IRC log of ua on 2007-01-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:34:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ua
17:34:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-irc
17:34:45 [JR]
Meeting: WAI UA
17:34:51 [JR]
Scribe: JR
17:34:57 [JR]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007JanMar/0009.html
17:35:04 [JR]
Chair: Jim Allan
17:35:34 [JR]
In Person attendees: Cathy Laws - IBM, Peter Parente - IBM, Al Gilman - PF Working group, Janina Sajka - PF WG, Linda Mao - Microsoft, Aaron Leventhal - IBM, Jan RIchards - ATRC, Becky Gibson - IBM
17:37:48 [JR]
JA: 1.3 Provide text messages (P1)
17:37:48 [JR]
Topic: 1.3 Provide text messages (P1)
17:37:48 [JR]
AG: Events need to be known by UA, but lack of alt in user interface is a WCAG problem
17:37:58 [JR]
JA: What about "non-essential" alerts?
17:37:58 [JR]
AL: We don't have such a thing.
17:37:58 [JR]
AG: We have politeness
17:37:58 [JR]
CL: This is about events
17:37:58 [JR]
JA: Ex. stock ticker changes - should be up to user to decide if this is important
17:37:59 [JR]
AL: Yes want allow config of notification of alerts - controlled by politness
17:38:01 [JR]
BG: Where do you draw line between UA interface and content interface?
17:38:03 [JR]
BG: Right building tree controls etc. instead of letting user agent build controls
17:38:13 [JR]
<KFord> Perhaps this has already been discussed in a different PF meeting group or something but has there been a proposal for web content to register the various types of events it is creating?
17:38:22 [JR]
JA: When can user agent step in?
17:38:22 [JR]
<KFord> By register I mean assign some level of importance or other rating that a UA could tap into?
17:38:45 [JR]
AL: Would like to always handle it and let user decide which alerts to have
17:38:45 [JR]
AL: Very infrequently do authors actually to anything specific for users
17:38:45 [JR]
AL: Politeness in "Adaptive Properties" in States spec.
17:38:45 [JR]
AL: Concept is...
17:38:45 [JR]
AL: Has a dozen ideas in a separate doc
17:38:46 [JR]
JS: Likes idea of doing things page by page
17:39:16 [JR]
JR has joined #ua
17:40:22 [JR]
Action JA: Send message to PF asking for help with CSS-generated content.
17:40:29 [JR]
JA: Related problem in DAISY
17:40:29 [JR]
Topic: 8.1 Implement accessibility features (P1)
17:40:29 [JR]
JA: TABINDEX plus ACCESSKEYS
17:40:29 [JR]
JA: TABINDEX=-1 is this a feature?
17:40:29 [JR]
CL, AL: Getting there
17:40:30 [JR]
AG: Many scripted widgets using TAB to move to widgets and arrow keys within
17:40:32 [JR]
AG: TABINDEX-1 used for TABINDEX to leap over
17:40:34 [JR]
JA: So up to author to provide UI to move to TABINDEX-1
17:40:36 [JR]
JA: Should UA interven somehow if author does not give UI?
17:40:38 [JR]
AG: Compound people also interested - they ahave prob with this - doing things by ref - sub document - need some kind of composite navigation
17:40:41 [JR]
SMIL - has depth first TABINDEX nav - compound doc has step over nav
17:40:43 [JR]
CL: When you have TABINDEX and other keys - how hard to nav using screen reader?
17:40:45 [JR]
JS: Can be confusing...
17:40:47 [JR]
CL: Going from top to bottom nav to TABINDEX nav confusing since first TABINDEX can be halway down
17:40:49 [JR]
<KFord> It can get complicated and also depends on the AT in use and how they respond to tabindex.
17:40:51 [JR]
<KFord> In many cases the default is for the screen reader to ignore tabindex. This does vary by product.
17:40:53 [JR]
JR: Reads kelly
17:40:55 [JR]
PP: They are just 2 diff kinds of nav
17:40:57 [JR]
AG: You should always have document order nav option
17:40:59 [JR]
AG: In addition to TABINDEX
17:41:01 [JR]
CL: Can start anywhere on load.
