18:40:02 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 18:40:02 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/23-wai-wcag-irc 18:40:09 RRSAGent, make log world 18:40:14 Meeting: WCAG WG weekly telecon 18:40:45 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0915.html 18:41:09 agenda+ Agenda overview (5 minutes) 18:41:16 agenda+ Techniques Task Fore (5 minutes) 18:41:51 agenda+ Review results of survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc0621/ (50 minutes) 18:42:09 agenda+ Review of Editor's Draft (90 minutes) http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/06/f2f-proposed-resolutions-draft.html 18:42:22 agenda+ Informative content: (30 minutes) 18:44:33 btw... 18:44:37 rrsagent, off 18:49:34 Regrets: Luca Mascaro, Roberto Castaldo, WATANABE Takayuki, Sebastiano Nutarelli 18:52:48 Christophe has joined #wai-wcag 18:53:04 Makoto has joined #wai-wcag 18:54:57 wendy, you asked to be pinged at this time 18:55:53 rellero has joined #wai-wcag 18:56:56 WAI_WCAG()3:00PM has now started 18:57:03 +[IPcaller] 18:57:17 -[IPcaller] 18:57:18 WAI_WCAG()3:00PM has ended 18:57:20 Attendees were [IPcaller] 18:57:59 David has joined #wai-wcag 18:59:43 WAI_WCAG()3:00PM has now started 18:59:44 +Wendy 18:59:49 +Michael_Cooper 18:59:50 -Michael_Cooper 18:59:51 +Michael_Cooper 18:59:53 +??P1 19:00:07 zakim, ??P1 is Gregg 19:00:07 +Gregg; got it 19:00:08 +John_Slatin 19:00:14 +Dave_MacDonald 19:00:16 +[IPcaller] 19:00:21 test 19:00:23 jslatin has joined #wai-wcag 19:00:39 zakim, IPcaller is Makoto_Ueki 19:00:39 +Makoto_Ueki; got it 19:01:06 zakim, Dave_MacDonald is David_MacDonald 19:01:06 +David_MacDonald; got it 19:01:08 +Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:01:16 +Christophe_Strobbe 19:01:44 zakim, Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano is rellero 19:01:44 +rellero; got it 19:02:03 joeclark has joined #wai-wcag 19:03:00 +??P11 19:03:00 Chair: John, Gregg 19:03:11 zakim, ??P11 is Joe_Clark 19:03:11 +Joe_Clark; got it 19:03:28 zakim, who's on the phone? 19:03:28 On the phone I see Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Gregg, John_Slatin, David_MacDonald, Makoto_Ueki, rellero, Christophe_Strobbe, Joe_Clark 19:03:40 +Ben 19:04:03 +[IBM] 19:04:23 zakim, IBM is Andi_Snow-Weaver 19:04:24 +Andi_Snow-Weaver; got it 19:04:39 Becky has joined #wai-wcag 19:04:52 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 19:05:02 zakim, take up item 1 19:05:02 agendum 1. "Agenda overview (5 minutes)" taken up [from wendy] 19:05:49 scribe: wendy 19:06:12 agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0915.html 19:06:17 bengt has joined #wai-wcag 19:06:26 +Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:07:00 zakim, I am Bengt_Farre 19:07:00 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:07:06 zakim, who's on the phone? 19:07:06 On the phone I see Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Gregg, John_Slatin, David_MacDonald, Makoto_Ueki, rellero, Christophe_Strobbe, Joe_Clark, Ben, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:07:09 zakim, who's making noise? 19:07:21 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Christophe_Strobbe (4%), Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano (5%) 19:07:32 zakim, Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano is Bengt_Farre 19:07:32 +Bengt_Farre; got it 19:08:32 zakim, next item 19:08:32 agendum 2. "Techniques Task Fore (5 minutes)" taken up [from wendy] 19:08:38 +[Microsoft] 19:08:55 zakim, Microsoft is Mike_Barta 19:08:55 +Mike_Barta; got it 19:09:55 mc: no techniques discussion at F2F. only updates to css, html, and scripting techniques for this publication is to update links to 30 june draft and a blurb that no major changes since november. 