IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-07-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:07:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
20:07:48 [wendy]
zakim, mute Bengt
20:07:48 [Zakim]
Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:07:54 [wendy]
zakim, mute Loretta
20:07:54 [Zakim]
Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted
20:07:56 [nabe]
ok david. :-)
20:08:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q?
20:08:42 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta
20:08:43 [wendy]
Meeting: WCAG WG
20:08:49 [wendy]
Chair: Gregg Vanderheiden
20:08:56 [wendy]
Scribe: Wendy Chisholm
20:09:14 [sh1mmer]
Zakim, who's making noise?
20:09:24 [Zakim]
sh1mmer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Takayuki (6%), Yvette_Hoitink (4%), Gregg_and_Ben (30%), Kerstin (25%), Mike_Barta (100%), Wendy (25%)
20:09:44 [wendy]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0173.html
20:09:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
20:09:54 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:10:08 [wendy]
Topic: text for conformance section
20:10:45 [wendy]
gv from discussion, though 'authored unit' could contain other authored units.
20:11:40 [wendy]
pb how small can an authored unit be?
20:11:59 [wendy]
jason's comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0129.html
20:12:38 [wendy]
pb that could lead to multiple conformance claims per page
20:13:02 [wendy]
ack mike
20:13:23 [wendy]
mb multiple conformance claims per page should not be made, since page itself is an authored unit.
20:13:48 [wendy]
mb while diff areas of page may have a claim, those are aggregated for a claim for the page
20:14:14 [wendy]
gv it might be possible that someone could post a page which does not have a claim, although parts of the page could have claism.
20:14:39 [wendy]
gv perhaps say "composed of pieces from other authors" clarify that can't make claim on pieces of page w/out other parts.
20:14:46 [wendy]
mb perhaps need to clarify "authored unit"
20:14:52 [wendy]
mb it is "whatever you authored"
20:15:15 [wendy]
mb if a page, then that is what you authored.
20:15:18 [wendy]
q?
20:15:24 [wendy]
ack jason
20:15:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+
20:15:39 [wendy]
jw there are problems with concept of authored unit.
20:15:47 [wendy]
jw the defn from the diwg glossary doesn't address them.
20:16:07 [wendy]
jw it fails to specify what is or is not covered in an authored unit.
20:16:24 [wendy]
jw a uri is not sufficient to identify the unit
20:17:10 [gregg]
q+
20:17:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q-
20:17:28 [wendy]
jw authored unit does not clarify what the scope of the claim is
20:17:43 [wendy]
ack loretta
20:18:09 [wendy]
lgr since a claim is for a uri, can you have a uri for part of a page?
20:18:14 [sh1mmer]
yes
20:18:14 [wendy]
gv can have a uri for a graphic on the page
20:18:42 [wendy]
q+ to ask, "jw to you disagree with the concept? if not, then let's adopt and ask for comment in the draft"
20:19:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
20:19:00 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:19:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
20:19:17 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:19:20 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
20:19:22 [wendy]
ack gregg
20:19:24 [Zakim]
-Mike_Barta
20:19:52 [wendy]
gv what examples illustrat ambiguity of 'authored unit?"
20:19:57 [Zakim]
+James_Craig
20:20:02 [wendy]
jw uris are clear. but it is unclear what is covered by the 'unit'
20:20:27 [sh1mmer]
that isn't a uri
20:20:44 [wendy]
jw examples: uri where there are diff versions of the content (depends on the delivery context). does the authored unit include all of the versions retrieved by one uri?
20:20:53 [cookiecrook]
zakim, i am James_Craig
20:20:53 [Zakim]
ok, cookiecrook, I now associate you with James_Craig
20:21:13 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:21:35 [wendy]
jw the uri of an html web page has several resources associated with it (style sheets, images, etc). which are retrieved separately.
20:22:17 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
20:22:30 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (10%), Paul_Bohman (40%), Gregg_and_Ben (4%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (4%)
20:22:36 [wendy]
zakim, mute Paul
20:22:36 [Zakim]
Paul_Bohman should now be muted
20:23:17 [wendy]
[Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:23:21 [wendy]
zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta
20:23:21 [Zakim]
+Mike_Barta; got it
20:23:38 [wendy]
ack Mike
20:23:46 [wendy]
q- [Microsoft]
20:24:06 [wendy]
mb is an individual portion of the page addressable, you can use a # to set focus there, but when you get that uri, you get the whole page.
