15:18:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:18:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-irc
15:18:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:18:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ag
15:18:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:18:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:18:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:18:14 <trackbot> Date: 08 June 2017
15:18:20 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue108
15:18:30 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
15:18:31 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:18:37 <Joshue108> agenda+ Help: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_help/
15:18:53 <Joshue108> agenda+ Orientation: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/MATF_orientation/
15:23:05 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:27:20 <ChrisLoiselle> ChrisLoiselle has joined #ag
15:30:22 <MichaelC> present+
15:30:53 <ChrisLoiselle> present+
15:30:57 <Wilco_> scribe: Wilco Fiers
15:31:17 <Wilco_> present+
15:31:31 <AWK_> AWK_ has joined #ag
15:31:36 <Wilco_> agenda?
15:31:46 <AWK_> +AWK
15:31:53 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:31:58 <Alex> Alex has joined #ag
15:32:02 <jasonjgw> present+
15:32:50 <AWK_> Zakim, ping us in 28 minutes
15:32:50 <Zakim> ok, AWK_
15:32:57 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #ag
15:33:10 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:33:35 <lisa> present+ lisa
15:33:38 <Detlev> present+ Detlev
15:33:40 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
15:33:41 <marcjohlic> present+ marcjohlic
15:33:42 <AWK_> rrsagent, set logs public
15:34:22 <AWK_> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:34:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-minutes.html AWK_
15:34:53 <JF> present+ JF
15:34:57 <JF> agenda?
15:35:02 <KimDirks> KimDirks has joined #ag
15:35:47 <Wilco_> zakim, take up item 2
15:35:47 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Orientation: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/MATF_orientation/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:36:30 <Kim> Kim has joined #ag
15:36:47 <Wilco_> Marc: Remaining issue was orientation vs dispaly orientation. Went with the latter
15:36:57 <Joshue108> Updated: https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/orientation_ISSUE-70/guidelines/#orientation
15:37:03 <KimDirks> Present+
15:37:14 <Wilco_> ... other addition. Alex was adding an example to the definition for Essential
15:37:37 <Joshue108> Great that definintions have been updated etc Marc.
15:37:58 <Wilco_> ... Reminder to people, what happens if people want locked orientation. This is telling authors not to lock the orientation on the users
15:38:19 <Wilco_> ... it should be opperable in all orientations, except when it is essential for the application.
15:38:27 <AWK_> AWK - for definition of "essential"  recommend removing "in binary fashion"
15:38:45 <lisa> q+
15:38:58 <Wilco_> ... Remaining question, is this at launch time, or at any point. I think not at any point. Couldn't figure out why you would lock it later on unless it was essential.
15:39:33 <Wilco_> Josh: Don't know what "binary fashion" means
15:39:49 <Joshue108> ack lisa
15:40:28 <Wilco_> Lisa: Use case I'm concerned about, had a criteria that was almost the opposite: Orientation doesn't change without the user's concent.
15:40:38 <Detlev> orientation changes precisely *becaue* users rotate the device...
15:40:59 <Kathy> q+
15:41:01 <AWK_> q+ to say that all devices allow locking of the orientation
15:41:05 <Wilco_> ... some people rely on GPS or something like that. When orientation changes automatically, they have to start again figuring out where they are / going
15:41:16 <Kathy> q-
15:41:42 <Wilco_> Marc: We're not saying to change orientation on the user. It is about not stoping it if the user wants to do it
15:42:06 <Wilco_> Lisa: Can we add the reverse: "Or allowing the user to cancel it"?
15:42:12 <david-macdonald> david-macdonald has joined #ag
15:42:19 <AWK_> q+ mikeg
15:42:23 <david-macdonald> Present+ David-MacDonald
15:42:49 <Wilco_> Marc: I think we are saying that, when we say that content is not locked in a specific orientation.
15:43:22 <Wilco_> Lisa: Would it be a failure technique?
15:43:32 <jasonjgw> q+
15:43:55 <Wilco_> Marc: Not if it is essential. It is more of a navigation. The display might change directionally, not the display orientation.
