14:43:19 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 14:43:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-wai-wcag-irc 14:43:21 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:43:23 Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG 14:43:23 ok, trackbot 14:43:24 zakim, agenda? 14:43:24 Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference 14:43:24 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 14:43:25 1. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results [from AWK] 14:43:25 2. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160412_misc/results [from AWK] 14:43:25 Date: 03 May 2016 14:43:25 3. discussion on pixels and points [from AWK] 14:43:25 4. WCAG.Next Models update from JF [from Joshue108] 14:54:50 Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag 14:55:21 alastairc has joined #wai-wcag 14:58:29 zakim, clear agenda? 14:58:29 agenda cleared 14:58:51 agenda+ Publishing new WCAG edited recommendation, with Makotos edit to 1.4.6 14:59:06 KimD has joined #wai-wcag 14:59:31 agenda+ Github issues - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues 14:59:36 laura has joined #wai-wcag 15:00:26 agenda+ One remaining item on survey 15:00:26 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20160412_misc/ 15:00:49 agenda+ Upcoming schedule for next tech and understanding docs 15:01:06 zakim, agenda? 15:01:06 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 15:01:07 1. Publishing new WCAG edited recommendation, with Makotos edit to 1.4.6 [from Joshue108] 15:01:07 2. Github issues - https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Joshue108] 15:01:07 3. One remaining item on survey [from Joshue108] 15:01:08 4. Upcoming schedule for next tech and understanding docs [from Joshue108] 15:01:21 patrick_h_lauke has joined #wai-wcag 15:01:26 Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List 15:01:50 JF has joined #wai-wcag 15:02:01 present+ JF 15:02:02 present+ alastairc 15:02:20 present+ patrick_h_lauke 15:02:22 present+ Joshue108 15:03:09 SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:16 Kathy has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:20 zakim, who is here? 15:03:20 Present: AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, 15:03:22 present+ Kathy 15:03:24 ... patrick_h_lauke 15:03:24 On IRC I see Kathy, SarahHorton, JF, patrick_h_lauke, laura, KimD, alastairc, Mike_Elledge, RRSAgent, Joshue108, MichaelC, Zakim, trackbot, yatil-away 15:03:37 present+ KimD 15:03:38 jeanne has joined #wai-wcag 15:03:56 present+ jeanne 15:03:58 present+ Mike Elledge 15:04:34 regrets+ EricE 15:05:00 Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag 15:05:24 davidmacdonald has joined #wai-wcag 15:05:24 Makoto has joined #wai-wcag 15:05:26 present+ MichaelC 15:05:38 Scribenick: Alistair 15:05:43 scribe: alastairc 15:05:48 present+ Makoto 15:05:51 laura has joined #wai-wcag 15:06:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html MichaelC 15:06:14 Present+ David MacDonald 15:06:26 Zakim, next item 15:06:26 agendum 1. "Publishing new WCAG edited recommendation, with Makotos edit to 1.4.6" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:06:49 chair: Joshue 15:07:28 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewWCAGfinalEdit/results 15:07:39 Joshue108: Had the call to publish, with edits from Makotos, generally favourably received. 15:09:08 Sidenote: Introduction from Rochel, new member of the working group on the call. Welcome! 15:09:14 Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag 15:10:20 present+ Laura 15:11:25 s/Rochel/Rachael/ 15:11:26 Mike_Elledge thought that the use of the term 'section' could cause confusion in naming of 2.4.10, suggested to add some text to differentiate. 15:12:17 q? 15:12:29 https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-headings.html 15:13:44 q? 15:14:21 q? 15:14:27 Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea 15:14:28 Since the term "section" is defined I think we're okay 15:14:36 Joshue108: That could involve changes to the success criteria, which isn't really an editorial change. 15:15:00 due to the tech agnostic nature of wcag, isn't it implied that this is not referring to
