14:51:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:51:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-irc
14:51:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:51:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
14:51:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:51:19 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_WCAG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:51:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:51:20 <trackbot> Date: 19 August 2014
14:51:29 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
14:51:29 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:52:26 <AWK> agenda+ Feedback on Developers' Guide to Features of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools 29th July 2014 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/29thAugust2014/results
14:52:44 <AWK> Agenda+ Survey from August 5th- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/results  (only #s 4 and 6).
14:53:02 <AWK> agenda+ Alistair’s technique - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Creating_a_conforming_alternate_version_for_a_responsive_web_page_designed_with_progressive_enhancement
14:53:12 <AWK> agenda+ review open items and actions
14:53:27 <AWK> agenda+ https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140724/2947
14:54:49 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
14:55:16 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()11:00AM has now started
14:55:22 <Zakim> + +31.30.239.aaaa
14:55:23 <Zakim> +[FordMotor]
14:55:24 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #wai-wcag
14:55:42 <AWK> regrets+ Sailesh, James N, Loretta, Kathy W.
14:56:13 <Zakim> + +1.617.766.aabb
14:56:21 <AWK> Zakim, aabb is AWK
14:56:21 <Zakim> +AWK; got it
14:56:29 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:56:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see [FordMotor], +31.30.239.aaaa, AWK
14:56:33 <AWK> Chair:AWK
14:56:38 <AWK> Chair: AWK
14:57:15 <AWK> Zakim, aaaa is Wilco?
14:57:15 <Zakim> +Wilco?; got it
14:57:27 <AWK> Zakim, wilco? is Wilco
14:57:27 <Zakim> +Wilco; got it
14:59:53 <alistair> alistair has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:17 <alistair> Running a couple of minutes late...
15:01:05 <cstrobbe> cstrobbe has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:37 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:43 <Zakim> +Bruce_Bailey
15:01:48 <Zakim> +David_MacDonald
15:02:02 <AWK> Scribe: Bruce
15:02:19 <bbailey> zakim, i am Bruce_
15:02:19 <Zakim> ok, bbailey, I now associate you with Bruce_Bailey
15:02:21 <Zakim> +??P19
15:02:22 <alistair> I'm having problems phoning in...
15:02:53 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
15:02:59 <Zakim> +cstrobbe
15:03:02 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:03:06 <cstrobbe> zakim, mute me
15:03:07 <Zakim> cstrobbe should now be muted
15:03:45 <Zakim> +Marc_Johlic
15:05:18 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see [FordMotor], Wilco, AWK, Bruce_Bailey, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, cstrobbe (muted), Marc_Johlic
15:05:32 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:35 <alistair> Is anyone else having problems with the phone bridge
15:06:00 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
15:06:00 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Feedback on Developers' Guide to Features of Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools 29th July 2014 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/29thAugust2014/results" taken up
15:06:04 <Zakim> ... [from AWK]
15:06:12 <Zakim> + +1.703.637.aacc
15:06:15 <Zakim> +Kenny
15:06:18 <jon_avila> zakim, I am aacc
15:06:19 <Zakim> +jon_avila; got it
15:06:53 <bbailey> Please refresh on survey, should have six replies
15:07:10 <bbailey> Discussion if we turn over comment or other...
15:07:36 <bbailey> AWK:  no burning disagreement
15:07:51 <bbailey> MC:  not an approval review, so less formal
15:07:54 <Wilco> +1
15:07:56 <bbailey> q+
15:08:19 <bbailey> AWK: question to dave 14/20
15:08:52 <bbailey> David:  Did study for Canada, its ballpark figure from experience
15:09:03 <bbailey> David Grove came up with 18% in his report
15:09:19 <bbailey> MC: number is soft
15:09:34 <bbailey> hopefully, will increase over time
15:10:20 <bbailey> MC:  with more processing power, AI, more machine testability is feasible
15:10:38 <bbailey> Wilco, +1 percentage can only go up
15:10:41 <bbailey> \
15:11:12 <bbailey> AWK:  Is candaian report public?