17:41:03 [JR]
AG: THat's good - eg. Google Search starts with focus in search text field
17:41:05 [JR]
action JA: New requirment a document order nav option
17:41:07 [JR]
AG: We are also formalizing what TABINDEX is supposed to mean
17:41:09 [JR]
JA: ACCESSKEY...
17:41:11 [JR]
JA: Let's hold off on this
17:41:13 [JR]
JA: Going to stop here for now.
17:41:15 [JR]
action JA: New requirment a document order nav option
17:41:17 [JR]
Breaking for lunch
18:07:09 [KFord]
KFord has joined #ua
18:19:04 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has joined #ua
18:30:24 [JR]
We're back.
18:31:11 [cklaws]
JR: Why UAAG should care about ATAG. WCAG, UAAG, ATAG don't read like 3 chapters of one book.
18:31:44 [cklaws]
JR: Could share more. ATAG close to last call - should UAAG sync with it?
18:32:48 [cklaws]
JR: WCAG has looked at ATAG structure.
18:34:03 [cklaws]
JR: ATAG didn't want to write a11y guidelines. Decided to do own. Looked at UAAG and ISO and then structured to WCAG but using UAAG requirements.
18:34:44 [cklaws]
CL: Distinction of user interface vs rendering of content.
18:36:19 [cklaws]
JR: Initial draft of a UAAG structure based on ATAG
18:36:38 [jallan]
uaag from atag structuer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2006OctDec/0053.html
18:36:55 [Al]
Al has joined #ua
18:37:47 [parente]
ATAG TOC: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
18:38:02 [Al]
Al has left #ua
18:38:48 [cklaws]
JR: Part A - UI accessible, Part B - a11y of rendered content
18:39:56 [cklaws]
JR: WCAG does perceivable, operable, understandable, robust..ATAG does access system friendly instead of robust
18:41:00 [jallan]
CL: atag only talking about generated content, uaag talking about rendered content
18:41:16 [cklaws]
JR: See ATAG glossary
18:42:19 [jallan]
JR: discussing editing interface in http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/#definitions
18:42:55 [cklaws]
JR: UI models - editing interface - almost WYSIWYG
18:43:23 [cklaws]
JR: Editing view and content display are other UIs
18:44:29 [cklaws]
CL: So in FireFox in editing mode is it ATAG or UAAG?
18:44:56 [cklaws]
JR: IN ATAG, could refer to UAAG for rendered content, in UAAG refer to ATAG for edit mode
18:47:56 [cklaws]
JR: UA user interface is both chrome and presentation of rendered content
18:47:59 [jallan]
cl: links list is part of the chrome not the content
18:48:38 [jallan]
cl: maybe, still thinking. drawing from the semantics of the content to generate list
18:48:59 [jallan]
...but the actual dialog is part of the chrome (generated by the ua)
18:49:59 [jallan]
cl: a lot of this is techniques (e.g. generating a list of links)
18:50:23 [jallan]
cl: could have setting to say suppress all content in place except links
18:53:04 [cklaws]
JA: Let's walk thru the ATAG guidelines to see if UAAG has something equivalent
18:54:02 [cklaws]
JA: Identify any issues - will send to ATAG with suggestions
18:55:42 [cklaws]
JR: A.0.1 Anything that has Web-content conforms to WCAG
18:55:47 [cklaws]
JA: Go back to ATG definition
18:57:25 [jallan]
need to define plug-in - any add-on, extension, etc. from the manufacturer or 3rd party that provide additional functionality not found in the base product.
18:58:14 [cklaws]
BG: WCAG doesn't address plug-in, except as content has to be accessible
18:58:55 [cklaws]
JR: WCAG has higher level success criteria and are normative but techniques are recommendations
19:01:06 [jallan]
see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/#Conformance-Claim "content type-specific WCAG benchmarks"
19:01:07 [cklaws]
JR: In ATAG, tools must put out document to tell the benchmarks for measuring accessibility and how their checkers test for a11y - like the rules the tool chooses for
19:01:41 [cklaws]
JR: Anyone using the tool can choose the rules
19:02:02 [jallan]
cl: who creates the rules
19:02:23 [jallan]
scribe: cklaws
19:03:11 [cklaws]
JR: Rules don't have to follow any specific spec - you just have to state what spec the rules follow
19:03:44 [cklaws]
JR: Haven't written one of these documents yet
19:05:42 [cklaws]
CL: A.1.2 Why doesn't help have to conform to WCAG?