19:10:46 mc: hoping that guidelines/success criteria will settle/stabalize and focus of WCAG WG will turn to techniques 19:11:32 +Matt 19:11:45 -rellero 19:12:20 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 19:12:29 +Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:12:45 zakim, Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano is rellero 19:12:45 +rellero; got it 19:12:47 +Tim_Boland 19:13:34 Tim has joined #wai-wcag 19:13:46 resolution: publish css, html, and scripting techniques with updates to abstract/status and updated links to guidelines/success criteria 19:13:54 (comments made previously are in our issues list. no need to resubmit comments) 19:14:40 zakim, next item 19:14:40 agendum 3. "Review results of survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc0621/ (50 minutes)" taken up [from wendy] 19:15:28 Topic: Guideline 1.2 L1 SC1: captions - should they remain level 1 or move to level 2? 19:15:32 regrets+ yvette 19:15:50 results - http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/misc0621/results 19:15:57 q+ to say yvette's comment might overlap with mine 19:16:27 q- 19:17:10 -Bengt_Farre 19:17:37 discussion about proposal for caption and/or transcript at level 1 19:17:54 +Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:18:13 zakim, Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano is Bengt_Farre 19:18:13 +Bengt_Farre; got it 19:18:25 action: michael suggest editorial note for captions and/or transcript at level 1 19:18:47 resolution: keep captions at level 1 19:19:05 Topic: Guideline 1.2 L1 SC2: audio descriptions - should they remain level 1 or move to level 2? 19:19:29 David has joined #wai-wcag 19:19:46 survey results: 19:19:47 Prefer audio descriptions at Level 1 11 19:19:49 Can live with audio descriptions at Level 1 8 19:19:50 Can not live with audio descriptions at Level 1 2 19:19:52 Prefer audio descriptions at Level 2 6 19:19:54 Can live with audio descriptions at Level 2 1 19:19:55 Can not live with audio descriptions at Level 2 5 19:20:58 concern that there are no examples of audio descriptions in japanese 19:21:19 concern about lack of knowledge 19:21:19 Makoto said there are no examples of multimedia with audio description in Japan. 19:22:31 q+ 19:22:37 concern about skill required to write audio descriptions (art form) 19:22:51 (we have TV, but not multimedia on web) 19:23:00 concern that too complex for level 1 19:23:12 ack david 19:23:18 -rellero 19:23:22 q+ 19:23:43 concern that some people find the audio descriptions confusing and would need a way to turn them off. 19:23:45 ack joe 19:23:59 +Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:24:01 concern addressed by a technique for providing multiple versions 19:24:23 Zakim, Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano is rellero 19:24:23 +rellero; got it 19:24:24 some multimedia requires audio descriptions, vs most multmedia requires captions 19:24:34 s/multmedia/multimedia 19:25:38 +Becky_Gibson 19:27:38 zakim, who's making noise? 19:27:50 wendy, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Makoto_Ueki (15%), John_Slatin (91%) 19:27:53 zakim, mute me 19:27:53 Makoto_Ueki should now be muted 19:28:42 -Bengt_Farre 19:29:28 +Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano 19:29:28 resolution: keep audio description at level 1. tweak editorial note that policy would describe scoping. 19:29:33 zakim, Bengt_Farre/Sebastiano is Bengt_Farre 19:29:33 +Bengt_Farre; got it 19:29:40 David has joined #wai-wcag 19:30:06 q? 19:30:08 q+ 19:30:43 concern that definition of audio description needs to include information that listening to the AD is optional. Counter that don't want to add to every definition that viewing the info is possible and should be handled in techniques. 19:30:59 s/viewing/viewing or experiencing 19:31:07 ack joe 19:31:49 ack tim 19:33:23 resolution: keep audio description at level 1 19:33:35 Topic: Updated proposal for Guideline 2.3, its success criteria, and related definitions 19:33:52 Proposed wording is better than current wording. 12 19:33:53 Current wording is better than proposed wording. 