15:37:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:37:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/16-wai-wcag-irc
15:37:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:37:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:37:29 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:37:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:37:30 <trackbot> Date: 16 February 2016
15:37:38 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:37:38 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:37:39 <Zakim> 2. LVTF Requirements Document review [from Joshue108]
15:37:39 <Zakim> 5. Github issues. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Joshue108]
15:37:48 <Joshue108> zakim, clear agenda?
15:37:48 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:38:45 <Joshue108> agenda+ LVTF Accessibility Requirements for people with Low Vision doc - ready for FPWD approval.
15:39:07 <Joshue108> agenda+ COGA Task Force draft of Roadmap and Gap Analysis doc - ready for FPWD approval.
15:39:37 <Joshue108> agenda+ TPAC 2016 details
15:39:56 <Joshue108> agenda+ Extension framework requirements - discussion/changes to paragraph 2.2.
15:41:41 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:43:03 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
15:52:45 <Joshue108> Scribe List: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:56:38 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:58:10 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wai-wcag
15:58:46 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:59:20 <MoeKraft> where do we find the WebEx password?
15:59:33 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:27 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:01:46 <alastairc> alastairc has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:33 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
16:03:40 <Mike_Elledge> Present+ Mike Elledge
16:04:06 <Rakesh> Rakesh has joined #wai-wcag
16:04:44 <MoeKraft> agenda?
16:04:55 <_665> _665 has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:00 <AWK> We should clarify to people that we will not have a meeting on March 22 (CSUN conference week(
16:05:09 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:10 <AWK> s/week(/week)
16:05:13 <MichaelC> present: Michael_Cooper, Alastair_Campbell, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kim_Dirks, Laura_Carlson, Lisa_Seeman, Mike_Elledge, Moe_Kraft, Rakesh_Paladugula, Sarah_Horton, Wayne_Dick
16:05:16 <laura> present+ Laura
16:05:27 <MoeKraft> present+
16:05:37 <MoeKraft> present+ MoeKraft
16:05:51 <AWK> Who will be at CSUN this year?
16:05:55 <AWK> Andrew will
16:05:57 <MoeKraft> I will be there
16:06:16 <MoeKraft> +1
16:06:20 <Wayne> +1
16:06:22 <Ryladog> +1
16:06:26 <David> David has joined #wai-wcag
16:06:30 <Rakesh> +1
16:06:47 <David> Present+ David
16:06:53 <Mike_Elledge> Not Mike Elledge :^(
16:07:22 <SarahHorton> SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:07:28 <SarahHorton> +1
16:07:57 <AWK> present+ AWK
16:08:16 <MoeKraft> Kim: I am an employee of Thompson's Writers who recently joined W3C. In the legal division as an attorney
16:08:54 <MoeKraft> ...I've been doing accessibility work for  a number of years. Previously UX specialist and tester and prior to that a documentation author
16:09:06 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
16:09:12 <marcjohlic> +marcjohlic
16:09:18 <MoeKraft> ...transcribe documentation and images for screen reader consumption
16:09:29 <AWK> s/Thompson's Writers/Thompson Reuters
16:09:34 <MoeKraft> ...super excited to learn about WCAG and learn from everyone
16:10:25 <MoeKraft> zakim, next item
16:10:25 <Zakim> agendum 1. "LVTF Accessibility Requirements for people with Low Vision doc - ready for FPWD approval." taken up [from Joshue108]
16:10:42 <David> Would like to confirm TPAC today..
16:10:55 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/LVTF_COGA_FPWD/results
16:10:57 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:10:58 <MoeKraft> Josh: Have a look at Low Vision Task Force A11y Reqs. Can this go out as first public working draft?
16:11:17 <MoeKraft> Josh: Let's look at survey
16:11:34 <MoeKraft> Josh: Good news is we have a thumb's up all around
16:11:54 <Lisa_Seeman> Lisa_Seeman has joined #wai-wcag
16:12:03 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
16:12:03 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:12:04 <Zakim> 1. LVTF Accessibility Requirements for people with Low Vision doc - ready for FPWD approval. [from Joshue108]
16:12:04 <Zakim> 2. COGA Task Force draft of Roadmap and Gap Analysis doc - ready for FPWD approval. [from Joshue108]
16:12:04 <Zakim> 3. TPAC 2016 details [from Joshue108]
16:12:05 <Zakim> 4. Extension framework requirements - discussion/changes to paragraph 2.2. [from Joshue108]
16:12:35 <David> q+
16:12:44 <MoeKraft> AWK: These are stake in the ground of what Low vision end users need. When done, next layer looks at the delta between WCAG 2 and user needs.
