IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-11-17
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:58:05 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:00:10 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:00:32 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has now started
- 15:00:38 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 15:00:52 [Zakim]
- +Don_Evans
- 15:00:55 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 15:00:56 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 15:01:29 [bcaldwell]
- bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:01:36 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 15:01:56 [Zakim]
- +Tim_Boland
- 15:02:34 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 15:02:40 [bcaldwell]
- zakim, ??P5 is Ben
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- +Ben; got it
- 15:02:41 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 15:02:51 [ben]
- zakim, I am Ben
- 15:02:51 [Zakim]
- ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben
- 15:03:54 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 15:04:07 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 15:04:19 [ken]
- ken has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:04:37 [wendy]
- wendy has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:04:45 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make long world
- 15:04:45 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'make long world', wendy. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 15:04:54 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper
- 15:05:02 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, make log world
- 15:05:05 [Michael]
- zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
- 15:05:05 [Zakim]
- ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
- 15:05:31 [Zakim]
- +Ken_Kipnes
- 15:06:28 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P3 may be David
- 15:06:28 [Zakim]
- +David?; got it
- 15:06:33 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P2 may be Alistair
- 15:06:33 [Zakim]
- +Alistair?; got it
- 15:06:39 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P6 may be Chris
- 15:06:39 [Zakim]
- +Chris?; got it
- 15:06:44 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 15:06:54 [DonFEvans]
- DonFEvans has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:07:00 [Michael]
- zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman
- 15:07:00 [Zakim]
- +Lisa_Seeman; got it
- 15:07:01 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman
- 15:07:01 [Zakim]
- I already had ??P9 as Lisa_Seeman, wendy
- 15:07:19 [AliG]
- AliG has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:07:51 [Becky]
- agenda: review techs drafts
- 15:08:05 [Becky]
- review test files and add bugzilla entries
- 15:09:14 [Becky]
- script techs - big issue is impact of baseline discussion
- 15:09:46 [Becky]
- added some baseline info at beginning but waiting for baseline editorial note (which arrived last night)
- 15:09:56 [Zakim]
- +??P11
- 15:10:08 [Michael]
- zakim, ??P11 is Alex_Li
- 15:10:08 [Zakim]
- +Alex_Li; got it
- 15:10:45 [Becky]
- still some todos - 2.1 javascript uris - has an ed note that still being discussed in WG
- 15:10:50 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html#Client-side
- 15:11:13 [Becky]
- link to javascript todos
- 15:11:33 [wendy]
- With this in mind, it is important to remember that certain common scripting practices are inaccessible, or less accessible than others. For example, UAAG 1.0 specifies programmatic access to the Document Object Model (DOM), including notification of updates. Therefore, the Javascript document.write() method would not be any more accessible, since it doesn't interact with the DOM; the...
- 15:11:34 [wendy]
- WCAG 2.0 depends on the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [UAAG10] to determine the standard for browsers and media players in terms of their direct accessibility and the formats that they support. Since UAAG 1.0 provides guidance on browser integration of scripting languages, we can ensure that script can be built in a manner that is accessible using conforming browsers.
- 15:11:36 [wendy]
- ...createElement method, and other DOM-related elements, are a more accessible solution.
- 15:13:40 [Becky]
- wc Jim lay reviewing JS, Gez Lemon reviewing CSS, Loretta G -reviewing HTML for typos and to make sure links work
- 15:14:00 [Becky]
- bc to post uri for baseline editorial notes
- 15:14:03 [ben]
- baseline ednote - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20041116/#baseline-note
- 15:15:00 [Becky]
- ls against creating new content via script; what happens to xpaths when add a new element?
- 15:15:37 [Becky]
- wc tech actually says to avoid document.write
- 15:16:21 [Becky]
- ls but example shows modifying the DOM tree - will this mess up any serverside transformations or technology cuz they don't know about those client side changes
- 15:17:22 [Becky]
- ls messes up checkers that test for simple language
- 15:18:05 [Becky]
- wc suggest we add an editorial comment for now because doesn't think we can ban this technique
- 15:18:37 [Zakim]
- -Lisa_Seeman
- 15:18:41 [Becky]
- ls rdf file is going to try and follow xpath but won't work if xpath is changed
- 15:19:08 [Becky]
- mc will add ed note and bugzilla entry - will that be ok for now?