15:44:07 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:44:07 <Zakim> AWK_, you wanted to say that all devices allow locking of the orientation
15:44:45 <Wilco_> AWK: All devices allow users to lock orientation. If I would find that disorienting, I can lock it, that's fine. This SC doesn't speak to this specifically.
15:45:01 <Wilco_> ... if I need to turn my device for one reason or another, content should adapt to that.
15:45:06 <chriscm> chriscm has joined #ag
15:45:39 <Wilco_> ... I think what Lisa is talking about is available in the OS.
15:45:45 <Wilco_> Lisa: No there isn't
15:46:13 <Wilco_> ... if you have GPS, if you don't want orientation to change when you turn.
15:46:21 <Wilco_> AWK: This sounds like a different use case
15:46:46 <Joshue108> ack mike
15:46:49 <Wilco_> Josh: We don't want authors to lock orientation
15:47:49 <Wilco_> Mike: This SC addresses the scenario you're talking about. If a user has the device locked in portrait, this SC doesn't allow you to prevent that.
15:47:55 <Joshue108> ack jas
15:48:23 <Wilco_> Jason: Related to how this is managed between content, OS and browser
15:48:50 <AWK_> q+
15:48:59 <Wilco_> .. It isn't clear how the responsibility is distributed. AWK refered about adapting to orientation change.
15:49:11 <AWK_> q-
15:49:17 <marcjohlic> q+
15:49:21 <Wilco_> ... Non-specific about what content is doing that is excluded by this proposal
15:49:55 <Wilco_> ... adapts or responds to an orientation change. We need to take into account how different technologies handle this.
15:50:02 <Joshue108> ack marc
15:50:10 <chriscm> q+
15:50:22 <Wilco_> Marc: We're not telling authors to lock things. We're telling not to
15:50:47 <Wilco_> Josh: Lock is restrict, limit
15:51:12 <marcjohlic> That would go into the Understanding doc IMO
15:51:23 <MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/TR/screen-orientation/#locking-the-screen-orientation
15:51:25 <Wilco_> Josh: There's a meta viewport attribute you can add to do this kind of stuff
15:51:30 <MichaelC> q+
15:51:45 <marcjohlic> defining what it means "not to lock" - what the OS does etc - that would all go into the Understanding
15:51:45 <Wilco_> ... the core is that you don't want authors to restrict it to something a user may need.
15:51:52 <Joshue108> ack chrisc
15:51:57 <marcjohlic> q+
15:52:17 <Wilco_> Chris: The only thing the device can do on behalf of the user is tell the current orientation.
15:52:33 <Wilco_> ... because the OS has this responsibility it could change at inappropriate times.
15:53:06 <Wilco_> ... It's the OS responsibility to decide where to go. It's the content author responsibility to provide views that can be rotated / adjusted
15:53:29 <Joshue108> ack mich
15:53:30 <lisa> how is this testable?
15:54:03 <Wilco_> MC: The APA WG reviewed screen orientation API said that orientation lock is a critical feature
15:54:07 <chriscm> Define "this". Does "this" = the presence of content that can be rendered on multiple screen orientations.
15:54:11 <AWK_> Testing: turn the device, observe whether content remains fixed or not.
15:54:26 <Wilco_> ... the ability to lock orientation is critical. Not having a change underneath you is what the SC is trying to get at.
15:54:37 <MichaelC> ack me
15:54:43 <Wilco_> Marc: Correct, we don't want to interfere with the user
15:54:52 <Joshue108> ack marc
15:55:08 <Wilco_> MJ: we want to address this in the understanding document
15:55:09 <Joshue108> +1 to keeping the SC text simple
15:55:11 <jasonjgw> q+
15:55:26 <Joshue108> ack jason
15:55:40 <Wilco_> Jason: It hasn't addressed my issues
15:56:05 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
15:56:22 <Wilco_> ... If it allows interface option that would change the response, then it's the application / content which is determining the response. That there would be no response.
15:56:38 <Wilco_> ... that would look like a failure, even if it's in response to a user's request.
