13:55:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:55:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-wcag2ict-irc
13:55:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:55:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag2ict
13:55:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2428
13:55:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
13:55:26 <trackbot> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:55:26 <trackbot> Date: 19 October 2012
13:55:33 <Andi> chair: Andi_Snow-Weaver
13:55:54 <Andi> chair: Mary_Jo_Mueller
13:56:01 <Andi> scribenick: MaryJo
13:57:27 <Andi> regrets: Mike_Pluke, Loic_Martinez_Normand
13:57:54 <Zakim> WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM has now started
13:58:01 <Zakim> +Andi_Snow_Weaver
13:59:01 <Andi> agenda+ Survey for October 19th Meeting https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT172012/results
13:59:03 <Zakim> +Mary_Jo_Mueller
13:59:21 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:27 <Andi> agenda+ Survey for October 12th Meeting, starting with item #10, Closed
13:59:27 <Andi> Functionality - 1.4.2 Audio Control https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT112012/results
13:59:28 <janina> janina has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:32 <Zakim> +Gregg_Vanderheiden
13:59:48 <greggvanderheiden> greggvanderheiden has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:48 <Zakim> +??P11
13:59:51 <Judy_clone> Judy_clone has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:00 <Andi> agenda+ Action Items http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG2ICT-TF/track/actions/open
14:00:01 <janina> zakim, ??P11 is Janina
14:00:02 <Zakim> +Janina; got it
14:00:06 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
14:00:28 <Andi> zakim, [Microsoft] has Alex_Li
14:00:28 <Zakim> +Alex_Li; got it
14:01:17 <alex_> alex_ has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:31 <Zakim> +Bruce_Bailey
14:01:52 <Andi> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:01:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Janina, [Microsoft], Bruce_Bailey
14:01:52 <BBailey> BBailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:54 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has Alex_Li
14:02:02 <korn> korn has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:28 <Zakim> +Kiran_Kaja
14:02:29 <BBailey> zakim, i am bbailey
14:02:29 <Zakim> sorry, BBailey, I do not see a party named 'bbailey'
14:02:33 <Zakim> +[Oracle]
14:02:33 <korn> Zakim, Oracle has Peter _Korn
14:02:35 <Zakim> +Peter, _Korn; got it
14:02:47 <BBailey> zakim, i am Bruce_Bailey
14:02:47 <Zakim> ok, BBailey, I now associate you with Bruce_Bailey
14:03:14 <Zakim> -[Oracle]
14:03:30 <korn> Zakim, Oracle has Peter_Korn
14:03:30 <Zakim> sorry, korn, I do not recognize a party named 'Oracle'
14:03:31 <Zakim> +[Oracle]
14:03:37 <korn> Zakim, Oracle has Peter_Korn
14:03:37 <Zakim> +Peter_Korn; got it
14:03:40 <MaryJo> topic: 2.4.2 Titles at WCAG meeting
14:04:44 <MaryJo> They reworked and edited the intent for 2.4.2, the link and link purpose SC's
14:05:11 <Zakim> +David_MacDonald
14:05:20 <Zakim> +Pierce_Crowell
14:05:21 <greggvanderheiden> Add the following paragraphs to the end of the INTENT sections for SC 2.4.2, 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 respectively. The link provided will take you to the full INTENT for the named SC:
14:05:22 <greggvanderheiden> SC 2.4.2
14:05:23 <greggvanderheiden> Add the following as a second paragraph:
14:05:25 <greggvanderheiden> In cases where the page is a document or a web application, the name of the document or web application would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the page. Note that it is not required to use the name of the document or web application; other things may also describe the purpose or the topic of the page.
14:05:26 <greggvanderheiden> Success Criteria 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 deal with the purpose of links, many of which are links to web pages. Here also, the name of a document or web application being linked to would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the link. Having the link and the title agree, or be very similar, is good practice and provides continuity between the link 'clicked on' and the web page that the user lands on.
