14:29:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:29:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/08-wai-wcag-irc
14:29:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:29:53 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:29:53 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:29:54 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:29:54 <trackbot> Date: 08 September 2015
14:30:00 <Kenny> zakim, agenda?
14:30:00 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:30:01 <Zakim> 5. Github issues and work progress - survey item3,4,5,6 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Sept1st2015/ [from Kenny]
14:30:18 <Kenny> zakim, clear agenda
14:30:18 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:30:48 <Kenny> agenda+ Announcements
14:30:57 <Kenny> agenda+ Techniques and understanding update
14:31:07 <Kenny> agenda+ Survey on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/
14:31:20 <Kenny> agenda+ Discussion on decision policy, see link on http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy
14:31:27 <Kenny> zakim, agenda?
14:31:27 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:31:28 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from Kenny]
14:31:28 <Zakim> 2. Techniques and understanding update [from Kenny]
14:31:28 <Zakim> 3. Survey on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/ [from Kenny]
14:31:29 <Zakim> 4. Discussion on decision policy, see link on http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy [from Kenny]
14:55:49 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
14:56:36 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
14:56:36 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:56:37 <Zakim> 1. Announcements [from Kenny]
14:56:37 <Zakim> 2. Techniques and understanding update [from Kenny]
14:56:37 <Zakim> 3. Survey on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/ [from Kenny]
14:56:38 <Zakim> 4. Discussion on decision policy, see link on http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy [from Kenny]
14:56:50 <AWK> Chair: AWK
14:57:16 <AWK> Scribe: Bruce_Bailey
15:01:45 <laura> present+ Laura
15:02:06 <bruce_bailey> present+ Bruce_Bailey
15:02:25 <AWK> present+ AWK
15:02:37 <AWK> regrets+ Louis_Cheng
15:02:48 <David> Present+ David_MacDonald
15:05:20 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:30 <yatil> present+ EricE
15:05:33 <Kenny> present+ Kenny
15:05:41 <bruce_bailey> AWK: welcome
15:05:46 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
15:06:03 <yatil> s/present+jon_avila/present+ jon_avila/
15:06:36 <bruce_bailey> AWK: appologies for late agenda
15:06:51 <bruce_bailey> zakim, take up next item
15:06:51 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Announcements" taken up [from Kenny]
15:07:14 <yatil> http://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-quickref/
15:07:17 <bruce_bailey> Erik: talking about quick ref
15:07:24 <adam_solomon> adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:36 <DanielFrank> DanielFrank has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:38 <bruce_bailey> EricE:  lots of changes under hood
15:07:45 <bruce_bailey> taking up UI
15:08:00 <bruce_bailey> what you cannot see is tagging, look at footer tab
15:08:12 <bruce_bailey> rough preview for now
15:08:27 <bruce_bailey> hoping for less text
15:08:35 <yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/wiki/tagging-success-criteria
15:08:38 <bruce_bailey> multiple working groups provinging input
15:08:51 <bruce_bailey> githup wiki page provided for input please
15:09:27 <bruce_bailey> request for wg members take look at list, think of other text and tags that could be useful
15:09:43 <MichaelC> q+ to ask if you´re maintaining the tags independently or if you want them in the sources - soon, or eventually
15:09:44 <bruce_bailey> are any tags redundant?  are they properly associated?
15:10:08 <bruce_bailey> current some tags only associated with single sc -- so we may not be keeping that tag
15:10:47 <bruce_bailey> MC:  tags look good, but are you keep separate track of tags?
15:10:58 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:11:06 <bruce_bailey> EE:  currently externally managed, but we may want to roll into jason
15:11:07 <Kathy> present+
15:11:25 <adam_solomon> present+
15:11:26 <bruce_bailey> EE:  would be helpful to incorporate into Json
15:11:37 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Other peoples opinion?
15:11:49 <yatil> present+ Kathy
15:11:55 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Majority view is what folks want.