15:11:26 <bbailey> MC:  David will ask
15:12:03 <bbailey> AWK:  Would be nice for citation to justify automatic evaluation being between 13-20 %
15:12:23 <bbailey> We have two studies, better than subjective expert approximations
15:13:07 <bbailey> David:  Parts of study are pretty candid, esp. with regard to some products
15:13:15 <bbailey> May be able to post excerpts
15:13:39 <bbailey> AWK;  Prolly take a while to get approval, Shadi can just go ahead
15:13:53 <bbailey> MC:  Need to be clear that tools can help, but not do work
15:14:51 <bbailey> bruce: wrt Alistair comment
15:15:12 <bbailey> Alistair suggested new name change
15:15:34 <bbailey> Bruce asks if content just needs tuning
15:15:47 <bbailey> MC:  Both Qs go to ERT, they can decide
15:16:38 <bbailey> AWK:  Will make Shadi aware of our comments, take under advisement.  Back to us if more questions or clarification or more harmonize response
15:17:00 <bbailey> MC: confirms this is already for public review with relatively short turn around
15:17:06 <bbailey> q-
15:17:30 <bbailey> AWK:  Consensus to share survey results
15:17:43 <bbailey> AWK sent email while on call
15:17:49 <AWK> Zakim, close this item
15:17:49 <Zakim> agendum 1 closed
15:17:50 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:17:50 <Zakim> 2. Survey from August 5th- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/results  (only #s 4 and 6). [from AWK]
15:17:54 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 2
15:17:54 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Survey from August 5th- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/results  (only #s 4 and 6)." taken up [from AWK]
15:18:40 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/results#x2652
15:19:05 <bbailey> TOPIC:  Questions for foreign language
15:19:23 <bbailey> 4. Captions for video in foreign language
15:19:55 <bbailey> AWK:  No need to debate too long, still may not have definitive answer
15:20:05 <bbailey> AWK summarizes question
15:20:27 <David> q+
15:21:22 <AWK> Ack d
15:21:39 <bbailey> David:  Have folks seen thread from public email?
15:22:15 <bbailey> David:  Deaf advocates often feel strongly about issue
15:22:19 <cstrobbe> See thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014JulSep/0163.html
15:22:41 <bbailey> Mixing translation with transaction is an error
15:23:05 <bbailey> Cleanest rule is to follow language of speaker
15:23:27 <bbailey> Providing multiple track can lead to difficult if subtle problems
15:23:53 <bbailey> AWK:  Simplest is for captions to be in language of video
15:24:15 <bbailey> AWK:  Does not address needs of Deaf who are not speakers of language
15:24:52 <bbailey> David:  Lack of subtitles (translation) issue for many people, not PWD in particular
15:25:26 <bbailey> AWK:  Example, how do I make French video for English language audience?
15:26:17 <bbailey> AWK:  If I address needs of English speakers, have subtitles, but subtitles miss other auditory information
15:26:50 <bbailey> David:  Trying to channel Loretta, others would miss things as well.
15:27:21 <bbailey> AWK:  SC includes requirement for non-spoken information.
15:27:43 <bbailey> q+ to say keep mixing subtitles and captions
15:28:10 <bbailey> Marc:  Discussion seems tricky
15:28:29 <bbailey> Marc:  English captions different than translation
15:28:36 <cstrobbe> q+ to say that you need to take the target audience into account. If you subtitle the English content in the Japanese video, I think the captions should also translate the English content, otherwise deaf persons are at a disadvantage compared to people with access to subtitles.
15:29:08 <bbailey> Often English language captions just say [GERMAN] when language changes
15:29:48 <bbailey> English language film where someone speaks foreign language is pretty common
15:29:56 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:29:58 <bbailey> Caption should not be translated
15:30:13 <Wilco> q+
15:30:51 <cstrobbe> zakim, unmute me
15:30:51 <Zakim> cstrobbe should no longer be muted
15:31:24 <bbailey> cstrobbe:  example of Japanese video, why would only English portion be subtitled?
15:31:33 <bbailey> q-
15:31:55 <cstrobbe> zakim, mute me
15:31:55 <Zakim> cstrobbe should now be muted
15:31:55 <bbailey> Could just be languge in video
15:32:05 <bbailey> intent of video is important
15:32:28 <bbailey> Mike Elledge:  It comes down to author intent
15:32:49 <bbailey> If no translation in default presentation, then no requirement to translate
15:33:02 <AWK> ack all
15:33:04 <bbailey> This is for where film has portion of foreign language
15:33:09 <cstrobbe> q-
15:33:17 <AWK> ack m
15:33:19 <AWK> ack w
15:33:26 <bbailey> Mike:  Issue is more for fully dubbed video
15:33:47 <bbailey> Mike:  What about blind and audio description?
15:34:09 <bbailey> WCAG required audio description for prerecorded media
15:34:14 <jon_avila> q?