4 19:33:55 Other 2 19:34:15 concern that taking specificity out opens up the guideline to say "you must do x, but we won't tell you x" 19:34:28 concern if don't specify which standards there will be fragmentation 19:35:19 rationle for removing - those that had been included were computer screen adaptation created with Graham Harding. Some of those guidelines/standards are being revised plus an attempt to create an international standard. 19:36:06 further, if we engrained numbers in our guidelines and the international standards came out with different numbers, there would be a conflict. 19:36:12 q+ 19:36:52 options: 1. proposed wording + ednote (with specifics) and ask for feedback 19:37:23 2. current wording with understanding that if/when inat'l standard published publish an updated wcag 2.0 19:38:12 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 19:38:27 3. these are our recommendations, but if national, or international those will prevail 19:38:46 q- 19:40:08 option 1: proposed wording 19:40:10 option 2: current 19:40:26 optiion 3: current w/possibility to publish updated rec 19:40:43 option 4: current wording with clause that national or international standards prevail 19:42:02 options 1 and 4 had some support, 2 and 3 did not have any support 19:44:27 resolution: keep current wording and add a clause that national or international standards prevail 19:44:52 q+ 19:44:55 Topic: Keep the existing text of Guideline 2.4 Level 2 SC1: More than one way is available to locate content within a set of delivery units? 19:45:03 q- 19:45:04 q- 19:45:16 action: gregg propose clause for guideline 2.3 19:46:08 Can live with the current wording for the 30 June 2005 Working Draft. 17 19:46:09 Can not live with the current wording for th 30 June 2005 Working Draft. 2 19:46:11 Other 1 19:47:27 concern that this is a problem for web applications 19:49:07 concern about how you apply to voicexml 19:50:10 David_ has joined #wai-wcag 19:50:46 resolution: keep current wording w/ednote about concern about applying to web applications 19:50:56 Topic: Move Guideline 2.4 Level 3 SC1 from Level 3 to Level 1? 19:51:05 Move G2.4 L3 SC1 to Level 1 9 19:51:07 Keep G2.4 L3 SC1 at Level 3. 8 19:51:09 Other 3 19:51:38 Guideline 2.4 level 3 SC1: When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content. 19:52:16 q+ to ask, "what was the rationale for this proposal?" 19:52:30 q+ 19:52:51 ack ben 19:52:51 ben, you wanted to ask, "what was the rationale for this proposal?" 19:53:53 concern about rationale for moving. response that it is critical for successful navigation and meets our defn of level 1. 19:53:55 ack joe 19:54:13 q+ 19:55:43 need to test css layouts and tab order and that this might be a wcag 1.0-esque "layout table" issue 19:55:45 ack or 19:55:48 ack lor 19:56:20 concern that have seen tab order and dom order not the same and issue. 19:56:49 ack dav 19:57:24 concern that if people can choose their own order they'll get confused 19:59:50 several people can't live with it at level 1, uncertainty about level 2, everyone can live with at level 3 20:00:03 -Tim_Boland 20:00:06 resolution: leave Guideline 2.4 Level 3 SC1 at Level 3 20:00:14 Tim has left #wai-wcag 20:00:44 Topic: Updated proposal for Guideline 4.2 Level 1 multiple criterion to replace current level 1 success criterion 2 20:00:56 Proposed wording is better than current wording. 13 20:00:57 Current wording is better than proposed wording. 4 20:00:59 Other 1 20:01:42 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:01:42 On the phone I see Wendy, Michael_Cooper, Gregg, John_Slatin, David_MacDonald, Makoto_Ueki (muted), Christophe_Strobbe, Joe_Clark, Ben, Andi_Snow-Weaver, Mike_Barta, Matt, rellero, 20:01:43 yes without microphone 20:01:46 ... Becky_Gibson, Bengt_Farre, Loretta_Guarino_Reid 20:02:47 roberto ellero - can you give us more information about why you prefer the current wording or can you live with the proposed wording? 20:03:08 i've indicate prefer second choice 20:03:16 yes, can you give more information about why? 20:03:26 can you live with the proposed wording? 20:03:57 it's more intelligible 20:04:34 roberto, can you accept the proposed wording even if you prefer the current wording? 