IRC log of wai-wcag on 2004-12-02
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 21:02:40 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:02:44 [ChrisR]
- chris ridpath, my voice is not coming through
- 21:02:45 [Michael]
- rrsagent, make logs world
- 21:02:58 [ChrisR]
- I'll dial back in and try again
- 21:03:03 [Zakim]
- -fyergeau
- 21:03:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:03:26 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Avi, Yvette_Hoitink, Alex_Li, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_farre
- 21:03:48 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 21:03:54 [Zakim]
- +fyergeau
- 21:04:10 [rellero]
- Today I cannot use dialpad, I will follow only with irc
- 21:04:10 [Zakim]
- +John_Slatin
- 21:04:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, [Microsoft] is MikeBarta
- 21:04:12 [Zakim]
- +MikeBarta; got it
- 21:04:21 [ben]
- ben has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:04:26 [Zakim]
- +Becky_Gibson
- 21:04:30 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, fyergaeu is Chris_Ridpath
- 21:04:30 [Zakim]
- sorry, Yvette_Hoitink, I do not recognize a party named 'fyergaeu'
- 21:04:51 [Becky_Gibson]
- Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:04:56 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:04:56 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Avi, Yvette_Hoitink, Alex_Li, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_farre, MikeBarta, fyergeau, John_Slatin, Becky_Gibson
- 21:05:24 [Zakim]
- +??P11
- 21:05:33 [ben]
- zakim, ??P11 is Gregg_and_Ben
- 21:05:33 [Zakim]
- +Gregg_and_Ben; got it
- 21:06:20 [ben]
- zakim, who is here?
- 21:06:20 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Avi, Yvette_Hoitink, Alex_Li, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_farre, MikeBarta, fyergeau, John_Slatin, Becky_Gibson, Gregg_and_Ben
- 21:06:23 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Becky_Gibson, ben, RRSAgent, ChrisR, Michael, rellero, Zakim, bengt, Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:06:25 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 21:06:26 [Michael]
- I was here,
- 21:06:32 [Michael]
- usability issues on my phone
- 21:06:33 [Michael]
- I'll redial
- 21:07:14 [Michael]
- thought i was unmuting and I hung up
- 21:07:45 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 21:07:54 [ben]
- zakim, ??P6 is Michael
- 21:07:54 [Zakim]
- +Michael; got it
- 21:08:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, mute me
- 21:08:01 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
- 21:08:07 [Michael]
- zakim, Michael is Michael_Cooper
- 21:08:07 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Cooper; got it
- 21:08:17 [Michael]
- zakim, I am Michael_Cooper
- 21:08:17 [Zakim]
- ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper
- 21:08:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, unmute me
- 21:08:26 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
- 21:08:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- scribe: me
- 21:09:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, fyergeau is Chris_Ridpath
- 21:09:09 [Zakim]
- +Chris_Ridpath; got it
- 21:09:16 [ben]
- zakim, fyergeau is Chris
- 21:09:16 [Zakim]
- sorry, ben, I do not recognize a party named 'fyergeau'
- 21:09:25 [gregg]
- gregg has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:09:30 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- MC: yesterdays tech call
- 21:09:45 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- mc: checklists & test suite
- 21:10:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- test suites have been moved into W3C space
- 21:10:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- weren't ready to take poll yet
- 21:10:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- in the end they decided that test suites only have test that are necessary and sufficient to meet the guidelines
- 21:10:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- no optional tests in test suite for now
- 21:10:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- the checklists should be driven by the test suits
- 21:10:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- s/suits/suites
- 21:11:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- the items in the suites would lead to the items on the check lists, the ones you check off
- 21:11:34 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ready to go forward and start on that work
- 21:11:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- we have a test suite for HTML but need suites for other techs too
- 21:13:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- discussion about tasks, they used to be checklists items.
- 21:14:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- we found that they were not granular/specific enough to become checklists
- 21:14:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- so we changed them from checklist items into tasks
- 21:15:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: It will be good to figure out what the role of tasks is
- 21:15:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- in current document it isn't clear
- 21:15:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- you have guidelines, sc, and now checklist items, techniques
- 21:15:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- techniques speak to tasks, not clear how all of that relates
- 21:15:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- need a model of how everything fits together
- 21:16:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: we need a direct correlation between tasks and checklists
- 21:16:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- both guide each other, not only one direction
- 21:17:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- don't want to delete items from checklists because we don't yet have a test for it
- 21:17:44 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- you might want to generate the checklists and the test suite from the same source document.
- 21:18:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: could generate other stuff from same source as well
- 21:18:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- If empty tests are generated, we know where we need to work on
- 21:18:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- compliment the group on the format, setting up procedures
- 21:19:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: questions?
