<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2024-04-30

<mike_beganyi> scribe+

<ben_tillyer> Ty Mike!

CEPC Reminder

<Chuck> Hi MJ!

<MJ> Hello! Thanks for having me.

<Chuck> Hi Oliver!

<MJ> I forgot to say that I'm an accessibility product manager. I'm based in San Francisco.

<mike_beganyi> Chuck: TPAC Sponsorship Package. Any member if they would like to sponsor TPAC.

<ben_tillyer> Technical plenary and Advisory Committee

<Chuck> https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/

<mike_beganyi> Chuck: Code of ethics reminder.

<mike_beganyi> Chuck: [summarizes Code of Ethics points of respect, group participation, etc.]

Discuss Publishing Pull Request

<mike_beganyi> Chuck: PR working on for next working draft of WCAG 3

https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/62

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: Introduced PR last week (PR 62) [above]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/63

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: Got a number of comments and suggestions. Would like to go over those changes

<alastairc> Rawgit of 63: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag3/b29ac08425ea896f57b9e6054253309f768f9fb6/guidelines/index.html#guidelines

<alastairc> I.e. preview

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: [summarizes some of the changes and edits]

<Chuck> +1 with changes

<HaTheo> +1 to shift to the programmatically and visually indicated shift.

<Chuck> +1 with Section header update

Using Aggregate

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: [continues summary]

<mbgower> "overall experience"?

<mike_beganyi> ben_tillyer: What is the definition of "aggregate" here?

<jtoles> Aggregate is not a great term, but I don't' have a better one

<HaTheo> could we indicate "whole"?

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: [shares definition as it applies to the current scope]

<mike_beganyi> mbgower: I was going to suggest "overall experience".

<Chuck> The overall experience provides at least two ways of navigating and finding information (Search, Scan, Site Map, Menu Structure, Breadcrumbs, contextual links, etc).

<Chuck> Navigation elements remain consistent across views within an overall experience.

<alastairc> The first dictionary definition of aggregate is: "a whole formed by combining several separate elements", which seems appropriate. (Despite Ben's association with soil?!)

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: Looking for a term that can apply broadly

<laura> "full product"?

<laura> "full site"?

<mike_beganyi> mbgower: Why don't we define strictly in page context

<alastairc> "Product"?

<kirkwood> “the aggregate” rather than “an aggregate”

<kevin> Does 'site' = 'mobile app'?

synonyms for aggregate: Collective, total, composite

<Chuck> Navigation elements remain consistent across views within a product.

<mbgower> product works

<mike_beganyi> alastairc: Assuming we're looking for something top-level. Could be whatever is trying to be scoped to whatever this is. Struggling to think of a better word than "product".

<Chuck> The product provides at least two ways of navigating and finding information (Search, Scan, Site Map, Menu Structure, Breadcrumbs, contextual links, etc).

+1

<Chuck> +1

<ben_tillyer> +1 to product

<HaTheo> +1 an aggregate vs the aggregate is diffrent

<alastairc> +1 to using "product" and defining it to be the aggregate (from mike)

<Chuck> Option 1: "THE Aggregate", Option 2: "Product"

<mbgower> 2 (and defining it as "the aggregate")

+1 to product defined as the aggregate

<Chuck> Poll: 1) Use "The Aggregate", 2) Use "Product", defined as "the aggregate" in definitions.

<alastairc> 2, can live with 1 (and I think it would be "the product").

<Chuck> Poll: 1) Use "The Aggregate", 2) Use "The Product", defined as "the aggregate" in definitions.

<mike_beganyi> ben_tillyer: I less "product" less. Sometimes the product will not reference a complete thing.

<kirkwood> 1

<alastairc> 2, can live with 1.

