:56 <wendy> q?
21:42:59 <wendy> ack chris
21:43:41 <David> cr: agree with wendy, most include human intervention, what keeping test (non-normative) away from normative stuff
21:43:58 <David> what keeping = what about
21:44:24 <David> gv: I don't think we can stop 
21:45:26 <David> gv: is the test suite for testing tools or testing web pages
21:45:52 <wendy> chris - can you call back in on a land line?
21:45:57 <David> wc: can you call back we lost you
21:46:05 <Zakim> -Chris
21:46:45 <Zakim> +Chris_Ridpath
21:47:12 <David> cr: think to test tools and pages
21:48:13 <David> cr: when we bring non-normative to normative, close to guidelines, implies that the test are "required for performance" or ifthey are passed the web site "does comform" which may ormaynot be true
21:48:34 <David> gv: let's divide it up. a tool tester and web tester samples
21:50:27 <David> gv: thought there were 2 differnt things, and it is confusing
21:51:12 <David> gv: chris do you want to separate the tests from the guidelines
21:51:15 <David> cr: yes
21:51:24 <David> gv: that's what we've done
21:51:36 <David> cr: but it appears the tests are almost normative.
21:51:47 <David> gv: teststie to techniques not sc
21:52:23 <David> gv: that separates it. SC are necessary, there are techniques to address it and the test test the techniques no the sc
21:52:58 <ChrisR> no, I'm thinking of techs and tests that are mentioned in Greggs proposal
21:53:11 <wendy> ok
21:53:13 <David> js: adendum an important poit is that people could satisfy sc b/c of what we provide, but they may have their own techniques
21:53:16 <David> gv: sure
21:54:21 <David> gv: solves a million problems if we can execute it, getting specific enough
21:55:01 <David> gv: the history is that we went very general of guidelines, and relied on techniuqes to make up slack,
21:55:21 <wendy> q+
21:55:24 <wendy> ack john
21:56:13 <wendy> ack w
21:56:41 <David> wc: when talking about rewritting sc, what do you mean, significantly longer? 
21:56:49 <wendy> wac: what is the extent of changes?
21:57:11 <David> gv: does not change them all, some ok, but sometimes qualifying additions
21:58:09 <David> gv: i.e.,  "in a standard fashion" if there is a stand way they must do it
21:58:19 <David> stand = standar
21:58:26 <David> standard
22:01:22 <David> aw: nervous about timing, rewrites take a lot of time perhaps, what is the dif between a "standard way"... 
22:01:40 <David> gv: ie. in html alt text has standard way
22:02:22 <David>  what were the 3 words? standard?, ????,  supported
22:03:07 <wendy> ack an
22:03:07 <David> aw: worried about "until user agents typ speaking"
22:03:08 <wendy> ack lor
22:03:53 <David> lorretta: standard and supported could be problematic
22:05:58 <David> gv: going to have to be concrete, can't say in glossary standard = typical 
22:06:11 <wendy> ack ja
22:06:22 <David> gv: whether it works is whether we succesfully define words
22:07:48 <David> jw: using the language and feature of the languge used in the technology specification. problem is that people can reduce requirements, need to encourage people to cchoose the right type of technology, case some peple will choose lousy technology to lower their srequriments
22:07:59 <wendy> ack jo
22:08:04 <David> js: aka me again
22:08:34 <David> js: another way of coming at problem is to do our best to think about functional specs we after
22:09:18 <David> gv: yup
22:09:29 <wendy> goal - functional statements
22:10:09 <David> gv: sometimes complication is fine, as long as it is to spec
22:11:52 <David> gv: its worth a ot of work to make the sc checkable cause there were convolution inte the other way, including sc non normative in a normative document
22:12:44 <David> gv: do we have consensus into trying to make this work or prove that it dosn't
22:13:02 <David> gv: no dessent yet?
22:13:20 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
22:14:39 <snutarelli> snutarelli has joined #wai-wcag
22:15:08 <David> wc: so we don't go back down the path again, its ok that even if people don't get the sc: we will have inough informatinve stuff they will be able to make their interpretations on their own
22:15:17 <rscano> zakim, snutarelli is Sebastiano_Nutarelli
22:15:17 <Zakim> sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named 'snutarelli'
22:15:36 <David> js: sc don't say what to do, they say what will be true at the end of the process
22:16:43 <David> wc: want to hear what lorreta said, "in a stand way" vs. functional requmetn
22:17:14 <David> gv: "standard way same as why we did 4.1 & 4.2
22:17:44 <David> lg: like to pick up jason's wording rather than "standard way"
22:18:00 <Doyle> hand up
22:18:13 <David> gv: the defn says if there is a stand way use it
22:18:19 <wendy> ack lo
22:18:31 <Doyle> hand down
22:18:48 <Doyle> Gregg made the point I was goign to make
22:19:00 <wendy> ack ne
22:19:06 <David> gv: ok to make sc objective enough that they cannot wiggle out
22:19:19 <David> neil: worried that sc get too long
22:19:55 <ben> q+
22:19:55 <David> gv: yeah in going over them not too much longer..comments about length were re: plain lang not making more bulletproof
22:20:33 <David> bc: worried going to techniques next week, is there new sorting vcabulary?