20:25:33 [wendy]
mb if you have uri?gimmeflash (that is not accessible) can not make a claim.
20:25:56 [wendy]
mb since passing arguments, makes it a different uri
20:26:30 [wendy]
tc urls are not equivalent to uris.
20:26:38 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "We have no guidelines about supplying inaccessible alternatives as non-default"
20:26:39 [wendy]
tc if have a url that includes content negotiation, that is not a uri.
20:26:46 [wendy]
tc there are specific defns of when a url is a uri.
20:26:58 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:26:58 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to ask, "jw to you disagree with the concept? if not, then let's adopt and ask for comment in the draft"
20:27:31 [gregg]
q+
20:27:44 [wendy]
wac include ednotes re: authored unit, but move forward w/next draft.
20:27:48 [wendy]
ack tom
20:27:48 [ben]
ack Tom
20:28:11 [wendy]
tc get clarification on when uri is url and how relates to web resources. other than that, mostly clarification rather than invalid point.
20:28:16 [wendy]
ack yvette
20:28:18 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "We have no guidelines about supplying inaccessible alternatives as non-default"
20:28:39 [wendy]
yh "default has to be accessible..." we don't have any SC related to that.
20:28:56 [wendy]
ack gregg
20:29:40 [wendy]
ack jason
20:29:44 [wendy]
q+ gv
20:30:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "why not use 'web content' for the time being?"
20:30:29 [wendy]
jw content negotiation example is a problem. if a UA accesses a resource and gets a diff version, via protocol negotiation, then seriously problematic.
20:31:15 [wendy]
jw objecting to anything that would exclude b/c some versions can be retrieved via content negotiation.
20:31:26 [wendy]
q+ to say, "propose that we include jason's point as an ednote"
20:32:01 [wendy]
jw at moment, ednote would be reasonable, but should revisit.
20:32:20 [wendy]
jw don't want consensus that we'll use the concept b/c could be serious problems.
20:32:46 [wendy]
gv propose we say, "the uri of whose default authored unit..."
20:33:19 [wendy]
gv then add editor's note that says, "when the authored units generates multiple resources the default is the one that meets it"
20:33:57 [wendy]
ack yvette
20:33:57 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "why not use 'web content' for the time being?"
20:34:17 [wendy]
yh if "authored unit" is too narrow or has an issue
20:34:35 [wendy]
gv "the uri of the web content..." then "authored unit being considered.."
20:34:53 [wendy]
ack mike
20:35:04 [wendy]
mb 'authored unit' has meaning that 'web content' does not.
20:35:20 [wendy]
mb 'web content' only makes sense when dealing with some dynamic content.
20:36:03 [wendy]
mb if meta-negotiation results in inaccessible page, then url+args always results in conformance claim is true.
20:36:32 [wendy]
jw yes, that would need to be the case or we've excluded accessible server-side techniques.
20:36:41 [wendy]
mb way to annotate, "this is the scheme i'm using"
20:36:50 [wendy]
jw that would be a scope claim
20:36:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
20:36:54 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:37:19 [wendy]
jw better to get rid of the concept and have the scope of the claim specified in the conformance claim
20:37:48 [wendy]
ack wendy
20:37:48 [Zakim]
wendy, you wanted to say, "propose that we include jason's point as an ednote"
20:41:25 [wendy]
wac we don't have anything about content negotiation, text-only pages, and the "after best efforts.." ala WCAG 1.0
20:45:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "Best effort of owner of website to make community contributed content is providing ATAG tools"
20:45:34 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
20:45:34 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:47:03 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:47:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q-
20:47:14 [sh1mmer]
ack gv
20:47:16 [sh1mmer]
ack jason
20:47:25 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:47:56 [wendy]
resolution: we'll use the term authored unit w/a note that says
20:49:03 [MichaelC]
:)
20:49:15 [Zakim]
+Michael_Cooper
20:50:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
20:50:01 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:52:09 [wendy]
Topic: Issue #322 - Requirement for full text script of all movies?
20:52:19 [MichaelC]
zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
20:52:19 [Zakim]
ok, MichaelC, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
20:52:23 [MichaelC]
zakim, mute me
20:52:23 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper should now be muted
20:52:56 [wendy]
include at all? move to 1.2?
20:53:23 [sh1mmer]
q+
20:53:26 [sh1mmer]
ack Tom
20:53:49 [wendy]
tc don't think a full transcript has been done very often
20:55:28 [wendy]
gv want a place for items that we don't want to lose, but if have at level 3 - how many people will do?