15:56:46 <alastairc> present+ alastairc
15:56:54 <chriscm> present+ chriscm
15:57:04 <Wilco_> ... If it's the web app that's receiving an event from the UI to fix the orientation.
15:57:15 <gowerm> gowerm has joined #ag
15:57:18 <gowerm> present+ MikeGower
15:57:33 <Joshue108> Definition of Display Orientation https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/orientation_ISSUE-70/guidelines/terms/21/display-orientation.html
15:57:36 <Wilco_> ... I'm not comfortable having it handled by understanding docs. "Locking" doesn't do it for me. Need something in the normative text.
15:57:58 <Wilco_> MC: I don't want to redefine terms that Orientation API defined
15:57:58 <Glenda> present +Glenda
15:58:36 <Wilco_> Josh: Concensus seems to be that this is good to go.
15:58:36 <gowerm> +1
15:58:38 <Detlev> +1
15:58:42 <marcjohlic> +1
15:58:47 <Kathy> +1
15:58:53 <AWK_> +1
15:58:57 <Joshue108> +1
15:59:02 <JF> +1
15:59:13 <Wilco_> David: Which did we settle with, on a download or on a process.
15:59:28 <Wilco_> AWK: Not specified in the current text
15:59:49 <Glenda> +1
15:59:50 <KimDirks> +1 - good to go and I'm in favor of the orientation not being restricted to on load - "never locked"
16:00:08 <Wilco_> Marc: At launched or througout. My oppinion is that content is never locked, unless it's essential. Whether it be at launch or while running
16:00:29 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
16:00:34 <gowerm> q+
16:00:41 <Wilco_> David: Maybe things are optimized for a certain orientation. Relates to James' comment
16:00:48 <gowerm> q-
16:00:50 <Zakim> AWK_, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:00:52 <AWK_> q+ to ask what scenarios exist where it would be more of a problem to reposition the content right away vs on load
16:01:00 <Wilco_> Josh: Want to see if people can live with it going into the draft.
16:01:14 <Wilco_> ... this is a reasonably simple SC, but certain details can be worked out.
16:01:43 <Wilco_> David: There is an outstanding comment.
16:01:47 <david-macdonald> +1 can live with it, prefer on download
16:01:56 <Wilco_> Josh: Push it over the line unless there is a showstopper
16:02:31 <Wilco_> Jason: With Screen orientation API, if that provides a mechanisme where the web app would lock the orientation.
16:02:42 <Wilco_> ... having a control that locks the orientation looks like a violation.
16:03:12 <AWK_> q-
16:03:13 <AWK_> q+
16:03:36 <Wilco_> ... Also defining what is meant here. If I'm a web developer and I use that API, letting users fix orientation within my application.
16:03:59 <Wilco_> ... I'm fine having it in a draft with notes.
16:04:12 <chriscm> q+
16:04:13 <Wilco_> Josh: We do not want developers to lock the orientation.
16:04:24 <lisa> note the time...
16:04:57 <Wilco_> Jason: Not getting there. The idea with screen orientation. If the author uses that API, even if only done when the user selects it, that looks like a violation of the SC. Even though it's conditional.
16:05:20 <Wilco_> ... Even if they do that only on user request, it is still a violation of the proposal.
16:05:23 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:05:32 <Wilco_> Josh: Maybe be clear about author locking vs user locking.
16:05:33 <chriscm> q-
16:06:01 <Joshue108> ack chris
16:07:22 <Wilco_> AWK: Jason, just like text size, if the user changes text size, the content doesn't fail. The API gives the author informationa about the orientation. This SC says to not fix the orientation.
16:07:48 <steverep> steverep has joined #ag
16:07:49 <Wilco_> ... If I create an application that can adapt, but the user disables that, it's fine.
16:07:57 <steverep> present+steverep
16:08:32 <Wilco_> RESOLUTION: Put Orientation SC into the next editor's draft
16:08:47 <Wilco_> Josh: Put out a CfC to the list
16:08:53 <Wilco_> zakim, take up item 1
16:08:53 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Help: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/COGA_help/" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:09:02 <lisa> link for help text (revced)https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/provide-support_ISSUE-32/guidelines/sc/21/provide-support.html
16:09:34 <JF> Q+
16:10:01 <chriscm> getting every 3rd word...