22:20:56 <snutarelli> zakim, I am Sebastiano_Nutarelli
22:20:56 <Zakim> ok, snutarelli, I now associate you with Sebastiano_Nutarelli
22:20:59 <David> gv: you're closer than me, much would not change
22:22:54 <wendy> q+
22:22:56 <wendy> ack be
22:22:57 <David> gv: in a standard way means if in SMIL then use common SMIL way...
22:23:39 <wendy> ack w
22:25:08 <David> wc: i think next wk tech linking to sc. and have different level of requirment...perhaps this approach will free us, with less focus on tech secific checklist
22:25:35 <David> wc: next week less pressure from tech specific checklists
22:29:22 <David> wc: if we have focus on sc at functional level, then techniques could be less automic....ie. form accessible....here are the macro level tasks,
22:29:37 <Andi> Andi has left #wai-wcag
22:30:15 <Zakim> -Mike?
22:30:29 <David> gv: different views.  tch docs have reference and application section.
22:31:04 <David> gv: access board did a special thing about forms b/c we didn't go into speicifics
22:32:29 <David> js: seems we are getting to fundamental usability premis that when you present material you don't require admintrators to dig through stuff
22:33:29 <David> gv: came out of wendy's comments, "why can't we go back and make sc a checklist"
22:33:46 <Zakim> -JasonWhite
22:34:09 <LucaMascaro> zakim, unmute me
22:34:09 <Zakim> Luca_Mascaro should no longer be muted
22:34:34 <Zakim> -Andi
22:34:53 <Zakim> -Becky_Gibson
22:34:57 <Zakim> -Jenae?
22:34:58 <AliG> AliG has left #wai-wcag
22:34:58 <Zakim> -Matt
22:34:58 <Zakim> -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
22:34:58 <ChrisR> ChrisR has left #wai-wcag
22:34:59 <rellero> bye
22:34:59 <Zakim> -Wendy
22:35:00 <Zakim> -Alistair
22:35:01 <Zakim> -Bengt_Farre
22:35:02 <Zakim> -John_Slatin
22:35:03 <Zakim> -Gregg_and_Ben
22:35:05 <Zakim> -David
22:35:06 <nabe> good bye
22:35:06 <Zakim> -Chris_Ridpath
22:35:08 <Zakim> -Doyle
22:35:09 <wendy> RRSAgent, make log world
22:35:10 <Zakim> -Yvette_Hoitink
22:35:12 <Zakim> -Neil_Soiffer
22:35:14 <Zakim> -Alex_Li
22:35:16 <Zakim> -Roberto_Scano
22:35:18 <Zakim> -Luca_Mascaro
22:35:20 <Zakim> -Takayuki
22:35:22 <Zakim> -Sebastiano_Nutarelli
22:35:24 <Zakim> -rellero
22:35:26 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:35:28 <Zakim> Attendees were [IPcaller], [Microsoft], Bengt_Farre, John_Slatin, Roberto_Scano, Takayuki, [IBM], Wendy, Alex_Li, Andi, Luca_Mascaro, Yvette_Hoitink, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, David,
22:35:31 <rellero> rellero has left #wai-wcag
22:35:31 <Zakim> ... Mike?, Jenae?, Matt, rellero, Alistair, Gregg_and_Ben, Neil_Soiffer, JasonWhite, Chris, Sebastiano_Nutarelli, [ATTcaller], Doyle, Becky_Gibson, Michael_Cooper, Chris_Ridpath
22:35:42 <nabe> nabe has left #wai-wcag
22:35:46 <snutarelli> snutarelli has left #wai-wcag
22:36:07 <wendy> RRSAgent, generate minutes
22:36:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/02/24-wai-wcag-minutes wendy
22:44:16 <bengt> bengt has left #wai-wcag
23:09:08 <wendy> zakim, bye
23:09:08 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wai-wcag
23:59:09 <wendy> RRSAgent, bye
23:59:09 <RRSAgent> I see no action items