15:12:02 <yatil> present+ adam_solomon
15:12:16 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Could see tags getting added ad hoc, so need capability to edit
15:12:46 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Would want to consolidate, that would editorial.  Need to keep tags in mind as we go forward
15:12:55 <bruce_bailey> EE:  tags just for SC at present
15:13:11 <bruce_bailey> EE:  very much tags are under control of group
15:13:27 <bruce_bailey> MC:  tags for techniques might be useful in future
15:13:49 <bruce_bailey> MC:  we would want list of tags so typos do not accidently introduce new tags
15:14:02 <AWK> zakim, queue?
15:14:02 <Zakim> I see MichaelC on the speaker queue
15:14:06 <bruce_bailey> EE:  understood, again tags just for SC for now
15:14:08 <AWK> ack mi
15:14:08 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask if you´re maintaining the tags independently or if you want them in the sources - soon, or eventually
15:14:23 <bruce_bailey> David M: Q about tab order on new layout page
15:14:51 <bruce_bailey> Eric and David resolve behavior
15:15:27 <bruce_bailey> EricE:  Future item is some inconsistences with sources, flagging for Michael
15:15:40 <yatil> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/issues/26
15:15:44 <bruce_bailey> As Eric notices, forwards to editors
15:16:13 <bruce_bailey> EricE has created a list (link above), asks others to add if they notice issues.
15:16:32 <laura> Nice job eric.
15:16:34 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Anythink else?
15:16:49 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  Kudos
15:16:52 <yatil> s/Anythink/Anything/
15:17:24 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Also unders announcements, charter still under development
15:17:33 <bruce_bailey> Resolving open comments on charter
15:17:54 <bruce_bailey> Hopefully next week.
15:18:13 <bruce_bailey> WG still operating under extended charter for next few weeks.
15:18:27 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Anything else?
15:18:50 <bruce_bailey> David_M:  Asks if more discussion beyond WCAG extensions?
15:19:32 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Commenters raised.  Further work with ATAG and UAAG also under discussion.
15:19:49 <bruce_bailey> Lots of questions still, more questions than answers at the moment.
15:20:41 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Exploring options.  Significant administrative issued.  Major change would mean revisiting charter yet again.
15:21:32 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Plan for now is proceed as we had discussed, but think more about how to incorporate more ideas for Charter and future scope.
15:22:17 <bruce_bailey> This is third proposed charter, so we really don't want forth attempt.  We want to give all due consideration for future ideas.  How does that sound?
15:22:27 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Sounds good.
15:22:56 <bruce_bailey> Jon Availa:  Points out how much could be added to future guidelines, but we need mobile extensions now.
15:23:27 <AWK> s/Availa/Avila
15:23:49 <bruce_bailey> MC:  The more feedback we get from task forces, the better idea we have how to incorporate ideas and suggestions from tast forces.
15:24:11 <David> A discussion paper on turning advice to Success Criteria in mobile http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/TouchProposal_Discussion.html
15:24:30 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Mobile is ahead of other groups, but even there we do not have concrete fix.  One problem is indentified.
15:24:58 <bruce_bailey> Kathy shared TF notes so far
15:25:38 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Some language looks like it could be phrased as SC but there is still a lot of controversy
15:26:29 <bruce_bailey> DM:  Discussion is still going on with regard to how universal mobile SC are, as compared to current SC.  So they may be more like best practices.
15:26:44 <bruce_bailey> DM:  Changing the WCAG model would not be a good thing.
15:27:41 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  People like what Michael has been saying.  We seem to have consensus to keep moving current charter through, look more or different in future.
15:27:55 <bruce_bailey> Josh on-line, checks in.
15:28:48 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Reviewing options for charter.  One option for future charter is to get away from extensions.
15:29:33 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Could also work in recommendations from task force into techniques documents.  That would be closer to normative.
15:30:03 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Reminds group that techniques are not normative, and we do not want contrived mappings.
15:30:29 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  There may still be oportunities to work taskforce advice into techniques.