15:34:44 <bbailey> AWK:  Different requirements for AD, and user profile
15:35:28 <marcjohlic> q+
15:35:40 <bbailey> sub/Mike:  Issue/Wilco:  Issue/
15:36:01 <bbailey> Mark:  Have to look at intent.
15:36:32 <bbailey> Example of Japanese video, non-spoken audio part needs to have captions in Japanese
15:36:51 <Wilco> +1
15:37:03 <bbailey> WCAG cannot require translation, could not be a failure
15:37:41 <bbailey> AWK:  Agree, but WCAG does not clearly address issue of dubbed content
15:38:05 <marcjohlic> q-
15:38:24 <bbailey> Response could be captions need to be in language of video
15:38:44 <bbailey> And if subtitles are provided, they need to be for broadest audience possible
15:39:26 <bbailey> Marc:  Issue is foreign language video for English speaking audience
15:39:59 <bbailey> If we remind folks about Japanese captions, need to remind about Japanese AD
15:40:30 <marcjohlic> +1
15:40:32 <bbailey> cstrobbe:  If the video is dubbed,  the language of the captions need to follow the language of the dubbing
15:41:07 <bbailey> If language on film changes, captions reflects language heard
15:41:27 <bbailey> AWK:  Offers to rewrite based on feed back
15:41:34 <bbailey> Will come back next week
15:41:51 <bbailey> RESOLUTION: Leave open based on conversation
15:42:22 <marcjohlic> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/G93
15:42:28 <marcjohlic> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/G87
15:42:28 <AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G87.html
15:42:41 <bbailey> Wilco:  Raises issue with accuracy/completeness in G93/87
15:42:59 <David> +1 on accuratecy check
15:43:17 <David> s/accuratecy/accuracy
15:43:25 <bbailey> Wilco:  Failure tests need to include accuracy
15:44:10 <bbailey> Other common captioning expectations (speaker identification, non obstruction) also absent from test procedure
15:44:28 <bbailey> AWK:  Do we recall debate?
15:44:48 <bbailey> David:  Accuracy important and implied if not explict
15:45:09 <bbailey> Techniques like Google automated captions not sufficient
15:45:34 <bbailey> q+ to ask if best practices in SC ?
15:46:11 <bbailey> Jon:  Don't for important sound effects (F8)
15:46:29 <bbailey> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/F8
15:46:35 <bbailey> F8: Failure of Success Criterion 1.2.2 due to captions omitting some dialogue or important sound effects
15:46:57 <bbailey> AWK:  Don't want to have success conflicting conflict with Failure
15:47:14 <bbailey> Could resolve by adding F8 as related technique for each?
15:47:39 <David> We should probably be consistent in test procedure...
15:47:41 <bbailey> Can we put intent into test procedure
15:47:52 <AWK> ack b
15:47:52 <Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to ask if best practices in SC ?
15:48:21 <bbailey> Bruce: thinks inaccuracy is a failure
15:48:34 <jon_avila> q+
15:48:39 <AWK> ack j
15:48:44 <bbailey> Obscuring faces is not a failure, just a bad practice
15:48:57 <marcjohlic> q+
15:49:06 <bbailey> Jon:  These are mapped to both live and pre-recorded
15:49:31 <bbailey> Would be better if expectations for live were easier than prerecorded
15:49:38 <bbailey> Live captions will have more errors
15:49:55 <AWK> ack m
15:50:05 <bbailey> AWK:  Good live captions different than good recorded captions
15:50:10 <bbailey> Hard to capture language
15:50:29 <bbailey> Wilco:  Gives example of two speaker, other text on screen
15:50:31 <jon_avila> not obscure a crawler?
15:50:40 <bbailey> So bad placement could be failure
15:51:05 <bbailey> AWK:  Context makes difference, example sports program
15:51:28 <bbailey> Marc:  Trying to separate point, F8 seems good to capture bad quality
15:51:57 <David> Q+
15:52:01 <bbailey> Missing speaker identification and obscuring other text on-screen not reflected as failure
15:52:42 <bbailey> AWK:  Change test procedure, rather than check captions are visible
15:52:58 <bbailey> something like check that caption meet WCAG definition for captions
15:53:19 <bbailey> David:  Check that captions capture the content?