20:56:23 [wendy]
ack jason
20:56:24 [wendy]
ack mike
20:56:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html"
20:56:43 [wendy]
jw if a screenplay exists, then it is satisfied. disagree that it isn't done...just not put online regularly.
20:57:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
20:57:35 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
20:57:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
20:57:46 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:01:50 [ben]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0844.html
21:02:37 [wendy]
ack yvette
21:02:37 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html"
21:02:43 [wendy]
yh please translate
21:02:49 [wendy]
"For multimedia where link or invocation is non-text, text alternatives
21:02:49 [wendy]
identify the multimedia and multimedia alternatives are provided per
21:02:49 [wendy]
Guideline 1.2.
21:03:15 [wendy]
For multimedia where the link or invocation is non-text, text alternatives identify the multimedia and multimedia alternatives are provided per Guideline 1.2.
21:03:25 [wendy]
ensuring that multimedia does not fall into this guideline
21:03:54 [gregg]
For multimedia where link or invocation is non-text, text alternatives
21:03:54 [gregg]
identify the multimedia and multimedia alternatives are provided per
21:03:54 [gregg]
Guideline 1.2.
21:04:06 [wendy]
yh interpret this as, "is the link itself is an image, i don'thave to give an alt-text, but do for the media"
21:05:24 [wendy]
yh "if you have multimedia, you have to identify it (at level 1). The rest is covered under 1.2"
21:05:41 [gregg]
d. Multimedia alternatives are provided per Guideline 1.2 For multimedia where link or invocation is non-text a text alternatives identifying the multimedia is provided as per above provisions.
21:05:57 [David_MacDonald]
take me off queue thanks
21:06:07 [wendy]
david, you can type "q-"
21:06:09 [gregg]
d. Multimedia alternatives are provided per Guideline 1.2 For multimedia where the link or invocation is non-text a text alternatives identifying the multimedia is provided as per above provisions.
21:06:17 [David_MacDonald]
q-
21:06:20 [wendy]
:)
21:06:39 [wendy]
it didn't associate your irc nick w/your phone id
21:06:49 [wendy]
therefore, type, "q- david"
21:07:00 [David_MacDonald]
q- david
21:07:12 [bengt]
or do zakim, I am Da........
21:07:22 [wendy]
gv leave it as "multimedia included under 1.2"
21:07:32 [gregg]
d. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to Guideline 1.2
21:07:36 [wendy]
jw agree. it should say something that there is an explicit exclusion from 1.1
21:07:55 [wendy]
yh 1.2 only deals w/synchronized multimedia
21:09:08 [wendy]
wac text of 1.2 is "provide synchronized..."
21:09:23 [wendy]
jw if add level 3 requirement, then full script will not be synchronized.
21:10:18 [wendy]
bc this rewrite on 1.1 dependent on rewrite of 1.2 that isn't ready for this draft
21:10:39 [wendy]
wac then put an ednote in 1.2 that says moving "collated text transcript to this guideline after rewritten"
21:11:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q_
21:11:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+
21:12:01 [wendy]
ack yvette
21:12:37 [wendy]
zakim, who's making noise?
21:12:39 [wendy]
i hear echo
21:12:50 [Zakim]
wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David (24%), Takayuki (8%), Gregg_and_Ben (48%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (18%), JasonWhite (17%)
21:12:59 [Zakim]
-Avi
21:13:12 [wendy]
zakim, mute Jason
21:13:12 [Zakim]
JasonWhite should now be muted
21:13:19 [wendy]
zakim, unmute jason
21:13:19 [Zakim]
JasonWhite should no longer be muted
21:13:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:13:57 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
21:14:06 [wendy]
proposal: d. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to Guideline 1.2
21:14:12 [wendy]
accepted
21:14:28 [wendy]
gv leave text equiv where is or move it or delete it?
21:14:54 [wendy]
resolution: leave it for this draft
21:15:27 [wendy]
Topic: Issue #832 Clear link text, etc.
21:15:33 [wendy]
Goal: Decide whether the proposal resulting from the July 1, 2004 telecon
21:15:33 [wendy]
should be included in the next draft. If yes, at which level?
21:15:33 [wendy]
Proposal and list discussion:
21:15:33 [wendy]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0017.html>
21:15:57 [wendy]
"The destination of each link is identified through words or phrases that either occur in the link or can be programmatically determined."