16:13:11 <laura> This LVTF document will provide the foundation for planned future work: http://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html#h-sotd
16:13:15 <Joshue108> ack dav
16:13:20 <MoeKraft> AWK: Then we can structure what SC is needed and how to test. This is intended as a foundational document.
16:13:40 <MoeKraft> David: Did you say this has nothing to do with browser zoom?
16:14:06 <MoeKraft> David: If this turns into a requirement, how can we say?
16:14:36 <MoeKraft> AWK: User needs related to text size, user needs to change the size of text without affecting the interface
16:14:51 <MoeKraft> AWK: A lot of what we are talking about will come later
16:14:57 <Joshue108> q?
16:15:11 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
16:15:17 <MoeKraft> David: If we are going to flush out text zoom this will be very interesting with CSS. Suggest to leverage available language.
16:15:36 <MoeKraft> David: Other ways to meet responsively
16:16:04 <MoeKraft> AWK: One of the most important things we have in here.
16:16:05 <MichaelC> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016JanMar/0165.html
16:16:15 <MoeKraft> David: Responsive shows a lot of hope in this area.
16:17:02 <Wayne> q+
16:17:16 <Joshue108> ak way
16:17:19 <MoeKraft> Mike: Comments do not block approval.
16:17:19 <Joshue108> ack way
16:17:43 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Question for Michael. Do we have an XML structure for bibliographic info?
16:17:52 <MoeKraft> Michael: There is a JSON structure
16:18:07 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Is it granular?
16:18:26 <MoeKraft> Michael: W3C has its own format, JSON and respec script compiles into its own format
16:18:48 <MoeKraft> Josh: Any blockers to keep this from going to public review?
16:19:25 <MoeKraft> RESOLUTION: LVTF approved for FPWD
16:19:37 <MoeKraft> zakim, next item
16:19:37 <Zakim> agendum 2. "COGA Task Force draft of Roadmap and Gap Analysis doc - ready for FPWD approval." taken up [from Joshue108]
16:19:45 <jamesn> present+ JamesNurthen
16:20:10 <MoeKraft> Josh: COGA Gap Analysis. We have Lisa on the phone who will take us through comments and questions
16:20:20 <MoeKraft> Josh: Michael did you want to speak to your comments?
16:20:30 <Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/
16:21:01 <MoeKraft> Michael: Links are meant for temp uris. Will need updating for GitHub. Abstract: I would want abstract included in WG approval
16:21:16 <Joshue108> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/
16:21:19 <MoeKraft> Michael: Heading that is repetitive. Should only be 1 heading with a given name.
16:21:49 <MoeKraft> Michael: Structure needs review. Sentence fragments is a problem. Need good grammar. Blocking comment. Need editorial pass
16:21:50 <Joshue108> q?
16:22:07 <MoeKraft> ...References are needed and structured properly before publish
16:22:23 <MoeKraft> ...For these reasons I believe it is not ready to go.
16:22:37 <MoeKraft> Lisa: I was hoping the editorial draft would be done before this call.
16:23:35 <MoeKraft> Lisa: One other thing. Confusion with the summary of paper on user safety. This summary got left out. Substantial issue to keep people safe online.
16:24:05 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Do we need to go back and say when Michael gives us a green light we can move forward or do we need to come back for review?
16:24:15 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Is there anything non-editorial?
16:24:26 <MoeKraft> ...Anything more substantiative?
16:24:34 <MoeKraft> Josh: Yes and Yes on the first part.
16:24:52 <MoeKraft> Josh: Regarding the 2nd point this would be a great opportunity for anyone to give feedback on the content.
16:25:01 <MoeKraft> ...Feel free to comment and bring to Lisa
16:25:07 <Joshue108> q?
16:25:44 <MoeKraft> Michael: If I were in the WG I would want to see this again before approving. If I were you I would ask for a re-review
16:26:01 <MoeKraft> Josh: Personally I do not want to be a blocker.
