W3C

- DRAFT -

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

28 Aug 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Jeanne, Kim, Kelly, Jan, Jim, Greg
Regrets
Chair
Jim Kelly
Scribe
greg

Contents


Greg: "The user can resize viewports within restrictions imposed by the platform."
... "The user can resize viewports within restrictions imposed by the platform, overriding any values specified by the author."

<Jan> 1.8.3 Resize Viewport: Users can maximize the size of top-level viewports up to the size of the display even if the author has specified a smaller size. (Level A)

<Jan> 1.8.3 Resize Viewport: The user can resize viewports within restrictions imposed by the platform, overriding any values specified by the author. (Level A)

Resolution: Accept wording 1.8.3 Resize Viewport: The user can resize viewports within restrictions imposed by the platform, overriding any values specified by the author. (Level A)

OCAD8 re 1.3.2

Options: When highlighting classes specified by 1.3.1 Highlighted Items, the user can specify highlighting options that include at least: (Level AA) (a) foreground colors, (b) background colors, and (c) borders (configurable color, style, and thickness)

OCAD8: This seems like too much configurability, especially if the user agent developer has chosen highlighting styling to maximize visibility within the widest variety of possible content situations. Fluid UIOptions for example enlarges input fields and makes images underlined and bold.

Resolution: Keep 1.3.2 as it is, because even though many UA developers may think they have chosen a good default highlighting option, there will be users who will require further customization.

<trackbot> Date: 28 August 2013

<scribe> Scribe: greg

JF2 re 1.1.1

1.1.1 Render Alternative Content: For any content element, the user can choose to render any types of recognized alternative content that are present. (Level A)

JF2 - [needs proposal] we will consider adding an example in the Implementation guide for <acronym>.​

JF2: is there something that speaks to this use-case: <abbr title=”World Wide Consortium”>W3C</abbr>?)

<jeanne> Latest draft <- http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG20130828.html

Examples of accessibility benefits of ABBR include: when using speech recognition it's easier to enter actual words into the search field than a series of capitalized letters; people with some types of dyslexia have difficulty parsing or recognizing strings of seemingly random characters; some users with low vision have difficulty recognizing strings of characters that are written in all...

scribe: upper case; ...

Greg: "Laura has impaired vision and uses the shapes of words to help her recognize them easily. It is more difficult for her to read strings of seemingly random upper case letters than strings of familiar words written with only their initial letters capitalized, so she changes her preference settings to have all abbreviations replaced by their expanded strings."

<AllanJ> proposal: Sheila has a reading disorder and has problems decoding acronyms. Because her browser has a setting that allows the expansion of acronyms, all acronyms in the document are revealed by default.

<Kim> Carly has repetitive strain injuries and uses speech recognition to communicate with the computer. She's a paralegal and often has to search long documents for terms that are rendered as acronyms. It is much easier for her to speak the full terms into the search box rather than the acronyms because it's easier for her to speak the full names, and also allows her to keep her vocabulary less...

<Kim> ...cluttered by acronyms that may increase misrecognitions. She chooses a setting on her browser that automatically expands all acronyms before she does a search.

<Jan> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/meaning-located.html

<Kim> Carly has repetitive strain injuries and uses speech recognition to communicate with her computer. She's a paralegal and often has to search long documents for terms that are rendered as acronyms. It's easier for her to speak full terms into the search box rather than acronyms because full terms are easier to say and better recognized, and this allows her to keep her vocabulary less...

<Kim> ...cluttered by acronyms that may increase misrecognitions. She chooses a setting on her browser that automatically expands all acronyms before she does a search.

Resolved: Add to 1.1.1 Examples "Laura has impaired vision and uses the shapes of words to help her recognize them easily. It is more difficult for her to read strings of seemingly random upper case letters than strings of familiar words written with only their initial letters capitalized, so she changes her preference settings to have all abbreviations replaced by their expanded strings."...

scribe: and ""Carly has repetitive strain injuries and uses speech recognition to communicate with her computer. She's a paralegal and often has to search long documents for terms that are rendered as acronyms. It's easier for her to speak full terms into the search box rather than acronyms because full terms are easier to say and better recognized, and this allows her to keep her vocabulary less...
... cluttered by acronyms that may increase misrecognitions. She chooses a setting on her browser that automatically expands all acronyms before she does a search."