14:05:28 <greggvanderheiden> SC 2.4.4
14:05:29 <greggvanderheiden> Add the following paragraph as the second paragraph:
14:05:31 <greggvanderheiden> The text of, or associated with, the link is intended to describe the purpose of the link. In cases where the link takes one to a document or a web application, the name of the document or web application would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the link (which is to take you to the document or web application). Note that it is not required to use the name of the document or web application; other things may also describe the
14:05:32 <greggvanderheiden> purpose of the link.
14:05:34 <greggvanderheiden> Success Criterion 2.4.2 deals with the titles of pages. Here also, the name of a document or web application being presented on the page would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the page. Having the link and the title agree, or be very similar, is good practice and provides continuity between the link 'clicked on' and the web page that the user lands on.
14:05:35 <greggvanderheiden> SC 2.4.9
14:05:37 <greggvanderheiden> Add the following paragraph as the second paragraph:
14:05:38 <greggvanderheiden> The text in the link is intended to describe the purpose of the link. In cases where the link takes one to a document or a web application, the name of the document or web application would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the link (which is to take you to the document or web application). Note that it is not required to use the name of the document or web application; other things may also describe the purpose of the link.
14:05:38 <greggvanderheiden> Success Criterion 2.4.2 deals with the titles of pages. Here also, the name of a document or web application being presented on the page would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the page. Having the link and the title agree, or be very similar, is good practice and provides continuity between the link 'clicked on' and the web page that the user lands on.
14:05:42 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:47 <Pierce> Pierce has joined #wcag2ict
14:05:56 <Zakim> +Judy
14:06:28 <David> David has joined #wcag2ict
14:07:57 <korn> q=
14:07:58 <korn> Q+
14:09:02 <MaryJo> When it comes to 2.4.2, we need review it to make sure in our guidance we say that the name of the application is fine.
14:09:12 <Andi> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing “Web pages” with “non-embedded content or software”.
14:09:12 <Andi> Note:  As described in the WCAG intent (above), the name of a software application or non-embedded content (e.g. document, media file, etc.) is a sufficient title.
14:09:12 <Andi> Note to Task Force:  An amendment to WCAG 2.0 intent is being proposed at the October 11th meeting to address the concern that a document or application name is a suitable title that describes the purpose.  It was confirmed that a name would in fact meet the requirements for title.  This should in fact apply both to title and to links. They requested a proposal that would address both at the
14:09:13 <Andi> same time.  A draft of that subsequent to the WCAG meeting and can be found at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Purpose_and_doc/app_names.
14:10:25 <Andi> q?
14:10:26 <korn> q-
14:10:31 <MaryJo> zakim, next item
14:10:31 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Survey for October 19th Meeting https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT172012/results" taken up [from Andi]
14:11:04 <MaryJo> topic: 4.1.1 Parsing
14:11:10 <MaryJo> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT172012/results#xq1
14:11:43 <MaryJo> Some survey responders want additional examples.
14:12:31 <alex_> q+
14:13:24 <Andi> ack alex
14:15:25 <Judy_clone> Judy_clone has joined #wcag2ict
14:15:34 <Andi> "For software and non-embeded content that use markup languages <del>, where </del> [IN SUCH A WAY THAT] the markup is separately exposed and available to assistive technology (AT) or to a user-selectable user agent, ... "
14:16:26 <greggvanderheiden> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/4-robust/41-maximize-compatibility-with-current-and-future-user-agents-including-assistive-technologies/411-parsing
14:16:43 <Kiran> Kiran has joined #wcag2ict
14:16:54 <MaryJo> AT interoperability could be done through the user agent DOM or by parsing the source (such as ODF for braille display).
14:17:06 <korn> Here is an updated bit of example text: "Examples  of markup that is separately exposed and available to AT and to user  agents include documents encoded in HTML, ODF, and OOXML.  In these  examples, the markup can be parsed entirely both by AT which may directly open the document, as well as is commonly accessed by AT using DOM APIs of user agents for these document."
14:18:55 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
14:19:13 <Andi> q+
14:19:15 <alex_> q+
14:19:20 <alex_> q+
14:21:28 <Andi> ack andi
14:24:00 <MaryJo> If an end user is using a tool to create a document, the tool would automatically handle this SC without further action by the user.