- 21:19:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- all: (silence)
- 21:19:51 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 21:20:06 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: next: test suites & checklist discussion
- 21:21:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: technologies used would be used to generate the checklists
- 21:21:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- even simple HTML page often has multiple technologies
- 21:21:41 [Becky_Gibson]
- zakim, ??P12 is Kerstin
- 21:21:41 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin; got it
- 21:21:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- lots of 'orphan' items that do not relate to a success criteria
- 21:22:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- talked about moving them to a seperate place
- 21:23:05 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- for example: alt.text.length >= X, that's not in our guidelines or sc so we need to decide what to do with them
- 21:23:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: I understand that we moved them for now, correct?
- 21:23:23 [Zakim]
- +??P13
- 21:23:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- mc: yes
- 21:24:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: it's strange to have W3 tests for things that W3 doesn't require. Needs thought
- 21:24:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: "test procedures" or "test suite"?
- 21:24:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- suite = stimuli that you run to see if it meets. Currently, we have procedures with some sample code
- 21:25:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- You could use suite to test _tools_
- 21:25:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- should we have two types of tests suites?
- 21:25:36 [Becky_Gibson]
- zakim, ??P13 is David_MacDonald
- 21:25:36 [Zakim]
- +David_MacDonald; got it
- 21:25:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 21:25:54 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Chris_Ridpath (39%), Yvette_Hoitink (50%), Alex_Li (9%), Gregg_and_Ben (34%)
- 21:26:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: other issues with tests suites/checklists?
- 21:27:03 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- all: (silence)
- 21:27:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: Q for Chris: do you prefer "test suite" or "test procedures"/"test methods"?
- 21:27:42 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- delete last line
- 21:28:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: test procedures for what is currently test suite, and 'test suite' to test tools
- 21:28:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: I think test suite is good term for what it is
- 21:28:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: purpose is to test content
- 21:28:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: test suite can be used to check document, similar to checklists
- 21:28:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: checklists tells you the true/false questions
- 21:29:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- test suites tells you how to determine that
- 21:29:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: If your content passes all tests in test suite, your content passes the guidelines
- 21:29:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: test procedure/test methods might be easier to translate
- 21:29:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: we can leave this as an open issue
- 21:29:56 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: no problem with name change
- 21:30:13 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: it's still not clear to people that this is the way to test conformance
- 21:30:36 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: more interested in function of the suite than title
- 21:31:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: If 'test suite' is the correct term for this thing, is it the correct term for the other pages that Gregg mentioned and if not what should we call them?
- 21:32:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: Chose term because W3 uses the term 'suite' a lot
- 21:32:26 [ChrisR]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/
- 21:32:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: we'll discuss this with Shawn and EO
- 21:33:34 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: it seems we're clear of what the test suites and checklists are
- 21:33:45 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: superb idea to derive both of them from the same source
- 21:34:06 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: techniques also have direct correlation with checklists and test suite
- 21:34:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: people are interested in "how do I meet the checklists" so suite is important
- 21:35:19 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: BTW: if we talk about measuring things in words, have to take Japanese-like languages into account which don't have words as such
- 21:35:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: other comments?
- 21:35:59 [David]
- David has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:36:15 [Becky]
- Becky has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:36:28 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: some of the tests are language-specific for example the alt-text word limit
- 21:36:44 [David]
- Gage Dictionary meaning #3) Suite: any set or series of like things
- 21:37:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: Some tests are optional, you could have tests like the alt-length where human testing can be prompted if too long
- 21:38:15 [BeckyG]
- BeckyG has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:38:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: we have no SC that alt-text has to be short. have to be careful that we don't contrain them just because it's easy to test
- 21:38:46 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- CR: That's the whole point of bottom-up working, we have to hope to meet in the middle
- 21:38:57 [Becky_Gibson]
- Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:38:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: top-down is normative, bottom-up is not
- 21:39:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: next topic: John's 18 November proposed change to guideline 1.1
- 21:39:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- http://tinyurl.com/4pf37
- 21:40:07 [Becky_Gibson]
- q+
- 21:40:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: changes from 'identifying' to 'providing' the function
- 21:40:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- ack John
- 21:41:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: if you have an unchecked box, you want "unchecked box" as alt, not "this box tells you whether the statement is true or not"
- 21:41:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: quick update: Mike Barta responded that he had problem with "provides the same function"
- 21:42:12 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: new proposal: "serves the same function" instead
- 21:42:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- "serves the same purpose as"
- 21:42:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: That helps clarify for me, "function" sounded to active for me. "serves the same purpose" is better
- 21:43:04 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: I had issues too, that are addressed by this new proposal
- 21:43:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Unanimous consent to change the phrasing to "serves the same purpose as"
- 21:43:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Next topic: Misc issues
- 21:43:51 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Issue 292 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=292>
- 21:44:05 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: active/passive voice, addressed by John's rewrite
- 21:44:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: I will continue to address this as I go along
- 21:44:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: no objections to closing this item -> item closed
- 21:45:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Next issue: 376 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=376>
- 21:46:48 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: If you mark up the text, determining how to show it to the user is user-agent issue
- 21:47:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: closed because covered by UAAG
- 21:47:40 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Next issue: 392 - <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=392>
- 21:47:58 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: complaint was that we should define target audience
- 21:48:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: What are target audiences?