- 15:19:15 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 15:19:46 [Michael]
- zakim, ??P9 is Lisa_Seeman
- 15:19:46 [Zakim]
- +Lisa_Seeman; got it
- 15:19:48 [David]
- David has joined #wai-wcag
- 15:20:17 [David]
- test am I in the Martix
- 15:20:17 [Becky]
- ls concerned that xpointers will be affected by this
- 15:20:38 [Becky]
- wc added ed note
- 15:21:02 [wendy]
- added ednote: Two issues have been raised with this example what happens to XSL on server-side and how does this effect XPointers (and RDF-based accessibility).
- 15:21:18 [Becky]
- mc any other script techs issues?
- 15:21:39 [Becky]
- silence - implies no issues
- 15:23:34 [Becky]
- group is reviewing baseline ed note
- 15:24:31 [Becky]
- wc - thought the example was going to be changed from toggling scripts on an off
- 15:24:45 [Becky]
- bc have gotten mixed feedback so was going to leave it
- 15:25:29 [Becky]
- wc do people feel this addresses the issues (esp those discussed at Face 2 Face)?
- 15:25:51 [Becky]
- ag thinks it is good
- 15:25:54 [Becky]
- mc looks good
- 15:26:11 [Becky]
- wc interested in getting feedback to can build off of this for intro in scripting techs
- 15:26:34 [Becky]
- wc talk about implications and how it relates to scripts
- 15:26:37 [ben]
- alternative example: For example, WCAG 2.0 would assume that user agents and assistive technologies can effectively interact with scripted content.
- 15:27:26 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 15:27:54 [Becky]
- bg prefers most recent example
- 15:28:11 [Becky]
- bc UUAG does specifically refer to toggling
- 15:28:43 [Becky]
- wc concerned that this ex. keeps us in the WCAG 1.0 mind frame rather than moving forward
- 15:29:44 [Becky]
- wc want to make it clear why we are pub. scripting now even tho it isn't complete but want to show we are going to include
- 15:30:00 [Becky]
- in long term - more than just css and html
- 15:30:36 [Becky]
- mc we are good on scripting techs and this baseline note
- 15:30:52 [Becky]
- mc let's look at css
- 15:30:57 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html#css-specific
- 15:31:25 [Becky]
- wc closed some issues and postponed some (see link above)
- 15:32:15 [Becky]
- wc issue #1200 what does user mean about terminating properties?
- 15:32:48 [Becky]
- mc suspect all properties must end with semicolon
- 15:32:59 [Becky]
- wc is that really an compatibility issue?
- 15:33:08 [Becky]
- bc might have to go back as far as IE 3
- 15:33:44 [Becky]
- wc was action item to provide links back to css spec for all techs; would like to make this a low priority
- 15:33:52 [Becky]
- group agrees we can live without cross link
- 15:34:12 [Becky]
- wc some don't link back to GL - would like that lo priority, too
- 15:34:24 [Becky]
- mc is this because they don't map or we just haven't done it
- 15:34:27 [Becky]
- wc a bit of both
- 15:34:57 [Becky]
- mc might be useful to put in an ed note mentioning that some are hard to map
- 15:35:24 [Becky]
- wc is there someone on the call that could review the doc to find these mappings?
- 15:35:39 [Becky]
- dm volunteers (YEAH)
- 15:36:12 [Becky]
- action: look at techs that don't map and propose mapping or indicate no mapping
- 15:37:32 [Becky]
- action 1 = David M to look at css techs and find techs that don't map to GL; propose mapping or indicate no mapping
- 15:37:47 [Becky]
- wc some techs have screen shots
- 15:38:19 [Becky]
- because of DTD the desc of images appear before the images themselves
- 15:38:41 [Becky]
- wc see absolute positioning tech in doc
- 15:38:44 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20041116/#absolute-positioning
- 15:39:54 [Becky]
- jc title seems odd - if I was looking to tech about absolute positioning wouldn't look under graceful degradation
- 15:40:40 [Becky]
- wc tech is about when structure markup is not used and abs pos is used - if css turned off you get junk
- 15:41:12 [Becky]
- js suggests, "absolute positioning based on structural markup"
- 15:41:40 [Becky]
- wc a bit funky because have description, code, then image - is that a problem?