<AllanJ> related resource for abbr expansion extension: http://firefox.cita.illinois.edu/txtequiv/expandabbr.php

Resolved: Add to 1.1.1 Related Resources the Firefox extension "Text Equivalent Expand Abbreviations"

Resolution: Add to 1.1.1 Related Resources the Firefox extension "Text Equivalent Expand Abbreviations"
... Add to 1.1.1 Examples "Carly has repetitive strain injuries and uses speech recognition to communicate with her computer. She's a paralegal and often has to search long documents for terms that are rendered as acronyms. It's easier for her to speak full terms into the search box rather than acronyms because full terms are often easier to say and better recognized, and this allows her...
... to keep her vocabulary less cluttered by acronyms that may increase misrecognitions. She chooses a setting on her browser that automatically expands all acronyms before she does a search."
... Add to 1.1.1 Examples "Laura has impaired vision and uses the shapes of words to help her recognize them easily. It is more difficult for her to read strings of seemingly random upper case letters than strings of familiar words written with only their initial letters capitalized, so she changes her preference settings to have all abbreviations replaced by their expanded strings."

OCAD7 re 1.2.1

1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then both of the following are true: (Level AA) (a) the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with text values that are also available to assistive technologies. (b) the user agent makes metadata related to the non-text content available programmatically (and...

scribe: not via fields reserved for text alternatives).

OCAD7: ATAG SC on which this was once based is now more clear (B.2.3.2)...rules out "No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not used as text alternatives"

Kelly: The title of Guideline 1.1 mixes singular and plural.

Jan: The UA should not repair something that can mislead the screen reader into thinking that is actual author-supplied alternative content, when it might be wrong.

<Jan> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then both of the following are true: (Level AA) (a) the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with generic strings (e.g., "image") or irrelevant strings (e.g., file name, file format). (b) the user agent makes metadata related to the non-text content available...

<Jan> ...programmatically (and not via fields reserved for text alternatives).

Greg: how about "(b) if the user agent makes available metadata related to non-text content (e.g. the Creator attribute in an image's IPTC data structure) available progammatically, it is not done by inserting the information into fields reserved for text alterantives (e.g. the MSAA Description field)."

Jan: The example about Ray is incorrect, as it reads like an example of what should be done, when it's an example of what should not be done.

<Jan> Ray is blind and counts on alternative text descriptions for images. Sometimes image file names can be helpful (e.g. red-canoe.png), but often they are not (e.g. 123.png). Because the browser does not use file names to set the accessible label for images without text alternatives, Rays' screen reader can attempt more advanced repair techniques, such as optical character recognition (OCR).

<Jan> Ray is blind and counts on alternative text descriptions for images. Sometimes image file names can be helpful (e.g. red-canoe.png), but often they are not (e.g. 123.png). Because the browser does not use file names to set the accessible label for images without text alternatives, Ray's screen reader can attempt more advanced repair techniques, such as optical character recognition (OCR).

kford: It's important for the screen reader to be able to get the file name, when the user wants to read it. But it's important not to fool the screen reader into thinking the repair text is author-provided alternatives.

<Jan> Ray is blind and counts on alternative text descriptions for images. Sometimes image file names can be helpful (e.g. red-canoe.png), but often they are not (e.g. 123.png). Because the browser does not use file names to set the accessible name for images without text alternatives, Ray's screen reader can use the file name from the DOM if Ray requests this or attempt more advanced repair...

<Jan> ...techniques, such as optical character recognition (OCR).

<Kim> how about "(b) if the user agent makes metadata that is related to non-text content available progammatically this content does not co-opt fields reserved for text alterantives (e.g. the Creator attribute in an image's IPTC data structure is not inserted into the MSAA Description field)."