- 21:48:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: Web developers!
- 21:48:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: This ties in with Tom's work on personas
- 21:48:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: we need a list for our requirements docs
- 21:49:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: Policy makers
- 21:49:30 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: Website owners/managers
- 21:49:39 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: User agent developers
- 21:49:42 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- users
- 21:49:45 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- tool makers
- 21:50:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: people who write contracts
- 21:50:06 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- purchasing agents
- 21:50:19 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: how would a user use the guidelines?
- 21:50:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: because they want to address inaccessible website and want to know what can be done
- 21:50:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: consumers / advocates
- 21:51:21 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: authoring tool developers, testing tool developers
- 21:51:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: lawyers
- 21:51:40 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: content managers
- 21:52:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: so we have website owners/managers and web content managers
- 21:52:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- UI designers
- 21:54:51 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- individuals and organizations
- 21:54:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- teachers
- 21:55:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- trainers
- 21:55:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- consultants
- 21:55:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- rehabilitation specialists
- 21:56:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: anything else, you can send it on
- 21:56:31 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: next issue: 317 - <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=317>
- 21:57:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: presenting information with color
- 21:57:53 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: we wrote "in color" but we meant only if the color IS presenting the information
- 21:58:06 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gv: our current wording can be read wrong.
- 21:58:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: Joe Clark thought we were against color, because he misunderstood
- 22:00:48 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: I think this is a very good point, but have two problems with proposed formulation by BG
- 22:02:36 [bengt_]
- bengt_ has joined #wai-wcag
- 22:02:57 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: "information differentiated by hue"?
- 22:03:42 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- have to make clear that you can present information using color, but the color shouldn't be informative in tiself
- 22:03:49 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- s/tiself/itself
- 22:04:20 [bengt_]
- zakim, kick bengt_farre
- 22:04:20 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'kick bengt_farre', bengt_
- 22:04:44 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: Perhaps we can swap: "If color is used to convey information..."
- 22:04:45 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_farre
- 22:05:18 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 22:05:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: If I make a label red, that's acceptable at level 1?
- 22:05:29 [bengt_]
- zakim, ??P2 is Bengt_Farre
- 22:05:29 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 22:05:32 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Yes, because it is available in markup
- 22:06:03 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin
- 22:06:10 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BG: So a screenreader user would have to instruct the reader to read aloud the attributes to know it's red?
- 22:06:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- gV: At level 1, that is correct
- 22:06:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- q+
- 22:06:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: I can tell Jaws to give me color information
- 22:06:54 [Zakim]
- +??P12
- 22:07:00 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: Adds significantly to the time it takes
- 22:07:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, ??P12 is Kerstin
- 22:07:29 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin; got it
- 22:07:31 [Becky_Gibson]
- zakim, ??P12 is Kerstin
- 22:07:31 [Zakim]
- I already had ??P12 as Kerstin, Becky_Gibson
- 22:07:34 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- :-)
- 22:08:20 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: is a result because we choose at level 1 we wouldn't require visual changes, so that's why the use of color is at level 2
- 22:08:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- without markup, that is
- 22:09:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Old wording used different words for level 1 and 2, one said "through color", other said "using color"
- 22:10:18 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: L1 "any information conveyed through color can also be programmatically determined"
- 22:13:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: Many web developers use hex to denote color: #FFAABB, etc
- 22:13:41 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: User agent should determine which color that is. But oops, UAAG doesn't require that so we can't either
- 22:14:10 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: We need to make sure information like "this field is required" should be available
- 22:15:16 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: A technique could be to use a <span title="required">
- 22:15:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BC: At the moment, title is many times optional and read on request
- 22:16:25 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: I think the wording does work with our intent
- 22:16:54 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: L2: "Any information that is conveyed through color is also available without having to interpret color or markup"
- 22:17:15 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: That might be problematic because all content requires interpreting markup
- 22:17:31 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: We don't want PEOPLE to look at markup
- 22:17:45 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- s/People/require people
- 22:18:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BC: "without color"
- 22:18:27 [Zakim]
- -Chris_Ridpath
- 22:18:35 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: No, that would require black and white which is not how we want people to read
- 22:19:55 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- "in a manner that does not rely on color alone"
- 22:22:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: "Any information that is conveyed through color is presented in a manner that does not rely on color or markup"
- 22:23:01 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: problem with that, relying on markup might be a good alternative to color, for example <em> + red
- 22:24:52 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: We don't want <span title="require"> to pass at level 2, because that still requires special AT
- 22:25:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: Is title covered in UAAG?