19:06:32 [jallan]
cl: but its the same thing.
19:06:46 [jallan]
jr: seperating software and web accessibility
19:08:16 [jallan]
cl: so we have a section on writing accessible software.
19:09:07 [jallan]
jr: is there anyway wcag could write software accessibility guidelines
19:09:07 [cklaws]
JR: Maybe WCAG needs to address this first to provide a guidelines for ATAG and UAAG
19:09:37 [cklaws]
JR: 508 dealing with same issues of Web vs software
19:10:41 [jallan]
cl: everything needs to provide information to the accessiblity api
19:11:13 [cklaws]
Aaron, is the Firefox chrome in the DOM?
19:12:26 [cklaws]
JR: A.1.3. No specific statement about inheriting platform settings like high contrast - need to add.
19:13:58 [cklaws]
JA: Success critieria for A.1.4 Shouldn't affect final rendering of text
19:14:23 [cklaws]
JA: That is changes to display settings
19:15:10 [cklaws]
JA: In WYSWIG environment, how does this work?
19:16:14 [cklaws]
CL: through tool settings or system settings?
19:17:21 [cklaws]
CL: Consider word processing
19:18:53 [cklaws]
JR: Maybe needs to be more clear - what affects view vs rendered content
19:20:25 [becka11y]
becka11y has left #ua
19:21:29 [cklaws]
JA: A.1.5 #3 - in DreamWeaver, code view - see all tags are blue - add comment tag - never finish comment, now I see some other other color because you never closed comment tag
19:23:26 [cklaws]
JS: Need to support multiple modalities for showing syntax error
19:26:34 [jallan]
bg: don't what to inform screen reader of "error" or unclosed tag when user inserts an open tag
19:27:09 [cklaws]
JR: The AT should be able to query the tool to find out if the elements past the unclosed tag are "grayed out"
19:29:10 [KFord]
With respect to A.2.1, I have some concerns about the success criteria.
19:30:26 [KFord]
In particular, item 4 that lists out a set of features that the author should have single key or single-key with modifier.
19:30:46 [cklaws]
JR: #4 is all about color, #3 is about using an AT
19:31:30 [cklaws]
CL: #3 should address error information programmatically as well
19:32:36 [KFord]
This assumes that there's a static list of important features for an authoring tool. What if a given tool has some other feature that's key to use and it takes 10 keys to use?
19:33:09 [jallan]
jr: this is taken from UAAG
19:33:37 [jallan]
...these are important, but who decides?
19:33:41 [KFord]
For example in blogging software inserting links might be key but there's no requirement here that it is easy to do with the keyboard.
19:33:54 [jallan]
...#4 is the base set.
19:35:11 [KFord]
What about some language around a task-based approach?
19:36:29 [jallan]
ja: yikes, so mode keys when cutting and pasting, another mode for navigating, etc.?
19:37:17 [cklaws]
JR: keys that are unique/specific to a particular tool, like blogging-specific keys
19:37:49 [jallan]
...inserting links happens a lot in blogging so should be easy
19:37:50 [KFord]
Not necessarily, you can look at at something around if a task can be accomplished with one action from some input method, say mouse click, then it can not take more than some factor, say 3, more inputs from another.
19:38:55 [cklaws]
JR: Maybe further explain and sent it to ATAG group
19:39:18 [KFord]
My point is in terms of how to measure success if you've met this guideline.
19:39:52 [JR]
Kelly - good idea but needs fleshing out - could you send to ATAG group?
19:40:01 [KFord]
We can move on and I can communicate this to that group if that's the process.
19:41:44 [jallan]
JR: moving through A.2.2 and A.2.3
19:42:12 [jallan]
...A.2.3 don't interrupt the user while editing
19:42:35 [jallan]
... A.2.4
19:44:52 [jallan]
...process discussion...
19:46:18 [jallan]
2.5 no issues
19:47:04 [jallan]
2.6 no issues
19:48:04 [cklaws]
JR: A.2.6 need to add search for alt text to UUAG
19:48:35 [jallan]
action ja add search for conditional content in UAAG
19:48:48 [cklaws]
A.2.7 don't need undo in UAAG
19:48:53 [jallan]
action: ja add search for conditional content in UAAG
19:49:12 [jallan]
2.7 no issues
19:49:34 [jallan]
2.8 no issues
19:51:50 [jallan]
2.9 no reference to UAAG
19:52:10 [cklaws]
A.2.9 Can ATAG just refer to UAAG - as an option?