<Jan> (b) if the user agent makes metadata related to non-text content available progammatically, this content does not misuse fields reserved for text alternatives (e.g. the Creator attribute in an image's IPTC data structure is not inserted into the MSAA Description field).

Jan: It seems that (a) and (b) are redundant to each other.

Greg: (a) is about repair text in the DOM, while (b) is about how information is made available through platform accessibility API.

<Jan> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty then both of the following are true: (Level AA)

Greg: At least that's how I interpret the two clauses in the SC.

<Jan> (a) the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with generic strings (e.g., "image") or irrelevant strings (e.g., file name, file format).

<Jan> (b) if the user agent makes metadata related to non-text content available progammatically, this content does not misuse fields reserved for text alternatives (e.g. the Creator attribute in an image's IPTC data structure is not inserted into the MSAA Description field).

<Jan> 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies: If text alternatives for non-text content are missing or empty, then the user agent does not attempt to repair the text alternatives with generic strings (e.g., "image") or irrelevant strings (e.g., file name, file format) ....

When an attribute in the DOM or a field in the platform accessibility API is designed to hold author-specified text alternatives, do not put any other data such as generic or irrelevant strings (e.g. "image", the file name, the file format, or other values from an image's metadata).

<Jan> When an attribute in the DOM or a field in the platform accessibility API is designed to hold author-specified text alternatives, the user agent does not fill these with generic or irrelevant strings (e.g. "image", file name).

<Jan> ACTION: Jan and Greg to propose rewording for 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-875 - And greg to propose rewording for 1.2.1 support repair by assistive technologies [on Jan Richards - due 2013-09-04].

<Jan> OCAD7 and EO31

EO38 re 1.3.1

1.3.1 Highlighted Items: The user can specify that the following classes be highlighted so that each is uniquely distinguished: (Level A) (a) selection (b) active keyboard focus (indicated by focus cursors and/or text cursors) (c) recognized enabled input elements (distinguished from disabled elements) (d) elements with alternative content (e) recently visited links

EO38 (Implementing) Should "hover" be included in the list of 1.3.1 classes where highlighting is user controlled? Or would this be the same as "selection"?

Kim: What a speech user really wants is to highlight all the hoverable items, but that's not what this is about.

Jeanne: Had trouble coming up with accessibility use cases demonstrating significant benefit of customizing the hover hightlight.

<AllanJ> hover is not available from the keyboard. a hover state can be done with :focus or :active in CSS

Greg: A use case would be if I'm using MouseKeys to laboriously position the mouse pointer over what appears to be a button, but the actual clickable area is just the text in the middle of the button, it can take trial and error to move the mouse, click, nothing happens, move it again, click again, repeat. Getting feedback of when the mouse pointer is over the clickable region is very useful.

Jan: We already have the ability to highlight all the enabled elements, which would show you the boundaries of the element you're trying to click on.

Resolution: Proposal not accepted; we feel that changing the highlighting of recognized enabled input elements will cover most of the cases where things are hoverable, and the remainder are edge cases.

AR1 re Definition of compliance level

JAllan: Will write a response based on Greg's comments on yesterday, that things the developer cannot control (e.g. OS or hardware) can be used for N/A exemption, but things under the control of the developer (e.g. the choice between available sets of widgets) are not, as the developer can choose compliant or non-compliant toolkits, and that choice has consequences.

<AllanJ> discussion of tools used to develop the UA does not exempt the UA from meeting the requirements of UAAG

<AllanJ> the use of tools that do not allow or inhibit the creation of accessible user agents is not an exemption to meeting any success criteria in UAAG

Jan: Can we just change the definition of Platform to reflect the limit?

Greg: Possibly, but have to make sure that works for all occurrences of Platform in the document.

Jan: Need to exempt not just OS and Hardware, but also things like Java.

Greg: Correct, really OS, Hardware, and Operating Environments (e.g. Gnome)
... But NOT including toolkits, widget sets, and development tools.
... The latter are platform for some purposes (e.g. providing API for higher level code) but not for purposes of the Not Applicable Due To Platform Limitations compliance code.