16:10:01 <Detlev> can't hear you well
16:10:20 <chriscm> Dial in?
16:11:05 <Wilco_> Lisa: We got rid of long documents, changed to long blocks of text.
16:11:23 <Wilco_> ... they can be broken up, add headings, or a summary is provided
16:11:32 <Wilco_> ... made it much more universal and easier to test.
16:12:19 <Wilco_> ... We merged complex and simple numerical. You'll choose what makes sense, if something is complicated, a chart is better.
16:12:24 <laura> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:12:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-minutes.html laura
16:12:54 <Wilco_> ... we added exceptions, like Jason brought up. If you're making content for accountants you can ignore that point
16:13:08 <Wilco_> ... also excluded real numbers not required for math operations.
16:13:52 <Wilco_> ... We think we've addressed the bulk of the comments. Wondering if people still have issues.
16:13:52 <Joshue108> q?
16:13:59 <Joshue108> ack Jf
16:14:44 <Wilco_> JF: One of my concerns is about "comprehensive support is available". For numerical content, where should it be available?
16:15:24 <Wilco_> ... We need to have programatic linkage. I would like it programatically available. It makes it easier to test.
16:15:48 <chriscm> +1 to programatic association
16:16:00 <Wilco_> Lisa: It would be problematic in some cases because people object to the semantics.
16:16:06 <Joshue108> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:16:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-minutes.html Joshue108
16:16:31 <Glenda> +1 to programmatic association
16:16:39 <Wilco_> JF: I don't think we need new semantics.
16:16:51 <Wilco_> Lisa: No objection to this
16:17:13 <MichaelC> q+
16:17:13 <Wilco_> JF: Propose making a change to the draft to be explicit about programatic association.
16:17:48 <Joshue108> ack michael
16:17:48 <Alex> q+
16:18:11 <Wilco_> MC: Wanted to ask who prefers programatic association.
16:18:23 <gowerm> q+
16:18:24 <AWK_> I'd like to see what the new language looks like
16:18:43 <Joshue108> ack alex
16:18:46 <Detlev> +q
16:19:00 <david-macdonald> q+
16:19:26 <alastairc> Relatively minor thing, but can we use a different word than "cardinal"? Not sure if it means 'fundamental' (1st in the thesaurus), or something about 2D co-ordinates?
16:19:26 <Wilco_> Alex: Question about the structure. You have to provide comprehensive support. What if none of these exist?
16:19:35 <Wilco_> Lisa: If none applied you pass
16:20:06 <jasonjgw> q+
16:20:06 <Wilco_> Alex: I think the SC is wrongly written if that's the case. If none apply, than you have to say "if applicable"
16:20:21 <Wilco_> MC: If criteria don't apply you meet them
16:20:40 <Wilco_> Alex: What if multiple conditions apply, and you do one of them?
16:20:46 <Wilco_> Lisa: that's allowed
16:20:47 <JF> Suggested Draft Text: Comprehension support is programmatically associated via one or more of the following
16:21:15 <Wilco_> ... this is the whole pillar concept. Even though we're not addressing the full user need, we're getting them in.
16:21:38 <Wilco_> Alex: The effect of having a positive impact was questionable.
16:21:54 <Wilco_> MC: This is a known compromise, have to have it one way or another.
16:22:13 <Wilco_> Lisa: If the group wants all, I'm very happy
16:22:32 <Wilco_> MC: I'd rather have a compromise than nothing.
16:22:33 <steverep> q+ to suggest changing "real numbers" to just "numbers" or "actual numbers" because real has a specific mathematical meaning
16:23:00 <Wilco_> Alex: Why is the structure like it is?
16:23:06 <JF> Q+ to note that there are two types of issue here: "understanding meaning" and "where am I / How to operate" - if anything we could split this into two SC
16:23:23 <Joshue108> zakim, ping me in 7 minutes
16:23:23 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108
16:23:27 <Wilco_> Lisa: Basically, you have to do one of them. When we had it in one line we felt the user need would not be met.