16:26:12 <MoeKraft> Josh: Let's dot i's and cross t's
16:26:15 <AWK> Are there specific dates that COGA is trying to hit?
16:27:22 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Yes. There is a general suggestion that we get on an publish quicker. There's a bit of dichotomy. Mainly a summary of other works.
16:27:27 <Joshue108> q?
16:27:42 <Wayne> q+
16:27:49 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Need to get ready for TPAC and CSUN
16:27:52 <Wayne> q=
16:28:11 <MoeKraft> Lisa: To get the next version out for TPAC next year. Need to fill in Roadmap
16:28:26 <MoeKraft> Josh: It's really your call. Do you want to do another iteration with WG?
16:28:41 <AWK> I'd prefer to re-review next week after the edits are done.  There are a lot of changes to do.
16:28:48 <MoeKraft> Josh: Noone is saying there are substantive issues
16:28:55 <jamesn> +1 to AWK
16:29:04 <Joshue108> ack wayne
16:29:13 <David> q+
16:29:17 <MoeKraft> Wayne: I wondered if they were being pushed to go to publish. No objection.
16:29:39 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Process is simpler is we have a provisional yes if the editorial updates are made
16:30:27 <Joshue108> ack davi
16:30:46 <MoeKraft> David: There's a lot of pressure to publish. I think it would great to put this out.
16:30:57 <Joshue108> q?
16:31:05 <MoeKraft> James: How long to take the edits?
16:31:16 <MoeKraft> Josh: Not sure if they can be done next week.
16:31:26 <MoeKraft> Michael: Will not be done sooner than next week.
16:31:39 <MoeKraft> Michael: Doesn't hurt to go to approval next week
16:31:45 <David> COGA is 9,400 words
16:31:48 <MoeKraft> AWK: I prefer to rereview next week
16:31:58 <SarahHorton> I'd prefer to wait for edits
16:32:36 <MoeKraft> Josh: No net loss. Let's wait til next week. Lisa, are you okay with that?
16:33:00 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Yes. I'm ok with that. I want folks to know that are reading it over that there are known grammatical and spelling issues.
16:33:18 <MoeKraft> Michael: I will resend when I'm done with edits.
16:33:38 <MoeKraft> RESOLUTION: COGA will be left open for editorial updates
16:34:16 <MoeKraft> Josh: David is right. I would be nice to get a couple things out.
16:34:29 <MoeKraft> zakim, next item
16:34:29 <Zakim> agendum 3. "TPAC 2016 details" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:34:44 <MoeKraft> Josh: Michael, any news on TPAC?
16:34:54 <David> should we book our flights?
16:34:55 <MoeKraft> Michael: TPAC is in Lisbon in September
16:35:04 <MichaelC> -> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/ TPAC 2016
16:35:09 <David> Are we definately meeting
16:35:18 <MoeKraft> Michael: 19-23 September
16:35:33 <MoeKraft> Michael: We have an opportunity to say if we want to meet there
16:35:55 <MoeKraft> Michael: Pretty sure we want to meet. Hotel arrangements will be available shortly
16:36:13 <MoeKraft> Josh: David, yes we are meeting. Michael will we have surveys out?
16:36:29 <MoeKraft> Michael: Next couple of months or two. By April
16:36:49 <Joshue108> q?
16:37:02 <MoeKraft> Michael: Likely to be May or June
16:37:23 <MoeKraft> Michael: I plan to be there the whole week but I am waiting to book my flight
16:37:59 <MoeKraft> Josh: Usually an organized hotel.
16:38:02 <MoeKraft> David: There is one.
16:38:20 <MoeKraft> Michael: Sometimes advantageous to use the assigned hotel sometimes not
16:38:58 <MoeKraft> s/Josh: Usually an organized hotel./Michael: Usually an organized hotel.
16:39:09 <Joshue108> q?
16:39:21 <MoeKraft> Josh: Any other questions?
16:39:41 <MoeKraft> Katie: Sorry on mute. Has the host hotel been named?
16:39:53 <MoeKraft> Michael: Not on landing page. Will be posted when ready to announce it.