? 15:15:24 Joshue108: Could you submit a pull request? Via github... could label it as a WCAG.next item. 15:15:37 https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/ 15:16:57 Joshue108: Agree it's tech agnostic, still a terminology issue, but not a blocker. 15:17:24 Joshue108: Any objection? 15:18:03 RESOLUTION: no objection to publishing new WCAG edited recommendation with Makotos edit 15:18:12 CFC to follow 15:18:46 Zakim, item 3 15:18:46 I don't understand 'item 3', alastairc 15:18:53 Zakim, take up item 3 15:18:53 agendum 3. "One remaining item on survey" taken up [from Joshue108] 15:19:20 Topic: 173 15:19:28 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173 15:20:39 AC: There was a long discussion on list. 15:20:55 AC: I agree with the principle of the tech - but am struggling with how we describe failures. 15:21:00 AC: They are absolutist. 15:21:19 AC: Its then hard to apply this as a failure. 15:21:33 AC: So I've changed my thinking, and liked the warning idea. 15:21:36 q+ 15:21:52 AC: You could have bad practice etc, so a four point scale. 15:22:06 JOC: So you've changed your thinking a little? 15:22:45 AC: Yes, that I agree with the failure per see but its application as an absolute failure I dont like. 15:22:46 ack dav 15:24:20 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173#issuecomment-206625763 15:24:39 rrsagent, make minutes 15:24:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html MichaelC 15:25:13 patrick_h_lauke: Circling around the problem of what failures are, this one opens the pandoras box. Can we turn it inside out and label it a good method for passing / best practice. 15:25:37 q+ to say I support the concept of calling techniques sufficient, advisory / best practices, warnings, failures 15:26:08 Due to the other issues hashed out on the mailing list, we have issues of what past failures are, changing previous results. Prefer the approach of showing good practices. 15:26:42 Joshue108: So you think this is an ok thing, but have reservations about the import of failures? 15:27:16 q? 15:27:25 patrick: yes, so important that it is better to turn them into successes in the other way around. 15:27:28 q+ 15:27:33 q+ to say WCAG is success oriented but evaluators are failure oriented 15:28:10 Joshue108: seem to be a couple of camps, some people do use failures, some don't pay much attention to them, but see that they are quite absolutist. 15:28:27 q+ to say don´t support retroactive failures - conformance claims are valid as of the date of claim and we can´t later change that 15:28:39 ack dav 15:28:42 Joshue108: Even using the contrived examples we have to be careful. 15:29:11 davidmacdonald: There seem to be 2 conversations, failures in general, and this one. Twist them together, it's confusing to deal with. 15:29:38 Wayne has joined #wai-wcag 15:29:48 q? 15:30:00 allanj has joined #wai-wcag 15:30:17 davidmacdonald: This is the first failure introduce for quite a while, so speaking to this one first. For pages that might be different, I think the failture text has addressed that. 15:31:08 davidmacdonald: Gregg made a good point, it needs to have always been a failure, we should be just pointing to it. The language of 1.3.1 does indicate that in the SC. What we didn't have landmarks or HTML5 sectioning. 15:31:39 q? 15:31:40 davidmacdonald: What about the sites back then? I'd say it always was a failure, and without an easy solution we tended to ignore it. 15:31:47 q+ 15:31:54 davidmacdonald: There could be a perception it is new, but don't think it actually is. 15:32:43 davidmacdonald: I think I addressed the concerns, you'd have to be creative to get a false failure, that the language of the failure would be a problem compared to the WCAG text. 15:32:47 q+ Joshue 15:32:52 present+ wayne 15:33:05 Q+ 15:33:10 davidmacdonald: We didn't enforce it before, but now it is easy to do. 15:33:45 @Mike_elledge check out https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173 as it also related to 2.4.10 15:33:46 q+ to say agree was always a failure, if taken apart from technology 15:34:10 davidmacdonald: The more general failure point, we have to understand that they are 'common failures', we don't document them all. If you don't do those things then it makes the testing easier. 