15:53:44 <bbailey> People just turning on YouTube captions need to be clearly insufffient
15:54:13 <bbailey> Also, testing live content not really an issue, since its live
15:54:47 <bbailey> By the time people are evaluating, as a matter of practice, captions are prerecorded so expectation can and should be high
15:55:14 <bbailey> AWK:  Need to be able to fail practice for live video, example CNN or other live news
15:55:57 <bbailey> David:  Language like "represent the content" may sufficiently flexible to reflect industry norms and practices
15:56:29 <bbailey> Phrasing as simple as "caption accurately reflect content" gets at difference between live and prerecordd
15:56:56 <bbailey> Marc:  Still want to get at obscuring piece
15:57:37 <bbailey> Marc:  add "without obscuring important information"
15:57:45 <marcjohlic> Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) are visible and accurately represent the content without obscuring any important information.
15:58:05 <bbailey> +1
15:58:24 <marcjohlic> alt:  Check that captions (of all dialogue and important sounds) are visible and accurately represent the content and do not obscure any important information.
15:59:03 <bbailey> AWK polls for any objection, none heard
15:59:22 <bbailey> AWK:  Need to figure out where to make these changes
15:59:34 <AWK> Possible places for change: g87, g93, SM11, SM12, F8
15:59:38 <AWK> others
15:59:39 <AWK> ?
16:01:40 <bbailey> ACTION: marcjohlic to create wiki page documenting all places for this edit
16:01:40 <trackbot> Error finding 'marcjohlic'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/users>.
16:02:15 <MichaelC> ack me
16:02:15 <marcjohlic> mjohlic
16:02:54 <bbailey> ACTION: mjohlic to create wiki page documenting all places for this edit
16:02:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-269 - Create wiki page documenting all places for this edit [on Marc Johlic - due 2014-08-26].
16:03:26 <bbailey> zakim, next item
16:03:26 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, bbailey
16:03:59 <AWK> zakim, queue?
16:03:59 <Zakim> I see David on the speaker queue
16:04:08 <AWK> ack d
16:04:20 <bbailey> TOPIC:  6. Improvements to Understanding and Techniques
16:04:38 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20140805/results#xq6
16:05:06 <bbailey> AWK:  Material is challenging for multiple consumers
16:05:33 <bbailey> This survey item is offering a chance for group members to offer thoughts and suggestions about ways to improve these documents, or to offer thoughts about what problems they experience personally or hear about from others. It is also appropriate to indicate what you like about the documents.
16:05:56 <bbailey> Issue from last week is that you cannot tell if technique is advisory or requirement
16:06:10 <bbailey> The issue from last week is that you cannot tell if technique is advisory or requirement
16:06:29 <bbailey> When you are only looking at a particular technique
16:06:53 <bbailey> Also, cannot tell if a technique is part of an AND or OR processs
16:07:19 <bbailey> People don't understand how important test techniques are
16:07:55 <bbailey> AWK summaries comments from survey, some detailed, so quick
16:08:20 <bbailey> sub /detailed, so quick/detailed, some quick/
16:08:26 <jon_avila> I still see a lot of people who think that if you don't meet a sufficient techniques it is a failure of a SC.
16:09:28 <David> Agree...
16:09:29 <bbailey> Bruce clarifies that editorial work important to consumption
16:10:16 <bbailey> AWK:  New current drafts trying to clarify that techniques are informative, not requirements
16:10:20 <Zakim> + +44.172.172.aadd
16:10:32 <alistair> zakim, i am aadd
16:10:32 <Zakim> +alistair; got it
16:10:42 <bbailey> New boiler plate elevates disclaimer, but template ripe for discussion
16:11:04 <bbailey> AWK invites discussion
16:11:46 <bbailey> AWK:  How should we approach this?  What would you do with unlimited control and money?
16:12:18 <jon_avila> perhaps organization by media type, forms, tables, etc.
16:12:33 <bbailey> David:  Better search capacity.  People remember a couple words, sentence, tag, but can't find it again
16:13:02 <alistair> q+
16:13:08 <bbailey> Wilco:  If you don't know title, can't really expect to find technique
16:13:26 <bbailey> Tags in technique could be very useful
16:13:29 <jon_avila> +1
16:13:42 <Mike_Elledge> +1
16:13:44 <AWK> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140724/G83.html
16:13:49 <David> +1
16:14:01 <bbailey> Example is one that was rewritten recently
16:14:23 <bbailey> First heading is "Important Information about Techniques"
16:14:34 <jon_avila> q+
16:14:43 <bbailey> AWK:  Is there a better way to do address this issue?