<HaTheo> 1, but would be fine with 2

<Chuck> 2, can live with 1

<julierawe> 2

<laura> 2

<kevin> 2

<OliverH> 2

<Azlan> 2

<mike_beganyi> 2

2, can live with 1

<Jennie_Delisi> 2, however, also recommend including product in glossary

<sohara> swapping out "the aggregate" for "product" and then defining product as "the aggregate" seems weird

<Makoto> 2

<Frankie> 2

<mbgower> 2, and note that we can add in Ben's comment as part of Product's definition

<ben_tillyer> 2, can’t imagine non-WGWG coping with agg

<OliverH> "product scope" could be a compromise though

<alastairc> OliverH - I think we will tie these in when talking about scoping, which we haven't got to yet

Use of Color

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: moving to Color in Media Alternatives

<Chuck> Pointer cancellation techniques are consistent

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: [summarizes]

<mike_beganyi> kevin: consistent with what, exactly? if that relates to specificity.

<mike_beganyi> Chuck: without Detlev here it's difficult to know exactly what was meant.

<alastairc> I can't find his comments on the PR or doc, can someone link to his comment?

<jeanne> Pointer cancellation techniques are internally consistent

<jeanne> ...consistent across the site/product/aggregate

<mike_beganyi> Chuck: [summarizes Detlev's request]

<Chuck> +1

<alastairc> +1 to that addition, a good caveat for everything here!

<julierawe> Please correct the spelling of "systems" in that highlighted sentence

<Jennie_Delisi> spelling error for systems?

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie_Delisi> +1

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: We would love to move this out and be visible in both the editor's and working draft. We need to decide if we are comfortable moving this.

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: Are we comfortable putting this in? Do we need more time to review it?

<Chuck> Editor's Draft Option 1) Are we ok putting this content in Editor's Draft, 2) Do we desire more time to review this?

<Chuck> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag3/b29ac08425ea896f57b9e6054253309f768f9fb6/guidelines/index.html#pointer-cancellation

https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag3/30-april-meeting/guidelines/index.html

<mike_beganyi> GreggVan: Lost exactly what "this" refers to in the ratification proposal.

The updates are to the guidelines

<mike_beganyi> Chuck: It's the entire body of text in Rachael's link. Updates in the guidelines

<mike_beganyi> alastairc: All of the "Guidelines" section is new.

<Chuck> Editor's Draft Option 1) Are we ok putting Guidelines content in Editor's Draft, 2) Do we desire more time to review Guidelines content?

<alastairc> The guidelines content, and the editors note at the top are the key changes, which we've been reviewing for 2 weeks.

<mike_beganyi> GreggVan: Are these "Guidelines" going to have outcomes under them? I thought outcomes is where we put our provisions.

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: Need to discuss whether this is Outcomes or Guidelines. This is a carry-over from the previous way we wrote this.

<Chuck> Editor's Draft Option 1) Are we ok putting Guidelines content in Editor's Draft, 2) Do we desire more time to review Guidelines content?

<laura> Will the section still be labeled Guidelines?

<alastairc> Laura - yes

<bruce_bailey4> 1 okay with content

<alastairc> 1

<rscano> 1

<mike_beganyi> 1

<Chuck> 1

<jeanne> 1

<ben_tillyer> 1

<kirkwood> 1

<maryjom> 1

<Azlan> 1

<Makoto> 1

<julierawe> 1

1

<GreggVan> 1

<giacomo-petri8> 1

<Frankie> 1

<laura> 1

<sohara> 1

RESOLUTION: Put Guidelines content in Editor's Draft following our standard procedures.

<bruce_bailey4> i do concur that lower-case guideline is confusable with capital G Guidelines as in WCAG

After making updates discussed in meeting

<bruce_bailey4> but that's the same as with 2.x

<OliverH> thanks for clarifying!

<alastairc> For new starters - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Maturity_Labeling_Process

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say we can talk about the Guidelines section withouth naming the individual phrases as guidelines.

+1

<mike_beganyi> GreggVan: We can talk about the Guidelines section without labelling it as such.