15:34:15 q+ to say we can´t declare things retroactive; instead, we would say evaluations were insufficient 15:34:15 but to come right down to an example: look at https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173#issuecomment-206625763 and the simple examples i provide - are we saying these ARE now failures from this point onwards? i.e. a simple visually distinct header that just contains an image, or a footer that just has some basic copyright notice, are now a hard fail of 1.3.1 because there's no landmarks? 15:34:32 Joshue108: Only concern I have is that it appears we have to mandate landmarks. 15:34:39 or lack of headings, or any other programmatic or textual indication 15:34:52 Ø "Failure of 1.3.1 due to visually distinct regions of a page (headers, footers, navigation bars, main content, asides) not being programmatically determinable or identified by text." 15:35:06 davidmacdonald: Don't think it does that, there is the 'by text' aspect. 15:35:07 ack michae 15:35:07 MichaelC, you wanted to say I support the concept of calling techniques sufficient, advisory / best practices, warnings, failures and to say WCAG is success oriented but evaluators 15:35:10 ... are failure oriented and to say don´t support retroactive failures - conformance claims are valid as of the date of claim and we can´t later change that and to say agree was 15:35:10 ... always a failure, if taken apart from technology and to say we can´t declare things retroactive; instead, we would say evaluations were insufficient 15:35:43 davidmacdonald: We have positive techniques already. 15:36:31 q? 15:36:38 +1 to Michael's point 15:36:41 MichaelC: Support the proposal of a warning level. Not convinced this is a candidate or not, but good idea. Note that WCAG is success oritented, you meet it by succeeding. 15:37:21 MichaelC: However, tests tend to be failure oriented, so looking from that point of view can skew it. 15:37:55 MichaelC: From a conformance point of view, conformance is dated, updated techniques do not invadlidate an old claim. You can say that conformed at the time, so that is ok. 15:38:25 MichaelC: In this example: I agree it was always a failure, e.g. with headings/text. Now landmarks are a possible technique. 15:39:13 ack katie 15:39:13 MichaelC: We are not saying that the old conformance is invalid, but the testing may have been. 15:39:16 ack ry 15:39:22 -q 15:40:36 Ryladog_: We have multiple success criteria sufficient techniques, they change as technology changes. Why do we not also update and create failures? Not saying we need many new ones, but we do need those that are relevent to the technologies have come along. 15:40:50 new technologies come along, but we can't have new failures for, effectively, NOT using new technologies 15:41:29 Ryladog_: Suggest we do use this failure, and include sufficient techniques. Need to continue to look at this as we add new technologies. Anything that is a specific common failure. 15:41:45 q+ nurthen 15:41:51 q+ JN 15:42:28 Joshue108: (mentions Patrick's comment) 15:42:48 q+ 15:42:51 ack JF 15:42:54 Ryladog_: Agree with that, it is just the way we complete tasks has changed, and we can provide the success to. 15:42:59 KimD_ has joined #wai-wcag 15:43:46 JF: Micheal Cooper mentioned that the old conformance is invalid but the testing may have been. Pushing back, if the testing is invalid then the process was. 15:44:22 jon_avila_ has joined #wai-wcag 15:44:29 present+jon_avila 15:45:01 JF: Talking about a new tehnique, it is concerning that a common point made is "this is an easy fix". Agree that we want to improve content, but saying that something that would have passed 2 years ago, doesn't now is problematic. 15:45:32 q? 15:46:58 i believe it was mentioned on the list today, but: a failure would need to clearly show it fails ALL other possible ways to PASS the SC 15:47:00 MichealC: Distinction between a site that was conforming at the time but wasn't tested properly, and a site that did fail at the time. 15:47:19 q? 15:47:24 ack nurthen 15:47:30 ack JN 15:48:04 q+ to +1 technology-specific failures 15:48:12 q+ 15:48:25 +1 to technology specific failures. 15:48:28 jnurthen: In the general sense, it would be easier to write new failures if they were tech specific. It can be so hard to write them across tech stacks, it has to fail for all. Would be easier if we weren't writing an anti-success critera. 