14:24:26 <Andi> ack alex
14:25:05 <Andi> action: Gregg to suggest to WCAG WG to add to 4.1.1 INTENT that authors using an editing tool should not have to worry about this.
14:25:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Suggest to WCAG WG to add to 4.1.1 INTENT that authors using an editing tool should not have to worry about this. [on Gregg Vanderheiden - due 2012-10-26].
14:25:08 <korn> 2nd example: "Examples  of markup used internally for persistence of the software use interface  that are never exposed to AT include XUL, GladeXML, and FXML.  In these  examples AT only interacts with the user interface of generated  software."
14:25:23 <korn> Zakim, who is talking?
14:25:32 <Andi> zakim, who is noisy?
14:25:35 <Zakim> korn, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gregg_Vanderheiden (71%), Kiran_Kaja (8%), [Oracle] (90%)
14:25:46 <Zakim> Andi, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Andi_Snow_Weaver (14%), Gregg_Vanderheiden (19%), Kiran_Kaja (5%), [Oracle] (90%)
14:26:56 <Zakim> + +1.510.334.aaaa
14:27:09 <Zakim> -[Oracle]
14:29:28 <korn> Zakim, aaaa is Peter_Korn
14:29:28 <Zakim> +Peter_Korn; got it
14:32:00 <BBailey> q+
14:32:55 <Andi> q?
14:32:56 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
14:33:51 <David> +1
14:34:07 <korn> q+
14:34:09 <MaryJo> Discussion about whether or not to show the whole substitution of the SC either with or without the intent and notes. The intent is important, but it may be more readable if our guidance is put directly under the SC and have the intent after that.
14:34:14 <Andi> ack bruce
14:34:56 <korn> +1
14:34:57 <korn> q-
14:35:04 <BBailey> +1 on the idea to have intent collapsible
14:35:59 <Andi> action: Andi to schedule agenda topic to talk about overall organization & presentation - intent before our guidance, intent after our guidance, intent links to WCAG, additional version of the guidance doc with just the substitutions
14:35:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Schedule agenda topic to talk about overall organization & presentation - intent before our guidance, intent after our guidance, intent links to WCAG, additional version of the guidance doc with just the substitutions [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-10-26].
14:39:08 <korn> q+
14:39:08 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept proposal #6 for 4.1.1 as updated in the meeting.
14:40:28 <Andi> ack korn
14:40:29 <korn> q-
14:41:20 <Pierce> Pierce has left #wcag2ict
14:41:28 <Andi> action: Andi to put process resolution about grammatical edits on next agenda
14:41:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Put process resolution about grammatical edits on next agenda [on Andi Snow-Weaver - due 2012-10-26].
14:41:54 <Pierce> Pierce has joined #wcag2ict
14:41:57 <Pierce> +q
14:42:01 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
14:42:05 <MaryJo> topic: 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation
14:42:10 <MaryJo> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/OCT172012/results#xq2
14:43:24 <korn> q+
14:45:00 <Andi> the suggestion I made to Alex that he is referring to is to scope this to "UI Controls that change the presentation of the UI"
14:45:19 <Andi> ack pierce
14:46:01 <MaryJo> This SC is hard to create good guidance in the non-web world. We don't want to have our guidance expand the meaning of the SC.
14:46:29 <Andi> ack korn
14:46:42 <Pierce> +q
14:47:49 <greggvanderheiden> Q+
14:47:58 <Andi> ack pierce
14:48:07 <MaryJo> There are 3 options to deal with this: (1) Say we can't achieve consensus (2) Puch boundaries of definition of a navigation mechanism (3) say this SC doesn't apply in some contexts, such as software.
14:48:23 <Pierce> +q
14:48:27 <Judy> q+
14:48:36 <alex_> q+
14:49:01 <Pierce> -q
14:49:05 <Pierce> +q
14:49:11 <Andi> ack gregg
14:50:13 <David> q+
14:51:32 <Judy_clone> Judy_clone has joined #wcag2ict
14:51:37 <MaryJo> We could make a statement that this is not an issue in software, wouldn't normally be included in guidelines for software.