<Chuck> Draft RESOLUTION: Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft.

<mike_beganyi> julierawe: Question about Call for Consensus (CFC). What kind of feedback are we looking for on this CFC?

<alastairc> The CFC is for us (the group) to agree to put it out to the public. The messaging for the public is at the top of the section: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag3/b29ac08425ea896f57b9e6054253309f768f9fb6/guidelines/index.html#issue-container-generatedID

<alastairc> (And blog post etc)

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: CFC is for us to put this out to the public as part of the public update. Making clear that this is early and exploratory. Purpose is to find gaps in what we're proposing and provide opportunity to refute and discuss.

<mike_beganyi> GreggVan: We might note that the ordinary process is experimental and we would name the list as experimental as we're looking for high-level opinion on what's missing.

<alastairc> The concerns are very broad, and apply across all of them!

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: If there are additional sentences that we need to clarify, it would be great to have suggested wording to make those concerns clear.

<Chuck> Draft RESOLUTION: Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft.

<Chuck> Draft RESOLUTION: Agree to have a Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft.

<mike_beganyi> GreggVan: Pass it on to Chairs to change Editor's Note so we don't need to come back to incorporate language so we can move forward with call to move it out

<Chuck> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to have a Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft, with amendments to the editors note.

<mike_beganyi> Rachael: Yes, if proposed wording is sent to Chairs we would consider and move it out without further review. We have been working through the Scratchpads and noting which areas need additional research.

Draft RESOLUTION: Agree to have a Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft with ammendements to editors note, additional research markings, and other changes discussed in meeting.

<Chuck> draft RESOLUTION: Agree to have a Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft, with amendments to the editors note.

<alastairc> +1

<laura> +1

<jeanne> +1

+1

<mike_beganyi> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Azlan> +1

<kirkwood> nature of changes?

<Frankie> +1

<Jennie_Delisi> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<rscano> +1

<bruce_bailey4> +1

<Makoto> +1

<sohara> 0

<ben_tillyer> +1

<mike_beganyi> kirkwood: Would be helpful to know what the changes will encompass for context

<tburtin> +1

<Jen_G> +1

<mike_beganyi> alastairc: Just an addition to the Editor's Note. What we're generally agreeing to is the addition of this editor's note and the guidelines underneath including minor updates from today

<mike_beganyi> GreggVan: [summarizes note]

<ben_tillyer> I don’t like “all possible”

Draft RESOLUTION: Agree to have a Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft with additional wording to editors note about concerns not being on specific items, additional research markings, and minor updates discussed in meeting.

<giacomo-petri8> 0

<Chuck> bye Kevin

Draft RESOLUTION: Agree to have a Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft with additional wording to editors note about editor's note not being on specific items, additional research markings, removing the word "guidelines", and minor updates discussed in meeting.

<kirkwood> +1 to incorporate editors notes with minor updates including input from field

<MJ> +1

<rscano> +1

<mike_beganyi> +1

<Frankie> +1

RESOLUTION: Agree to have a Call for Consensus to move Guidelines content to Working Draft with additional wording to editors note about editor's note not being on specific items, additional research markings, removing the word "guidelines", and minor updates discussed in meeting.

<mike_beganyi> julierawe: Searching for word "lists" and it's just a link next to it. Missing full definition

<bruce_bailey4> scribe+

Text Alternatives

<bruce_bailey4> Chuck: we use link and screen share

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit#heading=h.cu8l0ohk9n2q

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: Draft is updated from previous call and discusion.

<bruce_bailey4> Chuck: asks for recap

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: This is following up from smaller working groups , in parallel we will have to talk about conformance model , but trying to write this agnostically to conforrmanc.e

<bruce_bailey4> ... This is one of 8 outcomes which we are focused on, and primarily comes from text alternative working group...

<bruce_bailey4> ... The decision tree (for each document section) is updated , and results in importance or type of image.