15:48:30 ack way 15:48:35 we have 3 or 4 failures that do mention HTML in the name and are limited in scope to HTML 15:48:52 Many failures are written very similar to the success criteria 15:49:25 q? 15:49:34 Wayne: Thinking about 1.3.1, been a blind-centric set of techniques. Also need to deal with the TFs that deal with groups missed before. Landmarks don't help non-screen reader audiences. Can't assume use of a screen reader. 15:49:56 ack micha 15:49:56 MichaelC, you wanted to +1 technology-specific failures 15:50:08 but 1.3.1 deals with conveying relationships THAT ARE ALREADY VISUALLY APPARENT programmatically or in text 15:50:23 so sighted, non AT audience would already see those relationships? 15:50:28 MichaelC: Support idea of technology specific failures, we have that meta data in the source of the techniques, but it would be good to use it. We would quickly discover many new failures if we used it. 15:50:48 ack david 15:51:26 davidmacdonald: Failures are technology specific, e.g. F31, is HTML based. Table headers etc. tons of HTML specific failures. 15:51:27 q+ 15:51:28 q? 15:51:30 Q+ 15:51:50 MichealC: They are, but not presented that way. 15:53:17 Joshue108: Even if you were looking for tech-specific failures you couldn't find them. 15:53:22 ack wayne 15:53:22 q+ 15:53:37 steverep has joined #wai-wcag 15:54:20 Wayne: When we think about tech-specific, we don't realise the underlying thing is a document. E.g. apart from NAV, most docs have a header & footer, so these things are implemented by technology of fundamental communications objects, not sure we need tech specific stuff. 15:54:41 jnurthen: I'm talking about applications, not presented as writing. 15:54:50 q? 15:55:58 JF: Not always a document there, e.g. google homepage. No header/footer, perhaps nav. Doesn't follow doc structure. Uver app on phone is another example, but an HTML/CSS/JS version wouldn't use a document format either. 15:56:14 JF: Not everything is a page. 15:56:37 ack JF 15:56:53 q+ 15:57:05 JF: One concern here is, are we looking to make these failure techniques have the weight of a normative requirement? It feels that way. 15:57:28 Joshue108: They have a quasi-normative status. 15:57:46 MichealC: They are not normative, but we treat them as normative as we ahve to be careful. 15:58:04 JF: So we know that, how do we tell others? 15:58:30 Joshue108: That's why we have to be 100% sure it is a real failure. 15:59:08 ack alis 15:59:12 ack ala 15:59:17 q+ to say we can address perception by messaging, rather than simply decline to do things; and we need to take full advantage of the opportunity to divide things up between ¨what needs to be done right now¨ and ¨what is better done with the flexibility of a future guidelines¨ 15:59:44 AC: I got the impression that failures are same accross all technologies? How to we square that accross multiple technologies? 16:00:35 AC: If you have a HTML tech that passes, and an ARIA tech does that mean you cannot have a failure tech for that SC? 16:00:40 MC: Yes, you can. 16:00:44 16:01:10 ack david 16:01:29 if WE (within the WG) can't quite agree/understand what a failure is (normative, non-normative, across all techs, absolutist or not, etc) then what hope do we have for joe developer on the street to understand this? 16:01:48 I think part of the problem is that we have specfic techniques, but we want to capture "common" failures - the difference between specificity and common is also part of the problem 16:01:54 i still tend towards showing positives and successes, rather than failures 16:02:01 +1 16:02:07 davidmacdonald: Summarising - we're doing a 2.1 / WCAG.next. Failures are in WCAG 2, and their role is clear there. In re-thinking that, it sounds like a WCAG 3 issue, not a 2.1 issue. I would argue we aren't documenting enough failures. 16:02:12 +1 16:02:32 q+ to say there are active and passive failures, active ones more absolute regardless of tech than passive 16:03:12 q+ to say that is AT support and issue here? ARIA is very SR specific, do failures have to hit more bases? 16:03:15 davidmacdonald: Want to make sure people with disabilities need representing, and we really need to think about what WCAG 2 was for when created. Agree with need due caution, but I think this failure can stand the criteria for failures. 