<Jan> Proposed reply to AR1... The group accepts that the wording for platform limitations was too narrow. Instead we will link to the definition of "platform" which includes host user agents, cross-OS environments (e.g. Java). However, the group also feels that the platform limitation should not extend to poor choices of UI component toolkits so this has been clarified in the definition of platform.

Greg: I don't see any occurrences of "platform" that would be negatively impacted by limiting the definition to just OS, operating environment, and hardware.

<Jan> Proposed change to Defn of Platform: platform

<Jan> The software and hardware environment(s) within which the user agent operates. Platforms provide a consistent operational environment. There may be layers of software in an hardware architecture and each layer may be considered a platform. Non-web-based platforms include desktop operating system (e.g., Linux, MacOS, Windows, etc.), mobile operating systems (e.g., Android, Blackberry, iOS,...

<Jan> ...Windows Phone, etc.), and cross-OS environments (e.g., Java). Web-based platforms are other user agents. User agents may employ server-based processing, such as web content transformations, text-to-speech production, etc. *User interface component toolkits are not considered platforms.*

<Jan> Note 1: A user agent may include functionality hosted on multiple platforms (e.g., a browser running on the desktop may include server-based pre-processing and web-based documentation).

<Jan> Note 2: Accessibility guidelines for developers exist for many platforms.

<Jan> Proposed change to Defn of Platform (REPLACE ALL): platform

<Jan> The software and hardware environment(s) within which the user agent operates. Platforms provide a consistent operational environment. There may be layers of software in a hardware architecture and each layer may be considered a platform. Non-web-based platforms include desktop operating systems (e.g. Linux, Mac OS, Windows), mobile operating systems (e.g. Android, Blackberry OS, iOS,...

<Jan> ...Windows Phone), operating environments (e.g. GNOME, KDE) and cross-OS environments (e.g. Java). Web-based platforms are other user agents. User agents may employ server-based processing, such as web content transformations and text-to-speech production. User interface component toolkits and control libraries are not considered platforms for the purposes of this document.

<Jan> Note 1: A user agent may include functionality hosted on multiple platforms (e.g. a browser running on the desktop may include server-based pre-processing and web-based documentation).

<Jan> Note 2: Accessibility guidelines for developers exist for many platforms.

Resolution: Accept proposed changes to definition of platform immediately above.
... Accept reply to AR1: The group accepts that the wording for platform limitations was too narrow. Instead we will link to the definition of "platform" which includes host user agents, cross-OS environments (e.g. Java). However, the group also feels that the platform limitation should not extend to poor choices of UI component toolkits so this has been clarified in the definition...
... of platform.

AR2 definition of user agent

AR2: There should also be a distinction between s/w developed by a vendor vs s/w developed in-house using a platform purchased from a vendor.

Resolution: UAAG20 can certainly be applied to software developed in-house, and the working group recommends that companies adopt UAAAG20 as an internal policy. However, UAAG20 is a set of guidelines rather than a regulatory document, and whether a company is obligated to follow them will depend upon their regulatory environment, internal purchasing policies, etc.

EO22 re "What Qualifies As A User Agent"

EO22: I had trouble with the What Qualifies section. The word order tends to make it more confusing than it needs to be. I understand that we need to include procedural as well as declarative languages, but is there any other kind of programming language. Are you making your point? Are you trying to say no programming language is excluded as a basis for generating user interface?

JAllan: Kim and Jeanne crafted language to address this.

<AllanJ> part of introduction "what qualifies as a user agent? .... If the following two conditions are met then an extension or plug-in is a user agent:

<AllanJ> It is launched by, or extends the functionality of a platform-based application, and

<AllanJ> Use of the plug-in does not exit the parent application. [@@ EO22]

Greg: Shouldn't that be "platform based user-agent" instead of "platform based application"?