16:39:54 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
16:39:54 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
16:39:55 <Zakim> 3. TPAC 2016 details [from Joshue108]
16:39:55 <Zakim> 4. Extension framework requirements - discussion/changes to paragraph 2.2. [from Joshue108]
16:40:25 <MoeKraft> James: Any groups meetings we want to avoid overlapping?
16:40:33 <David> avoid aria and html
16:40:46 <MoeKraft> Michael: Can list up to 2 groups, e.g. ARIA. But may end up overlapping
16:41:30 <David> ok
16:42:01 <MoeKraft> zakim, next item
16:42:01 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Extension framework requirements - discussion/changes to paragraph 2.2." taken up [from Joshue108]
16:42:44 <David> you have a Leslie on (like the organs of the 60's
16:42:55 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-ext-req/
16:43:17 <MoeKraft> Josh: Extensions framework. Suggested change to paragraph in 2.2 in the extensions to WCAG 2. Suggested edit in survey.
16:43:31 <MoeKraft> Josh: Positively received in survey but concerns raised on the call
16:43:35 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/162/files
16:43:47 <MoeKraft> Josh: Edit in GitHub to suggested text
16:43:47 <Joshue108> Existing success criterion may be modified, but the resulting change must still satisfy WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
16:44:11 <Joshue108> Existing success criterion may be modified, but a page that satisfies the changed success criteria must still satisfy the original form of the success criteria as well.
16:44:46 <David> +1
16:44:57 <MoeKraft> q+
16:45:23 <MoeKraft> q-
16:45:38 <David> WCAG definitions
16:45:46 <MoeKraft> James: What do you mean by "page"?
16:46:02 <MoeKraft> Should that be "web page"?
16:46:21 <MoeKraft> Josh: We have some WCAG safe words
16:46:53 <MoeKraft> James: I can see that some criteria require re-rendering page in a completely different form that may not satisfy the original success criteria but it's a user choice.
16:47:07 <MoeKraft> James: Functionality still satisfied in original form
16:47:23 <MoeKraft> Michael: Does this bring us into alternative form territory
16:47:43 <MoeKraft> Josh: One of the reasons this needs to be narrowed down to a unit of page because of push back
16:47:54 <MichaelC> q+
16:48:09 <MoeKraft> Josh: Original text was too broad
16:48:20 <MoeKraft> Josh: Other I think I can live with the current text
16:48:36 <Joshue108> ack mich
16:48:37 <MichaelC> ack me
16:48:38 <MoeKraft> Josh: We may get into more trouble specifying a unit like page
16:48:45 <laura> Web Page definition: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms
16:49:04 <Joshue108> 8> Existing success criterion may be modified, but a webpage that satisfies the changed success criteria must still satisfy the original form of the success criteria as wel
16:49:09 <MoeKraft> Michael: Unit of conformation is a unit of a web page which has a definition. It would be a radical change to adjust that. It would get complicated.
16:49:17 <Joshue108> q?
16:49:19 <MoeKraft> Michael: We need to live with this for WCAG 2. extensions
16:49:31 <Ryladog> q+
16:49:56 <Joshue108> ack ryla
16:49:59 <MoeKraft> Josh: I think that to use something like "web page" gives this a point of reference might be a good idea to use it eventhough it might be limited.
16:50:50 <MoeKraft> Katie: I agree with Michael. We need to be careful about that. If someone can give me something not on the same web page where a page has multiple overlays, is still considered a page.
16:51:08 <MoeKraft> ...How do people view that? Does anyone have another scenario where a page is not a page?
16:51:29 <MoeKraft> Josh: Changing and repurposing content. Can you live with "web page"? I can.
16:51:36 <laura> “Web Page” It is important to note that, in this standard, the term "Web page" includes much more than static HTML pages. It also includes the increasingly dynamic Web pages that are emerging on the Web, including "pages" that can present entire virtual interactive communities. For example, the term "Web page" includes an immersive, interactive movie-like experience found at a single URI. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms
16:51:53 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
16:52:08 <MoeKraft> James: What is our definition of web page
16:52:12 <MoeKraft> Josh: Not very good.
16:52:18 <MoeKraft> David: I think it is pretty good
16:52:23 <Joshue108> ack Lisa
16:52:37 <MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef
16:53:18 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Looking at mobile. Maybe there should be a shift toward the term "page"
16:53:27 <MoeKraft> Josh: Make it platform agnostic
16:53:38 <Joshue108> q?