16:03:16 ack michael 16:03:16 MichaelC, you wanted to say we can address perception by messaging, rather than simply decline to do things; and we need to take full advantage of the opportunity to divide things 16:03:19 ... up between ¨what needs to be done right now¨ and ¨what is better done with the flexibility of a future guidelines¨ and to say there are active and passive failures, active 16:03:19 ... ones more absolute regardless of tech than passive 16:04:09 +1 active vs passive failures distinction 16:04:13 MichealC: we have active failures, e.g. flashing on the screen. Passive failures are you didn't do something that was needed. That's harder to make absolute by tech, e.g. you could fail ARIA but pass HTML 16:04:47 MichealC: regarding perception, we do need to tackle how we talk about this to the world, but that shouldn't stop us acting, adding things. 16:04:48 +1 strongly to waht MC is saying 16:05:22 s/waht/what/ 16:05:24 q? 16:05:38 MichealC: We have work going on with future guidelines, so we should separate out what is needed for WCAG 2 support materials, but also how can we structure things in future? Things we can address better. 16:05:39 ack me 16:05:39 Joshue, you wanted to say that is AT support and issue here? ARIA is very SR specific, do failures have to hit more bases? 16:06:31 Joshue108: Regarding the screen-reader specific nature of some areas, failures should help multiple user groups. 16:07:46 Joshue108: A little on fence, would rather see positive patterns, but if the group would like more failures then we can go that way. 16:08:14 Joshue108: In future, some good ideas. Grouping by technology, having a warning category. 16:08:32 q+ 16:08:36 Q+ 16:08:43 q+ 16:08:52 q+ 16:09:40 ack way 16:09:47 Joshue108: Cautious about getting this particular failure out the gate, what do people think? 16:10:20 Wayne: In WCAG 2.0, when getting it done, was hard because some things are difficult to fix and that made it harder to fail them. 16:10:40 Wayne: Maybe change approach? 16:11:05 jnurthen: Would have to look at conformance model, would be hard in current model. 16:11:40 ack jf 16:11:43 Wayne: The 200% enlargment for example, that limit was due to difficulty, but today we can. Now 700% is not too hard. things that were too difficult are not anymore. 16:12:49 JF: Appreciate David's work making it agnostic. Still appears to promot landmark regions, difficult to shake that perception. Are all those ARIA roles being used? 16:13:02 JF: If a page lacked header/footer would it fail? 16:13:35 q? 16:13:40 I agree with John 16:13:53 JF: Have a concern about the slicing & dicing. Happy with best practice approach, but turning it around to a failure is where we get into problems. 16:14:28 JF: Could take every success technique and turn those around to failures. 16:14:58 q? 16:15:24 JF: Now we have a good technique that delivers on the SC, that's great. But to turn around and say you fail without it, seems to change intent. 16:15:26 q+ 16:15:40 ack pat 16:17:03 patrick_h_lauke: In the wording, it started with landmarks/HTML5 elements, but includes identified by text. I'm not completely swayed, because there are many situations where a visually distinct area wouldn't fail from not having a identifier (text or landmark). 16:17:11 I agree -- that's because the text in the footer itself indicates it's a footer -- it's clear according to gregg 16:17:12 +1 to Patrick 16:17:21 q? 16:17:24 +1 to Patrick 16:17:59 patrick_h_lauke: The context can tell people about things like footers as well. I wouldn't necessarily fail some things that appear to fail in the wording. 16:18:48 patrick_h_lauke: Certain aspect of leeway, which has already been in 1.3.1 where auditor has to use best judgement that is the case. Adding something for that would help get my support. 16:19:29 Joshue108: There can be visually distinct areas that are not functionally useful, so difficult to justify that is a failure. 16:19:43 ack mike 16:20:20 I also have concerns of nav -- what makes a group of link a navigation group? What if color isn't used -- the fact that link are next to each other simply indicates they are related and that same info is availble to users with screen reader 16:20:22 mike: I started with David's recommendation, but I've been swayed that it would cause some retrofitting, so suggest it is moved to wcag.next. 16:20:25 patrick_h_lauke has left #wai-wcag 16:20:41 ack davi 16:21:15 zakim, agenda? 