14:54:09 <MaryJo> If we go with options to the WCAG working group, it may cause our schedule to be at risk since it could take multiple meetings with the working group to resolve.  Suggest whatever we can capture from our discussions for now, we just do that.
14:54:55 <Andi> ack judy
14:54:59 <korn> q+
14:55:01 <Andi> ack alex
14:55:07 <greggvanderheiden> gv
14:55:52 <MaryJo> s/gv//
14:56:07 <Andi> ack pierce
14:56:42 <Andi> q+
14:57:38 <MaryJo> Assertion that if we have to define terms, change the intent, etc. to make an SC apply to software then it really doesn't need to be mapped to a requirement for software.
14:57:47 <Andi> ack david
14:59:00 <Andi> ack korn
14:59:06 <Pierce> +1 David
14:59:08 <korn> It isn't just URLs.  See http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-consistent-locations.html and look at the first example: " 				Examples of Success Criterion 3.2.3 								A consistently located control 							A search field is the last item on every Web page in a site. users can quickly locate the search function."
14:59:20 <Pierce> Keep it to the definition of URL
14:59:44 <Pierce> -1 David
15:00:26 <MaryJo> The non-normative intent of this SC scopes in controls.
15:01:08 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:11 <Judy> q+
15:03:15 <Pierce> +q
15:03:30 <Andi> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/3-understandable/32-make-web-pages-appear-and-operate-in-predictable-ways/323-consistent-navigation
15:03:35 <Andi> ack andi
15:04:04 <Andi> ack judy
15:05:10 <Andi> ack pierce
15:05:24 <greggvanderheiden> q+
15:05:57 <Judy_clone> Judy_clone has joined #wcag2ict
15:06:10 <MaryJo> proposal 9 was created by Andi to make some clarifications for non-embedded content and to say that for software we don't have additional guidance on applying to software.
15:06:57 <Andi> ack gregg
15:08:07 <MaryJo> We may have reached consensus on the difficulties with this SC, even though we haven't reach consensus on the guidance.
15:08:15 <korn> q?
15:10:43 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
15:12:43 <Andi> q?
15:13:37 <MaryJo> Since WCAG has the notion of 'Set of web pages', this is what creates many of the issues for applying to software. Sofware is so different inside, requiring these SC to apply inside of software applications causes problems.
15:15:31 <Judy_clone> Judy_clone has joined #wcag2ict
15:15:33 <MaryJo> Suggested way to get this to closure - that this makes sense in documents, but not so much to software for 'sets of software'.
15:16:13 <Judy_clone> q+
15:16:42 <MaryJo> A 'set of software' almost never occurs.
15:18:28 <korn> q+
15:18:35 <alex_> q+
15:18:40 <Judy_clone> ack j
15:18:47 <Andi> ack korn
15:19:05 <David> q+
15:19:14 <greggvanderheiden> Q+
15:19:15 <Andi> ack alex
15:19:20 <MaryJo> Some would prefer to say this SC doesn't apply rather than say we didn't reach consensus, if we were allowed to do so.
15:20:57 <MaryJo> If we can't say it doesn't apply, readers of the document would have to digest the information we do provide for the SC and come to their own conclusion that the SC doesn't really apply.
15:21:10 <Andi> ack David
15:21:16 <MaryJo> s/the SC doesn't really apply/the SC doesn't really apply to software/
15:21:19 <BBailey> q+ to say that “does not apply” is better than “no consensus” but can we task the “does not apply” camp to distinguish that case from Gregg’s observation that it really just a no-op.
15:22:43 <Andi> ack gregg
15:23:11 <Pierce> +q
15:24:15 <MaryJo> We could say the way that this is written by WCAG, that it would be interpreted to a 'set of software', explain the concept of 'set of software', and say that this doesn't happen very often.