19:53:57 [KFord]
KFord has left #ua
19:54:05 [KFord]
KFord has joined #ua
19:55:03 [jallan]
jr: perhaps form a joint activity with ATWG and UAWG to look at software accessibilty
19:55:34 [jallan]
cl: back to 2.6
19:56:11 [jallan]
... if you have alt text, and you are in wysiwyg view and alt is not editable, can you still search for alt?
19:56:53 [jallan]
jr: yes, tool would let you search, when item is found, could switch to "code view"
19:57:00 [jallan]
...to allow editing.
19:57:40 [jallan]
jr: gives example in dreamweaver.
19:58:16 [jallan]
onward to 3.1
19:58:55 [jallan]
no issues
20:00:14 [KFord]
Out of curiosity do we know why 3.1 is a P2?
20:00:48 [cklaws]
JR: A.3.2 Does UAAG have a consistency checkpoint?
20:01:00 [cklaws]
JR: WCAG 3.2 is a consistency one
20:03:38 [jallan]
cl: if input convention is broken then tool will be unusable.
20:04:01 [jallan]
JR: will take back to ATWG, and see about pushing to P1
20:04:31 [jallan]
action: jr send question to ATWG about priority of A.3.1
20:05:37 [jallan]
A.3.3 no issues, very similar to UAAG
20:05:49 [jallan]
onto A.4.1
20:07:54 [KFord]
Minor editorial comment that the list of assistive technologies should be broadened in this example. This is obvious likely but more examples e.g. voice input should be given in this intro.
20:08:36 [cklaws]
A.4.1 Does this mean that tools MUST implement IAccessible2 now in addition to MSAA for Windows?
20:08:53 [cklaws]
CL: Or is this an option?
20:09:29 [jallan]
js: other ways to talk about implementing other APIs on windows or other platforms
20:09:40 [cklaws]
JR: Say "an" instead of "the"
20:09:53 [jallan]
...accessibility api
20:10:22 [cklaws]
CL: UAAG doesn't require accessibility API necessarily, could be DOM API
20:12:25 [jallan]
pp: on linux it is "the" accessibility api
20:13:04 [cklaws]
JS: More than one API on Mac, too - Carbon, Cocoa
20:13:36 [jallan]
jr: reading success criteria
20:14:26 [jallan]
...Success Criteria 2 (SC2) info published is in the conformance claim
20:14:52 [jallan]
pp: what is "default support"
20:15:08 [jallan]
...in SC 2(a)
20:15:51 [jallan]
pp: confused why 'a' and 'b' exist, should be combined?
20:16:24 [jallan]
cl: perhaps, if 'custom widgets' then need 'a' and 'b'
20:17:46 [jallan]
cl: SC 3, perhaps this is covering other APIs
20:19:49 [jallan]
ja: so the burden is on the accessibility tools to meet the requirements of the chosen api
20:19:58 [cklaws]
CL
20:21:03 [cklaws]
CL: Sometimes there are private APIs created by applications (IE, Adobe Reader) that are created for the ATs, and they say for security reasons
20:21:06 [KFord]
Minor editorial comment that the list of assistive technologies should be broadened in this example. This is obvious likely but more examples e.g. voice input should be given in this intro.That is how I read this i.e. you either do the default accessibility API on your platform, built something equivlanet that supports it or role your own and then expect the AT to support it.
20:23:12 [jallan]
but will the 'role your own' be published publicly
20:24:03 [jallan]
cl: one issue in flash and other tools was 'where is the caret'
20:24:24 [KFord]
According to this requirement, yes it would be made available publicly.