16:21:15 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 16:21:16 1. Publishing new WCAG edited recommendation, with Makotos edit to 1.4.6 [from Joshue108] 16:21:16 3. One remaining item on survey [from Joshue108] 16:21:16 4. Upcoming schedule for next tech and understanding docs [from Joshue108] 16:21:43 davidmacdonald: regarding 'false positives', trivial information in visually distinct areas, I could take an action to re-word some area. 16:22:17 Joshue108: I struggle a bit with 'visually distinct', and how we connect user-need with the semantics we have. On one level it is fine, but implications are fairly far-reaching. 16:22:51 jnurthen: When writing, have to be careful not to make people use them when not needed, can be overwhelming, so need to be very careful. 16:22:52 +1 16:23:29 Joshue108: Can we keep this open, tweak it a bit? 16:23:53 RESOLUTION: Leave open 16:24:02 davidmacdonald: Can we use some language to put in safety mechanisms to prevent problems. 16:24:03 +1 16:24:10 ACTION: David to work on fine tuning 173 16:24:10 'David' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., dmacdona, dsloan). 16:24:25 ACTION: davidmacdonald to work on fine tuning 173 16:24:25 Error finding 'davidmacdonald'. You can review and register nicknames at . 16:24:46 zakim, close item 16:24:46 I don't understand 'close item', Joshue108 16:24:57 zakim, close item 3 16:24:57 agendum 3, One remaining item on survey, closed 16:24:58 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:24:58 1. Publishing new WCAG edited recommendation, with Makotos edit to 1.4.6 [from Joshue108] 16:25:06 agenda+ Touch feedback. 16:25:15 zakim, take up item 5 16:25:15 agendum 5. "Touch feedback." taken up [from Joshue108] 16:25:49 Kathy: Mobile accessibility task force - been working on touch & pointers. 16:26:13 Kathy: at a point where we would like to get some feedback on requirements for touch & pointer, so we don't go down the wrong path. 16:26:14 https://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/touch.html 16:26:28 Kathy: Got new guidelines, with 4 SCs. 16:26:37 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page 16:26:51 • Summary of Research on Touch/Pointer Target Size 16:26:53 Kathy: Put together wiki page on discussions, backgrond info. 16:27:02 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Summary_of_Research_on_Touch/Pointer_Target_Size 16:27:18 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/HISTORY:_Touch_and_Pointer 16:27:28 q+ 16:28:09 Kathy: Looking for feedback from the working group, difficult as we aren't sure where it is going to fit (extention vs WCAG 2.1), but there are two discussions, and the first is whether the gudelines and SCs are good. 16:28:25 Kathy: later discussion is where/how it would fit. 16:28:26 ack me 16:29:42 Joshue108: We will discuss on separate call soon. 16:29:52 kirkwood has joined #wai-wcag 16:30:33 AWK: Can create a survey to focus people. Can make it public, with separate questions per SC. 16:30:45 Kathy: can also comment on github. 16:32:46 Thanks, all, bye! 16:32:47 bye 16:32:48 trackbot, end meeting 16:32:48 Zakim, list attendees 16:32:48 As of this point the attendees have been AWK, EricE, Kathy, Laura, jeanne, KimD, alastairc, JF, Joshue108, John_Kirkpwood, SarahH, Makoto, David_MacDonald, Mike_Elledge, 16:32:49 Bye all! 16:32:51 ... John_Kirkwood, Greg_Lowney, kirkwood, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, patrick_h_lauke, Elledge, MacDonald, Katie_Haritos-Shea, wayne, jon_avila 16:32:54 laura has left #wai-wcag 16:32:56 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:32:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot 16:32:57 RRSAgent, bye 16:32:57 I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-wai-wcag-actions.rdf : 16:32:57 ACTION: David to work on fine tuning 173 [1] 16:32:57 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-wai-wcag-irc#T16-24-10 16:32:57 ACTION: davidmacdonald to work on fine tuning 173 [2] 16:32:57 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/03-wai-wcag-irc#T16-24-25