- 15:41:53 [Becky]
- js would this be a problem for screen magnifiers?
- 15:42:16 [Becky]
- js probably not an issue for this draft - just watch for feedback
- 15:42:30 [Becky]
- al do we need to alert the reader?
- 15:42:49 [Becky]
- bc can we title it with perhaps "screen shots" before the images
- 15:43:04 [Becky]
- bc but can live with it for this draft, concurred by mc and js
- 15:43:42 [Becky]
- mc closing css techs
- 15:43:57 [Becky]
- bc no major changes to general techs
- 15:44:25 [Becky]
- js 2.4 changes won't get in?
- 15:44:32 [Becky]
- bc have they been sent to list?
- 15:44:45 [Becky]
- js no, didn't think we sent techs to the list
- 15:45:16 [Becky]
- mc generally do want to post to list since this is a public draft we don't want to bend that rule
- 15:45:30 [Becky]
- mc close gen techs move on to HTML
- 15:45:46 [Becky]
- mc Wendy has been doing most of work on HTML
- 15:45:50 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/WD-plan.html#HTML
- 15:46:43 [Becky]
- wc at last weeks meeting decided to create an appendix to include wcag 1.0 that we don't want to continue recommending
- 15:47:06 [Becky]
- wc should layout tables be moved to appendix? left it in techs doc but with an ed note
- 15:47:30 [Becky]
- wc did move techs that had an ed note stating these were specifically from wcag 1.0
- 15:47:37 [Becky]
- wc so moved about 5 techs
- 15:49:01 [Becky]
- dm tech says layout tables cause access. problems described below - is it the whole section?
- 15:49:11 [Becky]
- wc where is this?
- 15:49:22 [Becky]
- dm 8.0
- 15:50:02 [Becky]
- dm does "below" refer to all subsections of section 8?
- 15:50:37 [Becky]
- mc yes, does apply to whole section
- 15:51:02 [Becky]
- dm suggest clarification
- 15:51:35 [Becky]
- dm key access. groups are still designing with layout tables
- 15:51:49 [Becky]
- mc needs future discussion but decided to leave layout tables in main body
- 15:52:19 [Becky]
- bc repair techs are to deal with user agent issues and layout tables don't really fall in that category since most UAs deal with them
- 15:53:40 [Becky]
- ag will the priority for layout tables be at the same level as validating the code?
- 15:54:07 [Becky]
- ag if code validation is a P2 and layout tables is a P3 there wouldn't be this conflict
- 15:54:44 [Becky]
- ag in wcag 1.0 there are 2 chkpoints : 1 about validating code and another about layout tables - both are at same priority
- 15:55:07 [Becky]
- ag which is a conflict becuz if you validate the code you shouldn't be using layout tables
- 15:55:47 [Becky]
- ag all layout table techs are valid until the code is validated
- 15:56:02 [Becky]
- wc what do we need to do in this draft to address this issue?
- 15:56:52 [Becky]
- ag using tables for layout is not using markup according to spec
- 15:57:11 [Becky]
- ag issue relates to guidelines, not baseline
- 15:57:32 [Becky]
- mc do we need an additional ed note?
- 15:58:34 [Becky]
- wc propose ed note after description para that tables for layout are not part of HTML spec
- 15:59:01 [Becky]
- mc provide a cross ref to tech about doctype
- 15:59:10 [Becky]
- mc that speaks to the validation issus
- 15:59:44 [Becky]
- ls proposes an ed note to raise issue of using tags creatively
- 16:00:10 [Becky]
- ls for example using abbr tag with a title to describe an emoticon
- 16:00:34 [Becky]
- mc section 5 speaks about a number of instances of tags that are misused
- 16:00:35 [Zakim]
- -Tim_Boland
- 16:01:25 [Becky]
- ls refering to example that talks about ascii art and smiley face
- 16:01:33 [Becky]
- ag should use span rather than abbr in that example
- 16:01:42 [Becky]
- mc can we just change the example?