21:16:02 [MichaelC]
q+
21:16:28 [wendy]
ack mic
21:16:29 [MichaelC]
ack Micahel
21:16:45 [wendy]
mc support the wording. support level 2 instead of level 3
21:16:48 [David_MacDonald]
I agree
21:16:50 [wendy]
ack jason
21:16:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
I agree
21:17:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q-
21:17:10 [wendy]
jw links shouldn't be singled out in this way. should be more general about all user interface components
21:17:13 [gregg]
q+
21:17:20 [wendy]
jw links, form fields, etc.
21:17:54 [David_MacDonald]
zakim I am david
21:18:05 [bengt]
needs a comma
21:18:14 [wendy]
gv worry abuot it being level 2
21:18:19 [David_MacDonald]
zakim, I am david
21:18:19 [Zakim]
ok, David_MacDonald, I now associate you with David
21:18:50 [bengt]
zakim, who are on the phone ?
21:18:50 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, bengt.
21:18:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, who's on the phone?
21:18:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Tom (muted), David, Matt, Takayuki, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Paul_Bohman (muted), Sailesh_Panchang, Gregg_and_Ben, Bengt_Farre (muted), JasonWhite, Wendy,
21:19:02 [Zakim]
... Kerstin, Becky_Gibson, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Mike_Barta, James_Craig, Michael_Cooper
21:19:13 [MichaelC]
q+
21:19:24 [wendy]
ack mic
21:19:26 [gregg]
ack gregg
21:19:44 [wendy]
mc from list discussion, enough people seem to feel important enough that it is worth moving to level 2.
21:19:53 [gregg]
q+
21:20:08 [wendy]
mc w/the current wording, could be interpreted, "the link text could be whatevr and distinguished with 'title"
21:20:23 [wendy]
mc therefore, room for interpretation and less concern about interference w/design
21:20:36 [wendy]
gv do all links have title?
21:20:38 [wendy]
mc they can
21:20:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+
21:20:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q-
21:20:48 [wendy]
ack david
21:21:14 [wendy]
dmd agree w/michael. through sevreal phone conversations, heard from many people who supported this.
21:21:54 [wendy]
gv if someone has title of book and w/diff links that follow, if short link, more info could be in title.
21:22:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, mute me
21:22:27 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was already muted, Yvette_Hoitink
21:23:16 [ben]
q+
21:23:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+ to say "we already require standards"
21:24:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
21:24:13 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
21:24:33 [MichaelC]
q+
21:25:13 [MichaelC]
q-
21:25:51 [MichaelC]
q+ to say maybe we should put an ednote now about expecting technologies to support metadata for links - that's a PF/XAG issue that we can't answer in this call
21:27:01 [wendy]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/#title-element
21:27:26 [wendy]
gv any objection to use the current proposed wording at level 2 with a note that says, "debate about this be level 2 or 3"
21:28:54 [wendy]
jw should this exist as a separate item or subsumed into something else?
21:29:14 [wendy]
sp it should be a success criteria. who else thinks it should be p3?
21:30:39 [MichaelC]
ack gregg
21:30:41 [MichaelC]
ack ben
21:31:09 [wendy]
bc can live w/level 2. finding out where you land when you get there is enough of a burden to warrant authors doing something.
21:31:24 [MichaelC]
ack yvette
21:31:24 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "we already require standards"
21:31:59 [MichaelC]
ack michael
21:31:59 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say maybe we should put an ednote now about expecting technologies to support metadata for links - that's a PF/XAG issue that we can't answer in this
21:32:02 [Zakim]
... call
21:32:04 [wendy]
gv could use rdf to use alt-text for images and "no one in the world" would know how to find it
21:33:30 [wendy]
sp object - no question if it should be a criteria. we are only debating if level 2 or 3.
21:33:55 [wendy]
gv it's not that the group questions it, it is that someone questions it
21:34:45 [cookiecrook]
regrets... i have another meeting.
21:34:48 [Zakim]
-James_Craig
21:34:58 [cookiecrook]
cookiecrook has left #wai-wcag
21:35:29 [wendy]
resolved: level 2 w/ednote
21:35:38 [wendy]
Topic: Linking to techniques from guidelines
21:35:43 [wendy]
Goal: For our next public draft, we'd like to begin linking to the
21:35:43 [wendy]
techniques drafts. A proposal for how this could be done is available
21:35:43 [wendy]
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option5> and we'd
21:35:43 [wendy]
like to settle on an approach for including these links as the gateway and
21:35:43 [wendy]
supporting techniques drafts become available.