<AllanJ> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20130823/#introduction

Jeanne: We can make it clearer by changing "If the following three conditions are met, then a platform-based application is a user agent:" to "A platform-based application is a user agent If the following three conditions are met:"

General agreement on both of those changes.

Jeanne's change would be to all three lead-in paragraphs.

Resolution: In "What qualifies as a User Agent", change "platform based application" to "platform-based user agent".
... In "What qualifies as a User Agent", change "If the following three conditions are met, then a platform-based application is a user agent:" to "A platform-based application is a user agent If the following three conditions are met:", and similarly in the other two lead-in paragraphs.

Reviewing the qualities that identify platform-based user agents.

Currently:

If the following three conditions are met, then a platform-based application is a user agent:

It is a standalone application, and

It interprets any W3C-specified language, and

It provides a user interface or interprets a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface

Jan: What is meant by " interprets a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface"? Is that meant to be inclusive or exclusive?
... These are only two types out of a very long list of programming paradigms listed in Wikipedia.
... The glossary entry for user agent lists four non-embedded types, whereas this section lists only three including embedded.

JAllan: This section is in the Implementing document and is not normative, although the glossary entry is.

Jan: ATAG has a paragraph referring the reader to the glossary entry for the definition of authoring tool; UAAG could do the same, rather than have both the glossary entry and this lengthy section.

<AllanJ> the comment concerns the implementing document. it is not normative. the glossary definition is normative. we are ok with that definition. we do not have to address the implementing document comment in order to reach last call

<AllanJ> we should reconcile the guidelines and implementing document after last call.

Discussing the similarities and differences between "What qualifies as a User Agent" and the Glossary entry for "User Agent".

Discussion of whether "webview component" warrants being a separate category.

Webview is a user agent that embeds into a non-user agent application (e.g. a browser plug-in for the Eclipse IDE).

"What qualifies as a User Agent" includes things that have no UI, and restricts extensions to those that don't exit the parent, etc.

Resolution: remove ", mobile app" from the glossary entry for User Agent.

Change "stand-alone, non-web-based, browser" to "platform-based user agent"

We conceptually have two axes. First, a component can be a media player, a browser, or a special-purpose application. Second, any of those can be platform-based, web-based, a plug-in for a user agent, or a webview component (that embed in a non-user agent, e.g. a browser plug-in for the Eclipse IDE).

"A plug-in for a user agent" should be "embedded user agent".

We have three categories based on how they're used: browsers, media players, and special-purpose applications. We have four types of implementations: platform-based, web-based, embedded within user agents, and embedded within non-user agents (e.g. webview components).

<Kim> User agents fall into three categories based on how they're used: browsers, media players, and special-purpose applications. User agents fall into five categories based on how they are implemented: platform-based, web-based, embedded within user agents, and embedded within non-user agents (e.g. webview components).

Greg: We have three categories based on how they're used: browsers, media players, and special-purpose applications. We have three types of implementations: platform-based, web-based, embedded within user agents, and embedded (which can be within user agents or other applications, and can have full UI or, in the case of webview components, stripped down UI).

Jan: Not sure we need "special-purpose user agents", as we ruled that airline flight info apps etc. are not UA for the purpose of this document.

Greg: I was thinking that applications displaying airline flight info or family tree diagrams were user agents.

Noted that Gmail and Facebook are listed as examples of web-based user agents, and those are certainly neither media players nor browsers, so apparently a category for special-purpose user agent is still needed.

Greg: I wouldn't have thought Skype was a UA.

Jeanne: Skype uses WebRTC.

<jeanne> Latest Master doc <- http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG20130828.htm

Agreement that Skype does not belong under "Embedded".

<jeanne> Latest Master doc <- http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130827/MasterUAAG20130828.html

Greg: I thought that a plug-in for rendering specialized TIFF files or medical X-ray images would be a media player, but it doesn't meet our definition because the media is a not time-based.

The group is reworking the glossary entry for User Agent.

Greg: I'm concerned that the definition of web-based user agent doesn't mention the factor that defines the category for most users: that it is rendered by another user agent.