- 16:01:56 [Becky]
- mc and thus not require an ed note?
- 16:02:22 [Becky]
- mc we can change this example and then Lisa can review public draft for similar issues and submit
- 16:02:41 [Becky]
- mc any objections to changing that example from abbr to span?
- 16:02:51 [Becky]
- no objections from group
- 16:03:24 [Becky]
- ag no tech that covers the page should be usable when scripts are disabled
- 16:03:46 [Becky]
- mc not sure if that falls into JS techs and is affected by baseline issue
- 16:04:22 [Becky]
- ag we don't say insure that pages are usable when images are disabled
- 16:04:41 [Becky]
- mc this is implied by requiring alt text but maybe we should be more blunt
- 16:04:44 [Zakim]
- -Alex_Li
- 16:04:48 [Becky]
- js maybe this is a general tech
- 16:05:11 [Becky]
- ag make sure every tech can work in isolation by itself; for example if JS is disabled the HTML should still be usable
- 16:05:44 [Becky]
- mc this seems contrary to current attitude we have taken about baseline
- 16:06:02 [Becky]
- js this is part of ongoing disc. of baseline and the implications
- 16:06:34 [Becky]
- mc is there something we need to do in this draft or is this issue part of the ongoing discuss. of baseline
- 16:07:11 [Becky]
- wc Alistair has many good comments - perhaps best way to address is to submit commits so we can create issues
- 16:08:42 [Becky]
- mc Alistair will provide public feedback based on work he has done preparing his documents
- 16:09:07 [Becky]
- mc will put review of Alistair's docs on a futuer meeting agenda
- 16:09:33 [Becky]
- mc review of techs docs completed
- 16:09:47 [Becky]
- mc so they can be published as public drafts
- 16:10:56 [Becky]
- mc need to be strict on agenda when trying to get drafts out the door; don't mean to shut anyone down; just make sure we get the issues recorded to re visit in future
- 16:11:12 [Becky]
- 5 minute break
- 16:11:14 [ChrisR]
- initial tests: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0549.html
- 16:11:23 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 16:11:24 [Zakim]
- -David?
- 16:15:34 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 16:15:48 [Michael]
- zakim, ??P3 is David_MacDonald
- 16:15:48 [Zakim]
- +David_MacDonald; got it
- 16:17:14 [Becky]
- mc disussed list of tests posted to list on 9/12/04
- 16:17:37 [Becky]
- mc discuss test - if there are issues will create bugzilla entry rather than discussing today
- 16:18:15 [Becky]
- cr first test: img elem must have an alt attrib
- 16:19:03 [Becky]
- cr any disagreements?
- 16:19:38 [ben]
- q+
- 16:19:46 [Becky]
- cr no disagreements test accepted
- 16:19:48 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 16:20:22 [Becky]
- cr decorative images should have empty alt text and important images should not have empty alt text
- 16:20:25 [Becky]
- ag is that null?
- 16:20:37 [Becky]
- cr could be whitespace
- 16:20:45 [Becky]
- ag what is the reason for using space?
- 16:20:54 [Becky]
- cr could be empty or space?
- 16:21:17 [Becky]
- ag can we just say null
- 16:21:22 [Becky]
- cr meaning ""?
- 16:21:48 [Michael]
- ack ben
- 16:21:50 [Becky]
- mc sounds like a bugzilla entry
- 16:21:58 [Becky]
- bc want to review what we are agreeing on
- 16:22:22 [Becky]
- cr two steps: accepting a test then deciding what level
- 16:22:42 [Becky]
- bc need to clarify what we are accepting/reject
- 16:22:51 [Becky]
- js propose accept and reject
- 16:23:03 [Becky]
- js then if accept - required or optional
- 16:23:38 [Becky]
- cr idea of optional is new; assumed that all were required
- 16:24:04 [Becky]
- bc example alt text must be short - would not want to accept that as required
- 16:24:45 [Becky]
- cr if alt text is over a certain lenght - you must look at it and determine that it is as short as possible
- 16:25:09 [Becky]
- ag length issues are difficult with some European languages
- 16:25:25 [Becky]
- cr tests are English specific and will need to be modified for other lang.