16:23:50 <Wilco_> ... we can't require it. What document needs / what is too long is subjective. Wouldn't get it through.
16:24:03 <AWK_> should be 1 or 3 bullets
16:24:20 <Wilco_> ... were happy breaking it into two bullets, have it look like "when appropriate". This gives it more emphasise
16:24:50 <Joshue108> ack gower
16:25:23 <Wilco_> Mike: I found it weird the way it's written. It looks like you have to do one even if you don't have any
16:26:00 <lisa> Comprehension support is available  when appropriate for the following :
16:26:26 <lisa> +1
16:26:27 <gowerm> +1 for Alix's point
16:26:36 <Wilco_> Lisa: I think this addresses Alex's point
16:26:37 <AWK_> q+ to say that starting this with "comprehension support" makes this very confusing
16:26:39 <Wilco_> +1
16:26:44 <marcjohlic> +1
16:27:01 <Joshue108> ack david
16:27:58 <Wilco_> David: Programatic association: In HTML we can do that. In other technologies that is difficult. All progamatic helps blind people. Users that don't have AT programatic doesn't help much.
16:28:16 <lisa> Comprehension support is available for the following :
16:28:22 <JF> +1 - "appropriate" is a subjective term
16:28:46 <Wilco_> ... "Where appropriate" works cross porposes, there is disconnect about which you should do. What I think we should say is "When the following is present, only one"... something like this.
16:29:24 <gowerm> what does "appropriate" mean?
16:30:06 <Joshue108> ack detlev
16:30:24 <Zakim> Joshue108, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:30:33 <gowerm> +1 for alastair's approach
16:31:09 <lisa> Comprehension support is available for the following:
16:31:45 <gowerm> +1 for Lisa's modification
16:31:52 <AWK_> zakim, ping us in 0 minutes
16:31:52 <Zakim> ok, AWK_
16:31:53 <Zakim> AWK_, you asked to be pinged at this time
16:32:04 <Alex> I have to go. But for the record, I can't agree to moving this SC forward yet.
16:32:08 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
16:32:18 <Wilco> Detlev: I think the either/or construct doesn't work.
16:32:25 <Wilco> Lisa: There is an 'and'
16:32:42 <Wilco> Detlev: For forms you would have to do something, either A or B
16:32:56 <Joshue108> q?
16:32:59 <Wilco> ... the way I read it I find it difficult to understand what I'd have to test with content
16:33:03 <alastairc> How about: "When the following types of content are present then comprehension support is available for each:"
16:33:22 <Wilco> Lisa: Suggest new wording, or put it in understanding?
16:33:40 <Wilco> Detlev: I think this is too much in one SC. Please read my comments
16:33:42 <Joshue108> ack jason
16:33:47 <alastairc> And separate the 2nd bullet into 2: - Non-standard controls: have instructions - Multi-step forms: provide information about a user's position in the form.
16:34:11 <steverep> q-
16:34:12 <KimDirks> *I have comments in the survey too
16:34:18 <Detlev> I'm sorry I have to leave the meeting for another appointment...
16:34:20 <Wilco> Jason: Most of my comments on the survey. First about scope and rational on the exceptions. I think the logic is described questionably.
16:34:59 <lisa> strongly disagree with what jason is saying
16:35:15 <Joshue108> q?
16:35:28 <Wilco> ... programatic needs to be considered more careful. I'm concerned about automatic summary. The user may have better software than authors might have.
16:35:53 <Wilco> ... Forms are a concern. WCAG doesn't talk about forms but about processes. Should the same language be used?
16:36:46 <Wilco> Lisa: The pressure needs to be on the author. They can't pass it on to automatic summaries, they aren't fully reliable.
16:36:51 <Joshue108> ack JF
16:36:51 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that there are two types of issue here: "understanding meaning" and "where am I / How to operate" - if anything we could split this into two SC
16:37:02 <Wilco> ... This was rejected by the TF as an option.
16:37:19 <Joshue108> +1 to JF
16:37:26 <Wilco> JF: We're trying to address two things. What is on the screen, and where am I?