<AllanJ> discussion of definition

<AllanJ> what is the difference between embedded user agent and a webview component

<AllanJ> in browsers a user can input an arbitrary url, when using a web-app they cannot. user is only allowed to view and interact with the information that the app allows

Things to which UAAG20 would not apply:

o Basic text editors that do not process or distinguish between web technologies (e.g. Notepad)

o Operating environments that include web toolkits and/or stand-alone user agents (e.g. Windows, OS X, KDE, iOS)

o General-purpose platforms or toolkit that don’t use web technologies, even though they may be used by user agents for other purposes (e.g. Gnome, KDE, .NET Framework/CLR, iOS?)

o Non-Web extensions or plug-ins where the host is not a user agent, but can also be hosting user agents, as long as the extension or plug-in does not itself use web technologies and is not designed specifically to work with other extensions or plug-ins that do (e.g. a general-purpose add-in for the Eclipse integrated development environment, even though it may be used with and interact with...

scribe: the Web Tools Platform extension which adds user agent capabilities to Eclipse).

(All of the above were from one of my documents.)

<Jan> user agent

<Jan> A user agent is any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with web content. UAAG 2.0 identifies four user agent architectures:

<Jan> - Platform-based user agent, non-web-based user agent: These user agents run on non-Web platforms (operating systems and cross-OS platforms, such as Java) and perform content retrieval, rendering and end-user interaction facilitation themselves (e.g. Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Opera, Windows Media Player, QuickTime Pro, RealPlayer).

<Jan> - Embedded user agent, plug-in: These user agents "plug-in" to other user agents or applications (e.g. media player plug-in for a web browser, web view component). Embedded user agents may establish direct connections with the platform (e.g. communication via platform accessibility services).

<Jan> - Web-based user agent: These user agents have user interfaces that are implemented using web content technologies and are accessed by users via a user agent. Web-based user agents transform content into web content technologies that the host user agent can render (e.g. Google Docs, Bing Translator, Yahoo Mail).

<Jan> Note: Many web applications retrieve, render and facilitate interaction with very limited data sets (e.g. online ticket booking). In such cases, WCAG 2.0, without UAAG 2.0, may be appropriate for assessing the application's accessibility.

<Jan> Examples of software that are generally considered user agents under UAAG 2.0:

<Jan> - Desktop web browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera)

<Jan> - Mobile web browsers (e.g. Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Android Browser, Opera Mini, Atomic Web, Puffin)

<Jan> - Browser plug-ins (e.g. QuickTime Plug-in for Firefox, Acrobat Reader Plug-in for Internet Explorer, Shockwave Plug-in for Chrome)

<Jan> - Web view components (e.g. Webkit Webview component, Web Tools Platform Plug-in for Eclipse, UIWebView for iOS)

<Jan> - Authoring tools that render the web content being edited (e.g. Word, DreamWeaver, HTML-Kit)

<Jan> Examples of software that are not considered user agents under UAAG 2.0 (in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):

<Jan> - Operating environments or software bundles that include platform-based user agents (e.g. Windows, OS X, KDE, iOS), though the included user agents themselves are covered by UAAG 2.0.

<Jan> - General-purpose platforms or toolkits that don't use web technologies, even though they may be used by user agents for other purposes (e.g. GNOME, KDE, .NET Framework/CLR).

<Jan> - Narrow-purpose platform-based or web applications (e.g. online ticket booking applications).

<Jan> - Authoring tools that only display a source view of the web content being edited (e.g. Notepad, Vim).

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jan and Greg to propose rewording for 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-ua-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-08-28 22:39:54 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/easier/often easier/
Succeeded: s/R2/AR2/
Succeeded: s/qualfies/qualifies/
Succeeded: s/along/alone/
Found Scribe: greg
Inferring ScribeNick: greg
Default Present: Jeanne
Present: Jeanne Kim Kelly Jan Jim Greg
Found Date: 28 Aug 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-ua-minutes.html
People with action items: greg jan

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]