20:24:30 [jallan]
...couldn't use msaa, had to use other platform apis
20:25:47 [jallan]
jr: review of part b, canned content accessible,
20:26:11 [jallan]
managing of reusable content
20:26:31 [jallan]
make accessible options the first options
20:26:53 [jallan]
...not bury accessiblity features
20:28:43 [aaronlev]
aaronlev has left #ua
20:28:56 [jallan]
cl: is there an attempt to synch WAI glossaries
20:28:59 [cklaws]
JA: EO is trying to sync the glossaries
20:29:18 [jallan]
----15 min break
20:48:53 [JR]
We're back
20:49:22 [JR]
Topic: Structure/Role of UAAG discussion
20:49:34 [JR]
JA: Talked about this at various times
20:50:01 [JR]
JA: Current structure is quite confusing
20:50:18 [JR]
JA: JR talked about using same type of structure as ATAG
20:50:32 [JR]
JA: Let's do that till 4:30
20:50:58 [JR]
JA: Then gray area of author responsibility vs UA responsibility
20:51:30 [JR]
JA: First thought - making UAAG modular...
20:51:45 [JR]
JA: Core features...rendered content...
20:52:21 [JR]
JA: Now we have whole areas on volume etc that may not be our responsibility
20:53:10 [JR]
JR: Attempt at modularity with "conformance detail"
20:54:09 [JR]
JS: Maybe specify that we expect X, Y Z available from environment
20:54:56 [JR]
JS: Modular is the way everything is going
20:55:05 [JR]
JS: like idea
20:55:33 [JR]
CL: So we won't cover volume?
20:55:40 [JR]
JA: Maybe not.
20:55:48 [JR]
JA: We don't cover user agent
20:56:14 [JR]
correction: don't define user agenty
20:56:38 [JR]
CL: Got confusing - since some tools wanted out, ATs didn't know if they were fully in
20:57:10 [JR]
CL: Do we address at all what AT's do.
20:57:31 [JR]
JA: No
20:57:36 [JR]
JR: So broad
20:58:00 [JR]
CL: Looking at roots before home page reader
20:58:12 [JR]
CL: PWwebspeak...
20:58:46 [JR]
CL: Not enough access in browser or AT so these "research projects" were developed
20:59:13 [JR]
CL: How do we separate
20:59:34 [JR]
JA: We have stuff about speech but not about voice recog etc.
21:01:22 [JR]
CL: "Not appliciable" could be used in conformance profile
21:02:16 [JR]
JA: Only IBM did a conformance report
21:02:31 [JR]
JR: If fail maybe wouldn't publicize
21:02:42 [JR]
CL: After failing and failing - maybe lose interest
21:08:43 [JR]
All: Discussion of defintion of UA
21:08:48 [JR]
JS: AT out of scope
21:09:33 [jallan]
JA: what is a plug-in?
21:10:30 [jallan]
CL: flash player chrome is a UA
21:11:04 [jallan]
JR: have a module for only web browser. with conformance claim
21:11:28 [JR]
JA: We need to change plugin to call it an embedded user agent
21:12:03 [jallan]
CL: why do we need to distinguish between them?
21:12:14 [jallan]
JR: to know that they are included,
21:12:36 [JR]
CL: Some plugins are just UI
21:12:44 [JR]
CL: Some are renderers
21:13:01 [jallan]
PP: its recursive, doesn't matter what you call your self, UAAG see embedded players as agents
21:13:24 [JR]
CL: List of links generated from content NOT by content
21:13:51 [jallan]
pp: why seperated chrome from content, they are converging
21:14:37 [jallan]
JR: radio buttons, in the interface they are one thing, in the content they are created by authors and comply with wcag
21:15:37 [JR]
CL: Probs with navigational mechanism guidelines
21:16:05 [KFord]
But you also have instances where the plug-in can extend a browser chrome using web content so separation is not an easy line to me.
21:16:41 [jallan]
cl: right, links lists, and list of accesskeys are like that
21:18:43 [jallan]
cl: some blind users didn't like Home page reader because the interface was different from screen reader functionality
21:19:01 [jallan]
cl: also difficulty with JAWS, a mode issue
21:19:04 [JR]
PP: Modes are always problematic
21:19:20 [JR]
JS: Browsers will always work somewhat differently
21:20:02 [JR]
JA: Jaws and IE hard to get started on but good for power users. HPR great for beginners.
21:20:18 [JR]
JA: Now JAWS has more functionality.
21:20:56 [JR]
JS, JA: Many none SR people would like list of links
21:21:17 [JR]
JA: People say too much crud messing things up
21:22:11 [jallan]
has implications for dexterity impaired folks.