20:04:36 i find the new wording is less specific and 20:05:06 introduce ambiguity as 20:05:28 alternative version in a generic way 20:05:29 ok 20:06:18 resolution: adopt proposed wording for Guideline 4.2 Level 1 multiple criterion to replace current level 1 success criterion 2 20:06:23 scribe: David 20:06:25 scribe: david 20:06:51 Topic: Delete current Guideline 4.2 Level 2 SC1 or move to Level 3? 20:06:59 4.2 Level 2 SC1 or move to Level 3? 20:07:17 scribe: David_ 20:07:40 Delete Guideline 4.2 Level 2 SC 1 4 20:08:02 resolution: leave it where it is and write editorial note 20:09:07 resolution: leave 4.2 L 2 where it is and write editorial 20:09:28 action: write an editorial note by John 20:09:52 action 3 = John write editorial note for Guideline 4.2 Level 2 SC1 20:11:29 Resolusion: Proposed wording for guideline 4.2 new Level 3 SC1:adopted 20:11:56 Topic: wo or three levels of conformance? 20:11:59 Resolution: Proposed wording for guideline 4.2 new Level 3 SC1:adopted 20:12:04 s/Resolusion/Resolution 20:12:07 s/w/two 20:12:50 topic: Two or three levels of conformance? 20:15:24 summary : the 3 top options (1) 3 levels (2) 2 levels everything in 3 to advisory (3) 3 level with 3rd divided 20:16:00 a few people can't live with 3 levels 20:16:13 a bunch can't live with 2nd option 20:16:53 ! 20:16:57 a bunch can't live with 3rd option 20:17:42 q+ 20:17:46 ack mi 20:17:48 ack an 20:17:48 concerns that were getting into policy when we specify conformance in verticle segments, let governments to that (Mike B) 20:18:31 asw: concerned that with 3 levels and 3rd unachievable some poliy people would expose us 20:19:32 can't get unanimity, so we'll go for broad concensis and invite people with concerns to submit them 20:19:56 wc: we can specifically ask for this in review.... 20:20:38 q+ 20:21:46 gv: we try to reach broad consenus to document that we cold not reach unanimity 20:21:58 s/cold/could 20:22:24 wc: we can record formal rejection 20:22:29 q! 20:22:34 q? 20:23:08 js: proposal to leave it as it is for this draft and invite opposition 20:23:24 q+ to read defn of consensus 20:23:26 ack joe 20:25:20 joeclark said on the call that we don't have consensus on either three or two levels (at best one of those camps has a couple more votes than the other camp); it is also inaccurate to say that we have consensus on the current status quo with objections. I believe that the entire issue of three vs. two levels is up in the air and there is no consensus at all. 20:25:23 dessent is at least one objection 20:25:38 http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#Consensus 20:26:41 resolution: there is a decision to stay with 3levels with serious dessent 20:26:54 s/dessent/dissent 20:27:04 s/dessent/dissent 20:28:39 zakim, take up next item 20:28:39 agendum 4. "Review of Editor's Draft (90 minutes) http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/06/f2f-proposed-resolutions-draft.html" taken up [from wendy] 20:29:27 q+ 20:29:31 q- 20:29:40 ack ben 20:30:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0932.html 20:30:26 q+ 20:30:34 ack joe 20:30:36 bc: wanted clarification on 1.3 Level 3 critierion, we resolved to move from 3.2 to 1.3, question o we need a sc under gl 1.3 or is it covered 20:31:35 jc: with css layouts it is not immediately obvious of the reading order, and sometimes not an issue 20:32:33 Resolution: unanimous consent to accept the f2f resolutons for GL and SC under Principle 1 20:34:01 q+ 20:34:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0936.html 20:35:37 bc: want to make sure we open up anbigiuos wording I proposed 2 options Level 1 SC2 , L2 Sc1 20:36:03 q+ 20:36:06 ack ben 20:36:09 q+ 20:36:26 s/anbigiuos/ambiguous 20:37:04 ack wendy 20:37:59 ack joe 20:38:42 jc: previous wording clearer on plain language, 20:39:19 q+ 20:39:20 David__ has joined #wai-wcag 20:39:26 ack john 20:39:30 q+ 20:40:13 js: I want to say information conveyed by colour is available without colour 20:40:23 joeclark said on