<bruce_bailey4> ... In particular we are looking for feedback on that section, as to if there are gaps.

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: Below that is methods or test procedures which would address the minimal conformance level, bronze...

<bruce_bailey4> ... for Purely Decorative, we have another set of test methods.

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: We also have a silver/gold example, where an assertion is included, a Style Guide in the example.

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: After that are a few definitions.

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: I want to give an overview and ask if there are more things we could add to distinguish between medium and complex.

<bruce_bailey4> Chuck: I do not have a description to add, but for example is a photo at dog training school, the photo being significant but conveying a feeling more than something funtional.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask what the difference in method would be?

<bruce_bailey4> John Kirkwood: I see a disconnect between what we have for medium and the expectations under the ADA.

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: Chair hat off , but this is difficulty we are at. Images which are important but would not prevent one getting through a text.

<Chuck> acl ,b

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that getting the author to indicate what they consider an important image is going to be more consistent than people agreeing on what "equivalent" is

<bruce_bailey4> ... Would a null alt be allowed on Medium Important image?

<bruce_bailey4> mbgower: For a long time now, getting the author to indicate what they consider an important image is going to be more consistent than people agreeing on what "equivalent" is

<kirkwood> +1 to MG

<bruce_bailey4> ... This weighing might help AI to fill in and for an end user to indicate their preference...

<bruce_bailey4> ... This is long standing problem, as to how much description to provide or if null is permissible....

<bruce_bailey4> ... adjudicating use of null alt is controversial and we have not reached agreement. I submit that "important" or not is even more subjective.

<kirkwood> better too much than too little

<bruce_bailey4> GreggVan: I offer the example with captioning. How much detail is needed? What if live and verbose captioning can not keep up with the verbatim?

<alastairc> kirkwood - I've had very mixed feedback on that from usability testing, some people get very aggravated by verbose alt text.

<bruce_bailey4> ... You cannot win because what counts as "good alt" because there will not be consensus. We also know authors have a poor track record with making the choices for the end users....

<mbgower> I believe that this decision tree supports an assessment by authors of importance, but also works with current patterns of pursuring "an equivalent". It's a nice interim balance.

<bruce_bailey4> ... With alt we ended up just allowing for present / not present. That was the best we could do. With AI, that compromise might not be necessary...

<bruce_bailey4> ... end user might answer a series of questions to get as much description as they like.

<bruce_bailey4> Chuck: +1 to Mike Gower comment [few lines above]

<kirkwood> author knows the editorial reason for the image. AI does not

<bruce_bailey4> Chuck: chair hat off , conventical use of null alt on large images , not wrong , but could allow author still to make that catagorization.

<bruce_bailey4> giacomo-petri8: +1 to M Gower and to Gregg. Medium scenerio could even include images involved with task...

<bruce_bailey4> ... images for controls we know what to do. But for decorative, how could tester determine intent of author?

<kirkwood> should author intent be surfaced?

<bruce_bailey4> ben_tillyer: +1 to giacomo as discussion with author can be a debate....

<bruce_bailey4> ... I think we new addition html attribute or ARIA element to identify the intention of the authors...

<laura> +1 to new adding terms. One person's eye candy is another person’s emotional connection to a website. Whether you listen to an image or see it, emotional response can be a key factor.

<kirkwood> image-intent

<bruce_bailey4> ... Example was pet sitting service, and if a stock image was use, text alternative might be the keywords the designer used to find the image.

<bruce_bailey4> ... future AI might be able to pick up on that, and the context of the image as well.

<Jennie_Delisi> Adding to laura's point: images sometimes convey aspects used to evaluate a potential vendor. Example: are their images including aspects of diversity?

<bruce_bailey4> giacomo-petri8: From a developer point of view, would be really difficult to codify. Pet setting example has "feeling" so how would that be captured....

<bruce_bailey4> ... asking the author to provide key words turning up the image is not going to be productive and is a big ask for a company.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on author intent, and whether to put medium at the next level? Silver.