15:30:49 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Work will continue on Charter.
15:31:31 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Working group approval would be needed for any non-editorial changes, including a 3rd charter vote.
15:31:44 <bruce_bailey> AKW:  Expect some editorial.
15:31:57 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
15:31:57 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Techniques and understanding update" taken up [from Kenny]
15:32:24 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
15:32:38 <jon_avila> zakim, list attendees
15:32:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been EricE, Laura, AWK, Srinivasu_Chakravarthula, Kathy, jon_avila, kenny, adam_solomon, David_MacDonald, Katie, Haritos-Shea, MichaelC,
15:32:41 <Zakim> ... Bruce_Bailey
15:32:43 <David> s/into techniques/into failure techniques
15:32:54 <AWK> s/AKW/AWK
15:33:02 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Check w/ MC on schedule for publishing.
15:33:40 <bruce_bailey> MC:  Held up on coordinating announcements, which need an approval cycle, initiating this week.
15:33:53 <laura> present+ Josh
15:34:13 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:34:18 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  From a working group perspective, could be anytime.  Wording on announcement more complicated than edits this time around.
15:34:28 <bruce_bailey> zakim, next item
15:34:28 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Survey on https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/" taken up [from Kenny]
15:34:28 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
15:34:33 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/results
15:35:18 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Survey was a little late.  Only one item looks completed.
15:35:28 <bruce_bailey> Work through as we go on call.
15:35:30 <bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/110#issuecomment-131810378
15:35:43 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  Issue 110 Technice G65
15:36:13 <bruce_bailey> Issue 110: Update G65 breadcrumb technique to follow the HTML5 pattern?
15:36:47 <bruce_bailey> Laura asked to summarize.
15:37:02 <laura> Mic problems agian.
15:37:19 <AWK> G65: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G65.html
15:38:01 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  In description asks to add arrow to last paragraph of description and providing an example 3 as shown git hub page
15:38:17 <bruce_bailey> Uses aria lable for breadcrumb and new resource.
15:38:33 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Only survey comment is to add indent for readabiltiy.
15:38:53 <bruce_bailey> s/readabiltiy/readability/
15:39:07 <bruce_bailey> Katike H:  Likes it.
15:39:28 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Notes new example is quite a bit more detailed than other.
15:40:04 <bruce_bailey> New example is just for 248.  Does not seem like a major change.  Calls for objections?
15:41:03 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION:  Accept as proposed (including code indentation)
15:41:08 <AWK> s/248/SC 2.4.8
15:41:15 <laura> Thank you.
15:41:28 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/results#xq8
15:41:54 <bruce_bailey> ISSUE:  114  Example #2 of F22 seems to stretch SC 3.2.5 requirement
15:41:54 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-45 - 114  example #2 of f22 seems to stretch sc 3.2.5 requirement.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/issues/45/edit>.
15:42:32 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Salish had question, AKW clarified in response and change.  Salish liked it.
15:43:18 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Clarify that just because a user clicks on a link, that *could* be a change in context
15:44:00 <yatil> s/ISSUE:  114 /TOPIC:  #114 /
15:44:02 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC survey 2nd question 114  Example #2 of F22 seems to stretch SC 3.2.5 requirement
15:44:19 <MichaelC> trackbot, close issue-45
15:44:19 <trackbot> Closed issue-45.
15:44:23 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
15:44:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html MichaelC
15:44:28 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  adds some context that originally some discussion
15:44:33 <yatil> s/Katie Haritos/Katie_Haritos
15:44:57 <bruce_bailey> Some people assert that clicking a link that brings up new window is change in context
15:45:10 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Other institutional memory on this?
15:45:27 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Notes that current wording mentions change of view port
15:45:33 <bruce_bailey> h+
15:45:39 <Ryladog> q+
15:45:43 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:46:02 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC:  Remembers Ben arguing case.
15:46:16 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC:  Recalls notification
15:46:58 <bruce_bailey> Bruce recalls that is where advance notice to user is required.