16:15:32 <bbailey> Alistair:  would be great to have techniques related to tag as developer
16:16:05 <bbailey> So in IMG different techniques could be available in authoring tool
16:16:30 <bbailey> Describes how could work in practice as a developer
16:17:00 <bbailey> All part of an IDE, tool extract information from techniques documents
16:17:22 <AWK> ack a
16:17:24 <AWK> ack jo
16:17:30 <bbailey> Would take a lot of rejigger for tools to scrape our docs
16:17:56 <bbailey> Jon:  People have nav bar blindness, just moving makes little difference
16:18:24 <bbailey> Nice for aggregation of resources, listserve, blogs, forums
16:18:41 <bbailey> Not getting these as submitted techniques
16:19:04 <bbailey> AWK:  Should people be able to comment on techniques?
16:20:09 <bbailey> Presentation is very plain, might be turning some folks off
16:20:37 <bbailey> Might be good to pull in people with great design skills
16:21:30 <bbailey> Great design prolly hard for volunteers, but WG members may have this skill set
16:22:00 <bbailey> David:  Reminds us that Shawn Henry address many presentation issues back in 2007
16:22:31 <bbailey> David clarifies that this was WCAG proper and How to Meet only
16:23:06 <bbailey> AWK:  So, how to proceed?  Need specific proposals on what to change.
16:23:40 <bbailey> Could have survey for outside of working group, call for suggestions
16:24:25 <bbailey> Calls for volunteers on how to solicit feedback
16:25:09 <MichaelC> ack me
16:25:19 <bbailey> Q to MC about process
16:25:22 <MichaelC> ack me
16:25:53 <bbailey> MC:  Wording and expectation setting could be tricky
16:26:36 <bbailey> AWK:  Looking for brainstorm wrt public feedback
16:26:54 <bbailey> David:  WET folks have expertise
16:27:15 <bbailey> Might even do a little mock up
16:27:31 <bbailey> AWK:  Need to figure out what we want
16:27:48 <bbailey> Don't want design work until we have more concrete ideas
16:27:56 <bbailey> Not even up for wire frames at this point
16:28:01 <bbailey> What do people like?
16:28:07 <bbailey> What don't they like?
16:28:15 <bbailey> What issues are people facing?
16:28:50 <bbailey> Marc will ask some suggestions / feedback from a couple of design folks on my end.
16:29:24 <bbailey> AWK:  Ask around, come back to group, feedback to AWK.
16:29:40 <bbailey> q?
16:29:53 <bbailey> zakim, next item
16:29:53 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Alistair’s technique - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Creating_a_conforming_alternate_version_for_a_responsive_web_page_designed_with_progressive_enhancement" taken
16:29:56 <Zakim> ... up [from AWK]
16:30:31 <bbailey> AWK:  Out of time most unfortunately
16:30:48 <bbailey> Alistar has been kept waiting
16:31:28 <bbailey> Alistair:  Responsive design is bad trigger word
16:31:37 <bbailey> Thinks he has addressed issue
16:31:49 <bbailey> addressed issues raised before.
16:32:17 <bbailey> Alistair and AWK concur that processing by working group takes took long
16:32:46 <bbailey> Alistair:  First survey went through without comment, request new survey from scratch
16:33:07 <bbailey> Old title and re-directs cause confussion
16:33:28 <bbailey> AWK:  We will get to this soon, but prolly not next week
16:33:43 <bbailey> Technique will have to wait for March edition
16:33:53 <Mike_Elledge> bye all!
16:33:54 <Zakim> -Wilco
16:33:59 <Zakim> -alistair
16:34:01 <Zakim> -[FordMotor]
16:34:04 <Zakim> -jon_avila
16:34:06 <AWK> trackbot, end meeting
16:34:06 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:34:06 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +31.30.239.aaaa, [FordMotor], +1.617.766.aabb, AWK, Wilco, Bruce_Bailey, David_MacDonald, Michael_Cooper, cstrobbe, Marc_Johlic,
16:34:09 <Zakim> ... +1.703.637.aacc, Kenny, jon_avila, +44.172.172.aadd, alistair
16:34:09 <Zakim> -Kenny
16:34:10 <bbailey> Zakim, make minutes
16:34:10 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
16:34:10 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', bbailey
16:34:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:34:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:34:14 <Zakim> -Michael_Cooper
16:34:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:34:15 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-actions.rdf :
16:34:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: marcjohlic to create wiki page documenting all places for this edit [1]
16:34:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-irc#T16-01-40
16:34:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: mjohlic to create wiki page documenting all places for this edit [2]
16:34:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/19-wai-wcag-irc#T16-02-54
16:34:19 <cstrobbe> cstrobbe has left #wai-wcag