<bruce_bailey4> ... I am not sure this will address the needs of the user.

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: As far as author intent, and whether to put medium at the next level? Silver. We have something of a test script.

<Jennie_Delisi> * Apologies - have to drop. If any of my comments in the document come up for discussion, I am ok if the group decides they are not needed. Just suggestions.

<bruce_bailey4> ... WRT to GreggV and future compatible way to facilitate AI interpretation, it is too soon for WCAG.

<giacomo-petri8> :D

<bruce_bailey4> ... I do wonder if there are levels of this. At bronze level, use current default methods....

<Chuck> +1 moving it up a level

<bruce_bailey4> ... For medium, could be some convention for more description being available.

<alastairc> We are aiming for some aspirational aspects in WCAG 3 as well...

<bruce_bailey4> GreggV: We have trouble getting authors to provide alt at all. Authors are not following decision tree. Authors might not even know.

<ben_tillyer> and we should define standards around that? Hmm…

<bruce_bailey4> ... they do thing the way they have. Asking them intent of a particular image? It just the way we have done things....

<bruce_bailey4> ... I would rather we encourage authors to work on cognative a11y and not at opportunity cost of alt decision tree....

<bruce_bailey4> ... We can just ask question, Is it decorative? Stop there and let the end user use AI to get more detail than that...

<bruce_bailey4> ... same could happen with a chart. The end user might iterate with an AI on the detail in chart. Digging in or going to next part of content.

<alastairc> both...

<bruce_bailey4> John Toles: Or we trying to address the web as it is now or what might be available in near future? I don't think we should be looking 2-3 years out.

<alastairc> jtoles - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024AprJun/0043.html

<kirkwood> +1 to Dan

<giacomo-petri8> +1

<bruce_bailey4> dan_bjorge: I have concerns for important VS medium. That seems more problematic that what happens now....

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on product teams asking for help on alt-text

<bruce_bailey4> ... Questions after Medium and Important seem like they result in fundamentally the same thing.

<bruce_bailey4> alastairc: I want to push back on the idea we are making things too complicated for authors...

<bruce_bailey4> ... I had a recent training where this question came up about text equivalents for back ground images.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that this is useful "Mark as important if removing the image would substantially change the meaning of the view/page or impact task-completion."

+1 to keeping this binary at this point (decorative and not decorative)

<bruce_bailey4> ... I don't that we have the best phrasing, but I do think that could go into Silver / Bronze level of conformance.

<bruce_bailey4> mbgower: this is useful "Mark as important if removing the image would substantially change the meaning of the view/page or impact task-completion

<kirkwood> missing a key word “equivalent”

<bruce_bailey4> ... the process we have now works well for decorative or not -- Does the page lose functionality if the image is lost?

<kirkwood> +1 to MG

<bruce_bailey4> mbgower: We have request from coga to mark up relative importance of EVERYTHING. Images are not a special case.

<bruce_bailey4> ... I think we can start with just decorative / important distinction. There is value in getting to coga request to identify important content.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say this "medium" fits in a higher level..

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- I suggest we jump off of this one for now and focus on other provisions. WCAG 3 will take a bunch of years to complete and we should revisit this

<bruce_bailey4> Chuck: I would like to shift conversation to minimal essential versus doing better than that.

<mbgower> BTW, IBM generated a tool that automatically applied ALT text to all images over 5 years ago. it is completely doable by an AT/plug in now, and could give users a good ability to adjust their granularity.

<scribe> scribe: Rachael

<Chuck> scribe+ Chuck

<bruce_bailey> scribe+

sahara: We can discuss images as being decorative or not but html does have a third condition. It is an image with no alt text when created. Possibly not known. Then others have to figure it out.

<bruce_bailey> sohara: would be nice if ack of in-between state..