16:53:44 <MoeKraft> Lisa: Assuming folks don't read definition
16:53:55 <MoeKraft> Josh: Using page is forward thinking
16:54:26 <MoeKraft> Josh: I think we need to look at existing sucess criteria. I like Lisa's idea that it bridges different domains.
16:54:37 <David> it is a single http adress
16:54:50 <MoeKraft> Josh: Michael do we need to get this agnostic definition into the framework?
16:55:13 <David> a web page can change after loaded but as long as it is at the same http address it is still the same page
16:55:36 <MoeKraft> James: I still think this can be misread. The function still need to meet original success criteria. Doesn't give user choice
16:56:02 <MichaelC> q+ to say minimize constraints in extension requirements; they inherit all the WCAG requirements
16:56:05 <MoeKraft> James: We are going to require content rendered for some users where it doesn't meet original SC but it is the user choice.
16:56:21 <SarahHorton> q+
16:56:22 <MoeKraft> Josh: Right. The user's choice might break WCAG
16:56:25 <MichaelC> q+ to say the requirements do say need to be able to fall back to WCAG; radical change to remove that
16:56:31 <Joshue108> ack mich
16:56:31 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say minimize constraints in extension requirements; they inherit all the WCAG requirements and to say the requirements do say need to be able to fall back
16:56:34 <Zakim> ... to WCAG; radical change to remove that
16:57:06 <MoeKraft> Michael: For the extension requirements documents we should minimize contraints. If we can avoid ruling something out we should.
16:57:26 <MoeKraft> Michael: Extension requirements inherit WCAG requirements.
16:58:10 <MoeKraft> ...There's extension requirements that it should meet WCAG 2 on its onw. This is interesting challenge. You need to conform to both.
16:58:40 <MoeKraft> ...Not always possible. Puts us into an interesting bind.
16:59:08 <MoeKraft> ...If we identify places where this happens we say this needs to be part of post WCAG 2 guidance and not part of the extensions
16:59:14 <Joshue108> Existing success criterion may be modified, but the resulting change must still satisfy relevant WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
17:00:06 <Joshue108> ack sarah
17:00:12 <MoeKraft> Josh: Looking at this as a function of time. If user makes change to UI and satisfies their requirements, previous state does not matter
17:00:30 <Joshue108> A11y stoicastic modelling..
17:00:33 <MoeKraft> Sarah: One thing about the current version and the new version is that the actor is not clear.
17:01:00 <MoeKraft> Sarah: First actor is SC. In revision, the actor is the resource and the page needs to satify success criteria.
17:01:32 <MoeKraft> Sarah: One thing we are struggling with is how the relationship between SC and extension exists vs. resources that must satisfy the cumulative requirements.
17:02:02 <MoeKraft> Sarah: Point: We are talking about extensions and their effect on the SC we are trying to satisfy.
17:03:05 <Wayne> q+
17:03:13 <MoeKraft> ...Extension modify existing Success Criteria but together but need to make sure resource meets WCAG 2 criteria plus extension
17:03:32 <MoeKraft> Josh: How about "web page"?
17:03:52 <MoeKraft> Sarah: I think that changes the focus on the section we are updating because "web page" is a resource
17:04:17 <MoeKraft> Josh: Ensure that web pages that conform to extension also conform to WCAG 2.0. We are actually talking about Web pages.
17:04:56 <MoeKraft> Sarah: I agree it is restrictive. I use WCAG to test desktop and Mobile. There's a lot of use. Web page limites it.
17:05:14 <alastairc> Are we trying to say something like this? Existing success criterion may be modified, but they cannot undermine a web page's conformance to WCAG 2.0 without the extension.
17:05:24 <MoeKraft> Josh: Further in paragraph we use the term "page"
17:05:38 <MoeKraft> Josh: "page" may be more inclusive
17:05:48 <MoeKraft> Do we need a definition of page?
17:06:12 <MoeKraft> Josh: Give an example of how SC can be modified and show applicability and results of modification.
17:06:28 <MoeKraft> Josh: Should we use the word "relevant"?