21:23:29 [KFord]
I would say that several populations could benefit from some of the powerful navigation schemes that ATs have for navigation. You see bits oand peices of these in different browsers.
21:25:02 [jallan]
jr: as JS said, AT are out of scope.
21:25:23 [jallan]
CL: thinks AT vendors don't want to be seen as user agents.
21:27:23 [jallan]
JS: AT is out of scope, but when AT provide technology to assist users when navigation and reading content then it is funcitoning as a user agent.
21:28:04 [jallan]
CL: there are extensions and plugins (firevox, jaws, UIUC) to help comply with guidelilnes for a particular set of users
21:29:13 [jallan]
JR: need to have a strong section on AT.
21:29:38 [jallan]
...develop a list of things that are so important that it needs to be built in.
21:30:27 [jallan]
CL: base user agent must porvide alll the information to a 3rd party to provide a feature, or do it themselves
21:31:20 [jallan]
CL: navigation of content might be considered UI as oppoesed to a rendering comopliance
21:31:40 [jallan]
CL: will be hard to think through things this way.
21:32:22 [jallan]
PP: this is model view controller. IBM article is in the UAWG archives.
21:33:56 [cklaws]
MVC article: http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/sj/443/brunet.html
21:34:02 [KFord]
KFord has left #ua
21:34:02 [jallan]
JR: navigation. allow an out. conformance claim on UA and JAWS. when we work together then we conform
21:34:16 [jallan]
...but there may be issues.
21:34:24 [KFord]
KFord has joined #ua
21:34:41 [JR]
JA: But also issues for people not using assistive technology.
21:35:22 [JR]
JA: What about IE users without JAWS
21:36:46 [jallan]
pp: the UA needs to support the ability to do structured navigation. provide the information so extensions can provide the feature
21:36:47 [JR]
CL: Firefox has lots of plugins...must state they must be compatible
21:37:20 [KFord]
I would expand this to well more than just IE/FF Firefox users without JAWS? What about some system that doesn't have an AT but where someone's building a user agent?
21:37:32 [jallan]
cl: if in a compliance claim you use 5 extensions with the UA, then all the extensions must be compatible
21:38:18 [JR]
CL: Plugins may not all be compatible
21:39:10 [JR]
JS: What about new apple phone
21:39:14 [jallan]
CL: Kelly, these are just examples
21:39:33 [JR]
JR: Yes
21:39:39 [jallan]
CL: it is an issue for UA developers (mobile, etc.)
21:39:52 [JR]
JS: At some point - make sure there are devices to serve the kind of content retreived
21:40:17 [JR]
JR: We don't talk about devices
21:40:47 [JR]
CL: In the past we have talked about persuasive issues and discovered we didn;t cover things super well
21:41:58 [JR]
JA: So do we need in core area something about multimodal access.
21:42:21 [JR]
JS: In persuasive, not that different than desktop
21:42:30 [JR]
CL: But ex. they don't want keyboard
21:43:45 [jallan]
jr: no requirement around hardware device, no screen, no keyboard, only voice reco
21:44:59 [jallan]
cl: many systems you can't plug in other output modes
21:45:42 [jallan]
js: backends for pervasive devices are missing the multimodal functionality
21:45:44 [JR]
JS: Backend of some of the software are being developed with certain devices in mind.
21:46:55 [JR]
JS: Just afraid that things being left out that are needed in the future (from protocols etc.)
21:48:52 [jallan]
we will be taking this up in the future. with more structured discussion.
21:48:53 [jallan]
\
21:49:25 [jallan]
cl: to be effective we must have the UA developers onboard
21:51:06 [KFord]
Thanks all, talk in the morning.
21:51:39 [JR]
RRSAgent, make minutes
21:51:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-minutes.html JR
21:53:46 [JR]
RRSAgent, set logs public
21:53:53 [JR]
RRSAgent, bye
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-actions.rdf :
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA to Send message to PF asking for help with CSS-generated content. [1]
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-irc#T17-40-22
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA to New requirment a document order nav option [2]
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-irc#T17-41-05
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JA to New requirment a document order nav option [3]
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-irc#T17-41-15
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ja add search for conditional content in UAAG [4]
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-irc#T19-48-53
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jr send question to ATWG about priority of A.3.1 [5]
21:53:53 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/22-ua-irc#T20-04-31