<bruce_bailey> ... images could be important but there is not descriptive text...

sahara: it would be nice if there was an acknowledgment of this in between state where an image is important and there is no alt text. HTML recommends that an image without alt means the image is important but no alt was available at publishing. Nice to acknowledge. Not force developers to mark images that are important as decorative.

<bruce_bailey> ... it would be nice to have null alt take this as that signal....

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that we are using a provision we know well to test out our process

<ben_tillyer> +1 to Scott

<bruce_bailey> ... at present authors just use alt="" to get through automated a11y scan.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on next steps for this outcome

<GreggVan> got it

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Reason to use ALT now is to use a requirement we are familiar with to test our structure.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: The point of the decision tree is to guide authors to methods....

<bruce_bailey> ... Please look at test procedures, they should be working regardless of medium importance.

<bruce_bailey> ... We could just use decorative / important.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: I want to reiterate Dan's point that meta data (importance) might be a separate outcome.

<Chuck> +1 to Graham

<bruce_bailey> Graham: I feel like authoring intent is productive. Authors intent is not relevant. With our pet sitting example, So what if I am impressed with photo?

<bruce_bailey> ... No matter what, it should be on the author because they have to provide hook for AT...

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to summarize where I think we are: remove "medium" at this time.

<bruce_bailey> ... If site is generating ALT on the server side -- that still could be used to meet requirement.

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: I am hearing the recommendation to move off the medium / important discussion.

<kirkwood> the baseline standard for image: equivalent experience (without undue burden on author) US law

<bruce_bailey> giacomo-petri8: The text alternative might be dynamic or even so based on context (photo of scale) then content changes it meaning and the author has to be source of that.

<bruce_bailey> dan_bjorge askes for clarity on how detailed feedback should be at this point?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the decorative icons example

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Edge cases are an interesting question, but have we covered at least as much as we have under 2.2?

<bruce_bailey> ... The key thing is -- Do we have a test procedure? Does each test procedure have enough detail?

<bruce_bailey> ... Take a look at what we have around "icon" as to deciding if text alternative is suffient.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say there are two take aways I'd like to leave folks with: most content on a page has a relative importance by its nature/role except images; if no images

<bruce_bailey> ... If an end-user has a tool to drill into images, alt="" could trigger that. AI would be used for those regardless.

<bruce_bailey> mbgower: I think focusing on importance will be productive...

<bruce_bailey> ... buttons and anything interactive will be important, by definition. Importance of images may be a foothold into this conversation...

<bruce_bailey> ... Some of this is status quo as with missing alt.

<kirkwood> this space is intentionally left blank

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Looking for people to poke holes, turn this into a PR. Do we have enough methods

<bruce_bailey> RRSagent draft minutes

<ben_tillyer> Thanks all

<MJ> Thank you!

<rscano> thanks a lot!

<bruce_bailey> Chuck adjourns

<Graham> thanks all, have a great week.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/reiterate Dan's point that we might just make use of meta data./reiterate Dan's point that meta data (importance) might be a separate outcome./
Default Present: kevin, rscano, Frankie, GreggVan, Jennie_Delisi, giacomo-petri, Justine, bruce_bailey, mike_beganyi, ben_tillyer, shadi, Kimberly, alastairc, Azlan, AlinaV, Makoto, julierawe, Gez, kirkwood, Jen_G, tburtin, Laura_Carlson, jtoles, HaTheo, Graham, Francis_Storr, MJ
Present: kevin, rscano, Frankie, GreggVan, Jennie_Delisi, giacomo-petri, Justine, bruce_bailey, mike_beganyi, ben_tillyer, shadi, Kimberly, alastairc, Azlan, AlinaV, Makoto, julierawe, Gez, kirkwood, Jen_G, tburtin, Laura_Carlson, jtoles, HaTheo, Graham, Francis_Storr, MJ, giacomo-petri8, bruce_bailey4, mbgower
Regrets: Jake Abma, DJ Chase, Sarah Horton, AvonK
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)