- 16:25:45 [Becky]
- cr I think we have agreed that alt text should be short
- 16:25:57 [Becky]
- mc yes have agreed but can't agree on what is short
- 16:26:05 [Becky]
- cr can we agree that there should be a test for short?
- 16:26:30 [Becky]
- ag describe in single sentence
- 16:26:46 [Becky]
- js but sentence is not always most appropriate structure - don't always want a complete sentence
- 16:27:29 [Becky]
- ls suggest - should not be more than 10 word greater than the text in the image
- 16:27:35 [Becky]
- js but not all languages count words
- 16:27:58 [Becky]
- mc suggest creating a bugzilla entry
- 16:28:21 [Becky]
- ls doesn't agree that it should be short in all cases - must be long enough to capture the description
- 16:28:27 [Becky]
- dm isn't that long desc?
- 16:29:23 [Becky]
- mc getting back to ben's issue on priorities - how can we address that
- 16:30:00 [Becky]
- js propose just accept or reject
- 16:30:12 [Becky]
- cr each test maps to a SC
- 16:30:44 [Becky]
- ag all of the tests should support a test; running the test should tell you that the task has been completed or not
- 16:31:02 [Becky]
- cr purpose of test suite is to test that your content conforms to the GLs
- 16:31:36 [Becky]
- js each task shous you how to comply
- 16:31:59 [Becky]
- ag test tells you if you have implemented the techs properly and thus pass
- 16:32:43 [Becky]
- ag write more solid conditional statemeents next to a task
- 16:33:38 [Becky]
- ag problem where writing techs and tests at the same time
- 16:33:50 [Becky]
- ag need to break down tasks into testable statements
- 16:34:03 [Becky]
- ag before go into depth of writing tests
- 16:34:53 [Becky]
- bg but isn't that what Chris has done
- 16:34:58 [Becky]
- cr yes that is the intent
- 16:35:24 [Becky]
- ag but there are still gaps
- 16:36:05 [Becky]
- ac ability to link tests back to tasks is a bit flaky there are still gaps (expected since this is a work in progress)
- 16:36:37 [Becky]
- ac some tests require running other tests first
- 16:36:45 [Becky]
- cr yes some tests have pre-requisites
- 16:37:07 [Becky]
- ag some tests seem to be written before the task is finalize - this can be a problem
- 16:38:14 [Becky]
- ag bottom up approach of writing tests before task are completed has issues - if change task will have to go back an update test
- 16:38:28 [Becky]
- mc this is an approach issue rather than a test suite one
- 16:38:56 [Becky]
- mc this relates back to disc. at F2F about relating the techs to a specific GL
- 16:39:10 [Becky]
- mc and that we may need to re-evalute
- 16:39:34 [Becky]
- mc test files are more concrete - they hold us to our word
- 16:40:17 [Becky]
- wc HTML tech does say short text alternatives
- 16:40:26 [Becky]
- wc there is no def. of shor there
- 16:40:47 [Becky]
- wc if look back at GL it doesn't talk about length but talks about the properties of the alt text
- 16:41:20 [Becky]
- js gen. techs does try to address the issue of what is approp. for alt text vs long desc.
- 16:42:02 [Becky]
- wc make sure test files not only reflect HTML but also reflects general techs
- 16:43:08 [Becky]
- wc looking at test files from testers point of view will help us to clarify the GL and tasks
- 16:43:45 [Becky]
- ag suggest stopping at the higher level tests rather than drilling into details
- 16:44:00 [Becky]
- ag test for presence of alt text - defer until later the nuances of alt text
- 16:44:27 [Becky]
- wc current tests helps to clarify the transition for WCAG 1 to 2
- 16:44:52 [Becky]
- cr we know in the real world that short alt text is better dealt with by assistive techs
- 16:45:05 [Becky]
- cr if GL don't deal with that then are we missing something?