the call that the original intent was to prevent authors from relying solely on colour (which really means confusable colours like red and green), which is an easy thing to say in plain language. The current wording is a no-brainer-- colour is always programmatically determinable (unless it's in an image), same with text features. Let's give this one another try. 20:40:25 js: same true about variation of text 20:40:45 ack andi 20:41:14 asw: can't always tell colour ie, in flash 20:41:19 ack gregg 20:41:55 gv: the reason we moved away from od language, is because people are discouraged from using colur and sometime it helps 20:42:43 test 20:42:58 urrg I keep dropping am I in now 20:43:08 ack mike 20:43:17 q+ 20:43:20 q- 20:43:53 ack john 20:44:11 mb: we came back to "the colour info is conveyed, not the info itself is conveyed without colour" 20:45:08 Asw: When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors. 20:46:13 Resolution accept andi's proposals "When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors." 20:46:17 for guideline 1.3 L1 SC2 20:46:29 Resolution: accept andi's proposals "When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors." 20:47:05 Resolution: accept andi's proposals "When information is conveyed with color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors." for guideline 1.3 L1 SC2 20:47:19 ack loretta 20:49:05 zakim, mute me 20:49:05 Christophe_Strobbe should now be muted 20:49:13 q+ 20:49:51 ack andi 20:50:35 scribe: Andi 20:50:39 zakim, unmute me 20:50:39 Christophe_Strobbe should no longer be muted 20:50:40 proposed: When information is conveyed with color, the color information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors. 20:51:11 resolution: GL 1.3 L2 SC 2 - move example to "examples" or guide document. 20:51:13 David___ has joined #wai-wcag 20:51:45 q? 20:51:47 q+ 20:51:54 q+ 20:52:00 When information is conveyed by color, the color information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors without the use of assistive technologies. 20:52:00 q- 20:52:16 resolution: modify proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC 2 to say "by color" instead of "with color" 20:52:49 q+ 20:52:57 ack joe 20:53:07 ack andi 20:53:45 test 20:57:41 resolution: GL 1.3 L2 SC 2 - accept Ben's proposal: "When information is conveyed by color, the color information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors without the use of assistive technologies." with the provision that the editors have permission to clean up the wording but not change the intent. 20:58:47 -Joe_Clark 20:58:48 joeclark has left #wai-wcag 20:59:04 -Michael_Cooper 20:59:05 resolution: proposed wording for all guidelines and success criteria in 2.x are accepted 21:00:10 resolution: proposed wording for all guidelines and success criteria under principle 3 are accepted for this draft 21:03:51 Wendy suggests a more conservative approach for GL 4.1 - leave as it is with an editorial note that we are considering changing it vs. changing it with an editorial note that we have issues. 21:03:51 q+ 21:04:00 q+ 21:04:09 q+ 21:04:28 q+ to say want more opp to talk with other w3c folks 21:04:37 Gregg thinks that if we are going to have another draft before Last Call, it's okay to leave it as is. But it wouldn't be a good idea to move it for the first time in the Last Call draft. 21:06:13 Wendy - more concern about moving it from Level 2 to Level 1 in LC draft than in moving from Level 1 to Level 2 21:06:52 q- 21:07:00 Wendy needs more time to discuss the issue in W3C 21:07:05 ack chri 21:07:25 Christoffe points out that well-formedness doesn't apply to SGML 21:08:05 see proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0841.html 21:08:23 q+ 21:08:33 see Christophe's proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0841.html 21:11:37 ack ben 21:11:39 ack david 21:12:06 s/Christoffe/Christophe 21:14:15 -Becky_Gibson 21:15:18 q+ 21:15:51 q+ 21:15:51 ack lor 21:16:18 Wendy proposed writing a lengthy discussion of this topic to be located outside of the guidelines. The Ed note in the document could be short and simply link to the detailed description. 