15:47:13 <AWK> ack ry
15:47:45 <bruce_bailey> KatieH:  Wanted notice to users if behavior was not clear
15:47:48 <bruce_bailey> q-
15:48:49 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Asks David if link opening new window in 3.2.5 was not a problem.
15:49:21 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Consensus at time was to live with it because screen reading software announces new link.
15:49:50 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Who benefits if this is interpreted as new requirement?
15:50:42 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Advance notice helps screen reader users, as well as people with cognitive disabilties.  Nice for everyone.
15:51:16 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Example Eric uses with wikipedia off-site icon -- but indicated new window.
15:51:20 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:51:49 <bruce_bailey> AWK: what about low vision user?  Screen reader use case heavily discussed
15:52:11 <bruce_bailey> Bruce asks to check WCAG text
15:52:41 <bruce_bailey> Jon Availa:  Some consensus 3.2.5 applies
15:53:06 <AWK> s/Availa/Avila
15:53:20 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  There is A A A item for this -- so implies is not requirement for A A
15:53:57 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  No failure associated with no advance notice of new window
15:54:39 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC:  Recalls that SC got morphed to capture tabbing through page
15:54:59 <bruce_bailey> Katie:  Definition of link captures this.
15:55:30 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Asks for clarification if 3.2.2, want to keep conversation on 3.2.5
15:56:06 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC:  Thinks David is correct, at A A A need advance notice.
15:56:32 <bruce_bailey> At A A with 3.2.5 link opening new window is permitted
15:57:16 <bruce_bailey> Specific wording on 3.2.5 does not explicit notice that link will be new window.
15:57:53 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  New window opening is not good, but not prohibited
15:58:51 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC:  We do not have text in techniques that behavior is okay maybe because we did not want to encourage it.
15:59:26 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  New technique text seems to contradict earlier conclusion that new window is tolerated.
15:59:34 <AWK> F22: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20150226/F22
16:00:20 <bruce_bailey> MichealC:  Technique documents reflect intent at the time written, could be rewritten to address confusion.
16:00:36 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  If we make this edit, we need to change the name.
16:01:01 <bruce_bailey> MichealC:  Could also make new technique, but we should defer on that.
16:01:19 <AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20150226/consistent-behavior-no-extreme-changes-context.html
16:01:46 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Current proposal under discussion is to change technique in Understanding document for F22.
16:02:05 <bruce_bailey> AWK: quotes new text
16:02:35 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  This is a clarification within understanding document
16:02:39 <AWK> text I read comes from: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/114#issuecomment-135866669
16:03:01 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC:  Think we can work this out.
16:03:43 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Does everyone agree at A A A user needs advance notification?
16:03:54 <bruce_bailey> No objections.
16:04:13 <bruce_bailey> s/MichaelC:  Think we can work this out./DavidM:  Think we can work this out./
16:04:24 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:04:54 <bruce_bailey> Bruce checks for 3.2.5 and A A A
16:05:20 <bruce_bailey> MichaelC:  Wording is complex, but does say what we want.
16:06:07 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  This raises some questions with 3.2.2.  Making it explicit for 3.2.5 makes the poor behavior okay for 3.2.2
16:06:17 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
16:06:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html MichaelC
16:06:55 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Thinks other examples with form fields makes this change okay.  User has feedback where they are changing things.
16:07:09 <laura> changes of context definition:  http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-unpredictable-change.html#context-changedef
16:07:38 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  As Katie mentioned, selecting links not invoking 3.2.2
16:08:13 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  So long as we are making distinction with regards to settings helps this.  We may need to add that to 3.2.2
16:08:59 <bruce_bailey> Katie:  Problem is that what is perceived as link nowadays has morphed quite abit from when 3.2.2 was first written.  Overlays come into effect.
16:09:33 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Cites from understanding for 3.2.2 that mentions controls in contrast to links
16:09:48 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  Still a little ambiguous
16:10:14 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Gives example with forms where you know you have initiated activity
16:11:29 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  On a link and press enter invokes modal dialog box, is that not a change of context without opening a new widow?  It is a new viewport.  Understanding says that not all changes of content are changes of context.