16:38:14 <Wilco> ... About association, it simply means they are linked. I'm concerned about "is available". The question is, where is it available and how does the user get to that content.
16:38:28 <Wilco> ... if we don't say how it is linked, the inference is that it's on the same page.
16:38:31 <Joshue108> zakim, close queue
16:38:31 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, the speaker queue is closed
16:39:02 <Wilco> Lisa: We're happy to go with progamatic. I think this can be a technique, but having it next to it would also work.
16:39:28 <Wilco> ... having it next to it is better then a footnote.
16:40:17 <Wilco> JF: I don't want to force authors to do something, I want there to be a direct association, more then just "available".
16:40:37 <Wilco> ... Three could be a page in the footer "glossary page". I don't see how that benefits anybody.
16:41:02 <Wilco> Lisa: Pros and cons. I think it should be a technique, but it should go to what most people think should be done here.
16:41:42 <Wilco> David: It may be limiting if you put programatic association. May be less accessible.
16:41:45 <Joshue108> ack awk
16:41:45 <Zakim> AWK_, you wanted to say that starting this with "comprehension support" makes this very confusing
16:42:22 <Wilco> AWK: What i'm struggling with is the leading text. It's different from what other SCs are doing.
16:42:39 <MichaelC> q+
16:42:44 <Wilco> ... The SC about blocks of text is saying what should be done with blocks of text.
16:43:01 <Wilco> ... there is a lot in this. It feels we are putting understanding in the SC.
16:43:17 <Wilco> ... we say what you should do, and in understanding say why.
16:43:44 <Wilco> MC: I proposed comprehension support. If it seems better without it we can have a better hook.
16:44:15 <Wilco> Lisa: Alternatively, if we want these points to be separate criteria, then we can do that. But don't want it to take up 8 weeks.
16:44:34 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:45:07 <Wilco> +1 to putting it in and clean up later
16:45:57 <AWK_> -1 to including as it is
16:46:03 <KimDirks> -1 - my comments in the survey haven't been addressed, plus many have left
16:46:06 <Wilco> Josh: Anyone who can't live with this as is?
16:46:09 <JF> =1
16:46:19 <JF> -1
16:46:21 <david-macdonald> +1
16:47:04 <JF> I will continue to push-back on "available" as ill-defined and hard to test for
16:47:06 <Wilco> Josh: on the fence about this
16:47:12 <AWK_> Alex indicated a -1 before he left "<Alex> I have to go. But for the record, I can't agree to moving this SC forward yet."
16:47:31 <Wilco> Lisa: In the form, but with the top sentence changed.
16:47:34 <lisa> Comprehension support is available for the following:
16:47:55 <Wilco> ... we could break them up after August.
16:48:42 <Wilco> Josh: RIght now we see a no. I hear some strong points toward breaking it up.
16:49:18 <lisa> cute
16:49:44 <Wilco> Josh: We can ask this question again next week when there are more people in.
16:49:52 <Wilco> MC: I feel we are almost there.
16:50:25 <Wilco> ... it needs more discussion. But I think we are close.
16:50:32 <Wilco> ... as for breaking up. We can deal with that later.
16:50:51 <Wilco> ... We should lean more towards putting things in and getting comments.
16:51:20 <Wilco> Lisa: Can we put it in the list?
16:51:55 <AWK_> adding more items to the list of 3 for the week doesn't help streamline the process
16:51:57 <Wilco> Josh: We'll follow up next week.
16:52:17 <ChrisLoiselle> bye, thank you.
16:52:17 <Glenda> Glenda has left #ag
16:53:09 <Wilco> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:54:16 <Wilco> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:54:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-minutes.html Wilco
16:54:28 <Wilco> trackbot, end meeting
16:54:28 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:54:28 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been MichaelC, ChrisLoiselle, Wilco_, AWK, jasonjgw, Kathy, lisa, Detlev, Joshue108, marcjohlic, JF, KimDirks, David-MacDonald, alastairc,
16:54:31 <Zakim> ... chriscm, MikeGower, steverep
16:54:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:54:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-minutes.html trackbot
16:54:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:54:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items