17:06:39 <Joshue108> ack way
17:07:30 <MoeKraft> Wayne: I don't know if we have to worry about how the person uses the criteria and modifies the page for themselves. WCAG should provide flexibility.
17:07:36 <MoeKraft> ...I don't understand issue
17:07:41 <MoeKraft> Josh: Which issue?
17:07:56 <MoeKraft> Wayne: Why a modification a user does should apply at all?
17:08:14 <MoeKraft> Josh: It boils done to conformance requirements
17:08:24 <MoeKraft> Wayne: I understand but think this might be a contradiction
17:08:49 <MoeKraft> Josh: Look at terminology we are using. This is important. Need to be careful not to confuse people with this stuff.
17:08:56 <Ryladog> q+
17:09:25 <MoeKraft> Josh: Michael was getting into deeper issues. These should be worked into WCAG Next
17:09:25 <laura> Currently “Page” is used elsewhere in the document: in 2.4 and  2.5.
17:09:38 <Wayne> +1
17:10:09 <MoeKraft> Michael: Chatting with Judy. I believe we should put everything on the table that we need to whether or not we think they will work. But need to be cautious with extensions.
17:10:25 <MoeKraft> Michael: If we are able to temper expectations then not limit ourselves
17:10:32 <MoeKraft> James: What was the objections?
17:10:45 <MoeKraft> Josh: The original SC was diluted by extension
17:11:00 <Joshue108> ack katie
17:11:03 <Joshue108> ack ryla
17:11:28 <MoeKraft> Katie: I think I know where Wayne is coming from. Our requirements should not have to do with what the user is going to do with it other than having flexibility
17:11:34 <SarahHorton> "the resulting change" to what? If we could add that it would help
17:12:13 <MoeKraft> Katie: If a user stands on their head, turns left 3x, should not be our purfew. Should take into account what technology is capable of
17:12:41 <MoeKraft> Katie: Going back to LVTF. What do people need who are LV? What does technology allow for that.
17:12:57 <MoeKraft> Josh: I agree. But drafting and writing this framework we need a point of reference that is objective
17:13:06 <MoeKraft> Josh: Let's make as clear as possible
17:13:30 <MoeKraft> Josh: Let's just push it out.
17:13:33 <Wayne> +22
17:13:40 <MoeKraft> Josh: I think it's clear. I like the original
17:14:04 <MoeKraft> Josh: In broader sense people can understand what web pages are.
17:14:05 <Joshue108> q?
17:14:29 <MoeKraft> Josh: Does anyone object to this going out?
17:14:55 <MoeKraft> Katie: Josh is in rare form today : )
17:15:02 <alastairc> no objection from me
17:15:06 <alastairc> no objection from me
17:15:10 <Mike_Elledge> +1
17:15:12 <laura> fine with me.
17:15:13 <MoeKraft> +1
17:15:13 <marcjohlic>  +1 to going out
17:15:21 <laura> +1
17:15:23 <Ryladog> +1
17:15:45 <MoeKraft> Josh: I'll work with Michael and Andrew on Thursday to get out for public review
17:15:51 <MoeKraft> Josh: Wrapping up early today
17:16:12 <Mike_Elledge> bye all!
17:16:14 <alastairc> \me can anyone point me to documentation on suggesting changes to the github docs?
17:16:16 <MoeKraft> RESOLUTION: Leave open for discussion by editors to discuss going out for public review
17:16:25 <MoeKraft> rrsagent, make minutes
17:16:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html MoeKraft
17:18:12 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag
17:18:38 <MoeKraft> s/RESOLUTION: Leave open for discussion by editors to discuss going out for public review/RESOLUTION: Leave Extensions framework document open for discussion by editors to discuss going out for public review
17:18:50 <MoeKraft> rrsagent, make minutes
17:18:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html MoeKraft
17:22:13 <MoeKraft> trackbot, end meeting
17:22:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:22:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Michael_Cooper, Alastair_Campbell, Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Joshue_O_Connor, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kim_Dirks, Laura_Carlson, Lisa_Seeman,
17:22:16 <Zakim> ... Mike_Elledge, Moe_Kraft, Rakesh_Paladugula, Sarah_Horton, Wayne_Dick, MoeKraft, David, AWK, marcjohlic, JamesNurthen
17:22:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:22:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:22:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:22:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items