21:36:35 [wendy]
gv there is a link after each success criterion
21:36:40 [Yvette_Hoitink]
wendy, you didn't cover that last point of the ednote that there is a question that this SC it too specific
21:36:53 [wendy]
yvette: ben has the text for the ednote
21:37:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
ok!
21:37:24 [MichaelC]
q+ to say I think we should put in the proposed method of linking to techniques for this draft
21:37:26 [wendy]
ack david
21:37:47 [ben]
q+
21:38:43 [gregg]
q+
21:39:04 [David_MacDonald]
I would like to be involved in the design process with the committee ...thanks
21:40:27 [wendy]
wac summarizes some of the discussion from the f2f and that this draft is mostly to show the existing pieces and that a final design still needs to evolve.
21:40:49 [wendy]
wac a prototype is emerging from discussions at f2f. should be available soon.
21:41:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
zakim, unmute me
21:41:09 [Zakim]
Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink
21:41:14 [Zakim]
-Paul_Bohman
21:41:18 [wendy]
sp concerned about length of link text
21:41:42 [wendy]
gv they are in the normative sections
21:41:52 [wendy]
gv somehow they need to be attached in such a way that they are not normative
21:42:10 [wendy]
dmd had prototype with diff colored box
21:42:32 [wendy]
gv propose that editors experiment with linking. anyone speak against?
21:42:50 [wendy]
yh dont want to speak experiment, but don't want a public draft that has diff style for each SC or guideline.
21:43:05 [wendy]
s/speak experiment/speak against experiment
21:43:21 [wendy]
gv what if only do for a few guidelines?
21:43:23 [wendy]
gv ok
21:43:27 [wendy]
s/gv ok/yh ok
21:43:28 [David_MacDonald]
http://www.eramp.com/david/links-from-wcag3e.html
21:43:29 [Zakim]
-Tom
21:43:57 [wendy]
mc agree w/yvette - shouldn't be too experimental, but the editors should be able to put in a placeholder.
21:44:12 [MichaelC]
ack michael
21:44:12 [Zakim]
Michael_Cooper, you wanted to say I think we should put in the proposed method of linking to techniques for this draft
21:44:12 [wendy]
mc we're working out details for later. for now, let's do something now that is consistent.
21:44:15 [wendy]
ack ben
21:44:32 [wendy]
bc proposals will be forthcoming, just wanted to get a sense of links from guidelines
21:45:57 [wendy]
plan: put the whole draft together and ask for review
21:46:56 [wendy]
aiming for publication on 30 july
21:46:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
q+
21:47:56 [MattSEA]
q+
21:47:59 [wendy]
Topic: variety of level 3 items
21:48:09 [MattSEA]
q-
21:48:11 [MattSEA]
+1
21:48:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html
21:48:18 [wendy]
yh a while ago published review of the diff categories of level 3 items. think we should discuss in the future.
21:48:43 [wendy]
ben creates an issue
21:49:46 [Zakim]
-Mike_Barta
21:49:47 [Zakim]
-Michael_Cooper
21:49:47 [Zakim]
-Yvette_Hoitink
21:49:48 [Zakim]
-Wendy
21:49:49 [Zakim]
-Kerstin
21:49:50 [Zakim]
-Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:49:50 [Zakim]
-Becky_Gibson
21:49:51 [Zakim]
-Gregg_and_Ben
21:49:53 [Zakim]
-Bengt_Farre
21:49:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
:-)
21:49:55 [Zakim]
-Sailesh_Panchang
21:49:57 [Zakim]
-Matt
21:49:59 [Zakim]
-JasonWhite
21:50:01 [Zakim]
-David
21:50:03 [Zakim]
-Takayuki
21:50:05 [Zakim]
WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:50:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were Matt, Paul_Bohman, Tom, Takayuki, David, Sailesh_Panchang, Avi, Gregg_and_Ben, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Becky_Gibson, Yvette_Hoitink, Kerstin,
21:50:10 [Zakim]
... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Mike_Barta, James_Craig, Michael_Cooper
21:50:52 [nabe]
nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:51:11 [wendy]
zakim, bye
21:51:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:51:16 [wendy]
RRSagent, make log world
21:51:19 [bengt]
bengt has left #wai-wcag
21:51:32 [wendy]
RRSAgent, bye
21:51:32 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items