- 16:45:28 [Becky]
- js this alt text length issuescame up at July F2F
- 16:46:12 [Becky]
- kk Oracle's standard is based on internationalization
- 16:46:31 [Becky]
- kk checkers that are out there now do check for the length of alt text and give a warning
- 16:46:56 [Becky]
- kk so length has been determined as something that is usefule and imp. (at least by checker manufacturers)
- 16:47:40 [Becky]
- mc has entered bugs what is short, is "short" appropriate in the technique;
- 16:48:00 [Becky]
- wc need to look at relationship between gen. and HTML techs
- 16:48:31 [Becky]
- wc title of tech is "short text alternatives" but tech doesn't talk at all about short
- 16:48:50 [Becky]
- wc assumed reliance on gen. techs but that reliance isn't called out
- 16:49:42 [Zakim]
- -Lisa_Seeman
- 16:50:29 [Becky]
- cr test suite is really basic access. stuff that we should lock down
- 16:50:59 [Becky]
- cr we should be able to provide clear guidance on many of these things - how to mark up my form, how to describe my images
- 16:51:34 [Becky]
- wc can we leave test in and add an ed note? this is why we put out the working drafts - so we can get feedback
- 16:52:01 [Becky]
- wc ultimately we are dev. for community so lets ask community what they think
- 16:52:20 [Becky]
- cr we really need to start getting out clear msg about what to do to make site accessible
- 16:52:51 [Becky]
- wc we are providing LOTS of info we just need to clearly link the info together
- 16:53:19 [Becky]
- js trying to have at least one gen. tech for each SC in GL
- 16:53:34 [Becky]
- bc we should think about writing a req. doc for test suites
- 16:53:53 [Becky]
- wc have to update requirements docs before going to candidate rec.
- 16:54:14 [Becky]
- wc currnt req. docs are out of date
- 16:54:51 [Becky]
- mc should checklist/test be a separate req. doc
- 16:55:04 [Becky]
- wc (and others ) agree it should be integrated in existing docs
- 16:56:28 [Becky]
- wc thinking abt plan for next couple of months
- 16:56:44 [Becky]
- wc publish docs and next week put out req. for review
- 16:57:02 [Becky]
- wc take Dec to work on requirements
- 16:57:10 [Becky]
- wc publish next drafts in Jan
- 16:57:28 [Becky]
- mc propose skipping next Wed meeting?
- 16:57:46 [Becky]
- wc test suite should be included in next set of drafts
- 16:58:07 [Becky]
- wc next week brainstorm
- 16:59:32 [Becky]
- bc need to get agreement what we want to rec. at tech level
- 16:59:48 [Becky]
- bc before we move forward with test suite discussion
- 17:00:33 [Becky]
- bc need to dig deeper into what tech specific tasks are actually recommending
- 17:00:59 [Becky]
- js reviewing test files have helped us get to this level of detail
- 17:01:31 [Becky]
- mc next week will talk about test suites in more generic way
- 17:01:56 [Becky]
- wc assign people to look at existing requirements documents and provide feedback and suggestions
- 17:02:19 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/
- 17:02:24 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-tech-req/
- 17:03:02 [Becky]
- action group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting
- 17:03:16 [Becky]
- action: group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting
- 17:03:29 [Zakim]
- -Chris?
- 17:03:31 [Zakim]
- -Ben
- 17:03:33 [Zakim]
- -Wendy
- 17:03:37 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 17:03:39 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 17:03:43 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 17:03:45 [Zakim]
- -Alistair?
- 17:03:47 [Zakim]
- -Don_Evans
- 17:03:49 [Zakim]
- -Ken_Kipnes
- 17:03:53 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 17:03:55 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG(techniques)10:00AM has ended
- 17:03:57 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Becky_Gibson, Don_Evans, Tim_Boland, Ben, Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Ken_Kipnes, David?, Alistair?, Chris?, Lisa_Seeman, Alex_Li, John_Slatin, David_MacDonald
- 17:04:00 [AliG]
- AliG has left #wai-wcag
- 17:04:11 [Michael]
- rrsagent, bye
- 17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items:
- 17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: David M to look at css techs and find techs that don't map to GL; propose mapping or indicate no mapping [1]
- 17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/17-wai-wcag-irc#T15-36-12
- 17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: group to review requirements docs before next week's meeting [2]
- 17:04:11 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/11/17-wai-wcag-irc#T17-03-16