21:17:32 proposal: split the SC on wellformedness 21:17:37 Level 1 SC1: Non-XML SGML-based delivery units are formatted according to the SGML declaration of their specification or to the Reference Concrete Syntax if no SGML declaration is defined. [I] 21:17:40 ack gregg 21:17:46 Summary of Christophe's proposal: split the SC on wellformedness 21:17:54 Level 1 SC1: Non-XML SGML-based delivery units are formatted according to the SGML declaration of their specification or to the Reference Concrete Syntax if no SGML declaration is defined. [I] 21:17:54 Level 1 SC2: XML-based delivery units are well-formed.[I] Note: This does not require that they are valid. 21:18:00 Level 1 SC2: XML-based delivery units are well-formed.[I] Note: This does not require that they are valid. 21:18:53 q+ 21:19:09 ack david 21:19:49 ack andi 21:20:38 David proposes leaving the SC out altogether with an editorial note that we're considering putting it in. 21:25:07 resolution: leave all of the SC out and have an ed note stating the problem and pointing people to an external page describing the problem in more detail along with our current proposals. Ed note will invite comment and comments can be added to the "problem/proposal" page. 21:25:36 resolution: resolution: leave all of the SC out of GL 4.1 and have an ed note stating the problem and pointing people to an external page describing the problem in more detail along with our current proposals. Ed note will invite comment and comments can be added to the "problem/proposal" page. 21:26:12 action: Wendy to create the external page describing the problem and the proposed resolutions for GL 4.1 21:26:35 zakim, next item 21:26:35 agendum 5. "Informative content: (30 minutes)" taken up [from wendy] 21:26:49 s/proposed resolutions/proposals 21:27:14 Topic: introduction - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/att-0924/intro_wcag20_2005-06-21.htm 21:28:00 resolution: include John's new introduction in June 30th draft 21:28:26 Topic: Checklits 21:28:33 s/checklits/checklist 21:28:34 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/06/checklist-proto.html 21:29:54 resolution: publish the first public working draft of the WCAG 2.0 checklist 21:32:38 exclusion - Note: The First Public Working Draft is significant with respect to the W3C Patent Policy. As explained in the Patent Policy FAQ, the Communications Team issues a Call for Exclusions (see section 4 of the W3C Patent Policy) approximately ninety days after the publication of this draft. 21:32:50 PP FAQ - http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html#exclusion-date 21:33:48 q+ 21:34:31 previously published general techniqeus: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-20041119/ 21:35:56 john's 4 may proposals for guideline 3.1 guide docs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0368.html 21:39:11 resolution: For June 30th draft, publish General Techniques as a non-consensus document. 21:39:48 (includes john's 3.1 proposals and adaptations of previously published general techniques into new guide format 21:40:12 zakim, next item 21:40:12 I do not see any non-closed agenda items, wendy 21:40:38 q- 21:41:27 -Mike_Barta 21:43:02 -rellero 21:45:34 discussion about length of time to allow for review - usually give 30 days but this is holiday season for many - should we give more time? 21:46:05 more time jeapordizes our ability to get to Last Call in September 21:47:25 q+ 21:49:14 ack andi 21:53:24 action: everyone who did an issue summary/guideline proposal send a list of how the accepted wording closes the issues for that guideline as well as which issues are still open. 21:54:37 judy has joined #wai-wcag 21:56:08 action: Gregg to send proposed form for comment submission to editors 21:56:35 if comments are received in a standard format, Gregg has an admin who can be trained to enter them into Bugzilla 21:58:30