16:12:14 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Mentions 2008 context, users were still prepared that they were is some kind of dialog box with changes related to that.
16:12:34 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  Asks why is this different for 3.2.5?
16:13:13 <bruce_bailey> Josh:  Distinction between initated and non-initiated changes of context seem like a continuim
16:13:59 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  At 3.2.5 need advance notice, while 3.2.2 can be infered from being on a link.
16:14:48 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Resonable question, but should we taking something out of 3.2.5?  Really doubt there would be consensus for that.  Could revisit that later, after new charter.
16:14:58 <bruce_bailey> JonA;  Agree to differ.
16:15:08 <bruce_bailey> s/JonA;/JonA:/
16:15:32 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Agree we can defer larger conversation.  Safe to make clarification now.
16:16:08 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Agrees that proposed text is complex, but all discussion seems like we can keep it.  Any objections as proposed?
16:16:52 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION:  Accept issue 114 as proposed.
16:17:43 <bruce_bailey> TOPIC:  issue 99
16:17:53 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/09082015/results#xq9
16:18:04 <bruce_bailey> Issue 99: Update PDF14 to be in sync with PDF/UA and also ensure footer information is available in other means
16:18:41 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  JonA has good point about links in footer.
16:18:55 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Bruce had editorial suggestion.
16:19:33 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Asks DavidM (technique author) about artifacting footers with links.  Is current wording a problem?
16:20:17 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Thinks that is okay, failure is to UA, not WCAG SC
16:21:18 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  We are encouraging artifacts, and we can catch other failures
16:21:37 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  What should we say about links in footers?
16:22:08 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Do we need to list out things PDF/UA might not catch?
16:23:03 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Could be different opinions.  What about running footers with link?
16:23:43 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  PDF/UA just says to artifact headers and footers, so it can be too broad
16:24:19 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  PDF/UA may not have considered edge cases, so links in footers may be overlooked.
16:24:42 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  There are updates expected soon for PDF/UA
16:25:37 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  Some of the problems come down to UA issues -- it would be nice if UA gave selective access to running footers in PDF.
16:26:18 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Could be a future issues to revisit PDF technique 14.  Do we like what we have here well enough?
16:27:27 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Should be a fairly simple failure:  You have followed advice in PDF/UA and made footer invisible to AT and have footer information available elsewhere (e.g., page numbers)
16:27:44 <David> Here is pdf14 rewrite
16:27:47 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  Asks for clarification that this applies only to running footers?
16:28:25 <David> here is 14 https://github.com/DavidMacDonald/wcag/commit/a98f5313076676730c07cdb3110ce28b9e3e44e7
16:28:33 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Proposed text does not specify running or no.  Just says if hidden and not otherwise available, then a failure.
16:28:47 <bruce_bailey> JonA:  Seems reasonable as written then.
16:29:31 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Asks for objections
16:30:08 <bruce_bailey> DavidM:  Checks that this rendering is not available as formated HTML.
16:30:24 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  New work flow has this artifact
16:31:05 <bruce_bailey> s/artifcact/effect that final formal not in HTML/
16:31:23 <bruce_bailey> [12:31] <bruce_bailey> s/artifact/effect that final formal not in HTML/
16:31:51 <bruce_bailey> RESOLUTION:  Leave open
16:32:19 <bruce_bailey> AWK:  Since a pull-request we need text cleaned up completely before accepting.
16:32:29 <laura> bye
16:32:42 <AWK> trackbot, end meeting
16:32:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:32:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been EricE, Laura, AWK, Srinivasu_Chakravarthula, Kathy, jon_avila, kenny, adam_solomon, David_MacDonald, Katie, Haritos-Shea, MichaelC,
16:32:45 <Zakim> ... Bruce_Bailey, Josh
16:32:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:32:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:32:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:32:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items