- 22:25:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: It is, but at lvl 2 we don't want people to hover over every form element to see what's required
- 22:31:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Is color just a special case of 'visual modality'? For example, do we also want to address people who can't perceive a 2 pt font difference?
- 22:32:56 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: You could use light and dark and be ok
- 22:35:05 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: I thought the color issue was for two audiences: blind + colorblind, not just colorblind
- 22:35:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: blind are covered at level 1
- 22:35:28 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- YH: disagree, at level 2 blind people shouldn't have to interpret markup
- 22:36:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: "any information that is conveyed through color must also be conveyed through text"
- 22:36:47 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- JS: Cannot do that because some things don't have text, like graphics
- 22:37:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: we could have two items: 'without having to interpret color' and 'by using characters or text'
- 22:38:11 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: if you have a subway map with two colors, wouldn't it be great if one was dotted? that was covered in our original proposal
- 22:39:26 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- MB: Could you make the requirement to use character/text at level 3?
- 22:39:40 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Cooper
- 22:40:28 [David]
- David has joined #wai-wcag
- 22:40:47 [David]
- test
- 22:40:59 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: unless we require at level 1 something that AT should handle, we need to patch it at level 2
- 22:41:34 [David]
- Am I in?
- 22:41:55 [David]
- Thx I'm in the Matrix
- 22:43:10 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: we could say "it must be evident without having to interpret color, e.g. through context or characters that accompany the color coding or through patterns"
- 22:43:49 [gregg]
- Level 1 Any information conveyed through color can also be programmatically determined
- 22:44:11 [Zakim]
- -MikeBarta
- 22:44:34 [gregg]
- Level 2 Any informtiaont that is conveyed through color must also be visually evident without havingt to interpret color.
- 22:44:57 [gregg]
- (for example through context or or characters
- 22:44:57 [gregg]
- or symbols that accompany the color coding
- 22:45:37 [gregg]
- or through pattern difference such as dotted red and solid green line in a graph.
- 22:47:33 [Zakim]
- -Avi
- 22:47:50 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Level 1 also has similar examples
- 22:48:43 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: For level 1, example: "For example through markup or unique characters or symbols that accompany the coding"
- 22:49:09 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: we will specify in techniques what markup we want
- 22:49:23 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: Should we use this language and post it to the list?
- 22:49:56 [Zakim]
- -Alex_Li
- 22:49:57 [Zakim]
- -Becky_Gibson
- 22:49:57 [Zakim]
- -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 22:49:58 [Zakim]
- -Yvette_Hoitink
- 22:49:59 [Zakim]
- -David_MacDonald
- 22:50:00 [Zakim]
- -John_Slatin
- 22:50:00 [Zakim]
- -Kerstin
- 22:50:01 [Zakim]
- -Bengt_Farre
- 22:50:03 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 22:50:05 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Avi, Yvette_Hoitink, Alex_Li, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Michael_Cooper, Bengt_farre, John_Slatin, MikeBarta, Becky_Gibson, Gregg_and_Ben, Chris_Ridpath, Kerstin,
- 22:50:07 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- GV: no objections to not talking about this anymore today
- 22:50:08 [Zakim]
- ... David_MacDonald
- 22:50:14 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- :-)
- 22:50:15 [bengt_]
- bengt_ has left #wai-wcag
- 22:50:24 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- Ben, can you do the log-thingy?
- 22:50:37 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- I think the RRSagent needs some commands now
- 22:50:56 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- RRSagent, make log world
- 22:51:02 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- something like that, IIRC
- 22:51:10 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- RRSagent, help
- 22:52:17 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- BEN?
- 22:52:29 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- anyone?
- 22:52:38 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 22:52:38 [Zakim]
- sorry, Yvette_Hoitink, I don't know what conference this is; apparently WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
- 22:52:40 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see David, ben, RRSAgent, ChrisR, rellero, Zakim, Yvette_Hoitink
- 22:53:06 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- DOES ANYONE KNOW if I need to give the RRSagent any more commands?
- 22:53:22 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- -------------------------------------------------------------
- 22:53:33 [Yvette_Hoitink]
- earth to Ben
- 22:54:13 [ben]
- RRSAgent, make log world
- 22:54:19 [ben]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 22:54:19 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items