15:24:48 <MaryJo> s/say the way that this is written/say that the way this SC is written/
15:25:08 <Andi> ack bruce
15:25:08 <Zakim> Bruce_Bailey, you wanted to say that “does not apply” is better than “no consensus” but can we task the “does not apply” camp to distinguish that case from Gregg’s
15:25:11 <Zakim> ... observation that it really just a no-op.
15:25:25 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
15:25:30 <Andi> ack pierce
15:25:45 <korn> q+
15:26:09 <greggvanderheiden> q+
15:26:25 <Andi> ack korn
15:27:02 <MaryJo> The problems could even be worse with a set of software.  Example of administrator application that is part of a set of software and you wouldn't necessarily even want the navigational mechanisms to be consistent.
15:27:40 <Judy> q+
15:29:56 <Andi> ack gregg
15:30:14 <David> q+
15:30:57 <korn> q+
15:32:09 <Pierce> +q
15:32:59 <korn> "Dear WGAG WG: We could not find a way to define precisely what 'navigation mechanisms' are for software.  We would like to be able to say one of a combination of either "doesn't not apply to software", or "in software, this can apply to UI controls whether or not they are 'navigation mechanisms'.  Otherwise, we feel all we will be able to say is 'couldn't reach consensus'"
15:33:37 <Andi> ack judy
15:33:45 <MaryJo> We got to the proposal #9 that we have by expanding the SC, but the group hasn't accepted the proposal.
15:34:18 <Andi> ack david
15:34:35 <MaryJo> There could be software that mimics a Web interface.  In this case this SC would apply.
15:34:41 <alex_> q+
15:35:12 <MaryJo> The issue is what are the boundaries of a navigation mechanism and what a set of software is.
15:36:20 <MaryJo> We do know what UI controls are and what a software application are, so it makes more sense to adjust the SC to these concepts.
15:36:50 <MaryJo> However, this is an expansion of the scope of the SC.
15:36:57 <greggvanderheiden> q+
15:36:58 <korn> q-
15:37:00 <David> +1 on Peter
15:37:24 <Andi> ack pierce
15:37:41 <MaryJo> It is hard for developers to know when this SC should be applied, but even harder for testers to figure out how to apply.
15:37:56 <Andi> ack alex
15:38:24 <MaryJo> s/figure out how to apply/figure out when there is a failure because the SC should be applied/
15:39:12 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
15:40:17 <MaryJo> Some software changes the order of elements in the navigational mechanism depending on the role of the user, which is something intentional to make the software usability better for that role.
15:40:50 <David> q+
15:41:08 <MaryJo> Requiring this SC in those cases would make the software less usable for certain roles.
15:41:25 <korn> We should get explicit permission to go longer Andi.  I can, but at this point we aren't coming to closure, so I thinik we should call for it.
15:42:23 <MaryJo> s/We should get explicit permission to go longer Andi.  I can, but at this point we aren't coming to closure, so I thinik we should call for it.//
15:43:00 <Zakim> -Andi_Snow_Weaver
15:44:52 <Pierce> I do not agree that these are good principles to apply to SW, so defining a set of SW is not helpful from my perspective
15:44:53 <korn> q+
15:45:01 <Andi> ack gregg
15:47:05 <korn> q-
15:47:14 <MaryJo> These are not necessarily good principles to apply to sets of software.
15:47:26 <korn> q+
15:47:32 <Andi> ack david
15:47:48 <Andi> ack korn
15:48:14 <MaryJo> There are not bright lines where this SC applies and where it doesn't apply.
15:48:30 <greggvanderheiden> which is not the same as saying it doesn’t apply
15:48:48 <greggvanderheiden> just that it is hard to say when ti does or doesn’t it
15:48:57 <MaryJo> topic: Next meeting
15:49:04 <korn> Gregg: it doesn't apply as a rule.
15:49:08 <MaryJo> Need to return to handling the comments on our draft.
15:50:17 <MaryJo> Suggestion to capture the instances of issues with applying this SC reliably and that is actually counter to many software principles.
15:51:07 <greggvanderheiden> one can't say that it applies in some places but doesn’t always apply so it doesn't apply
15:51:07 <greggvanderheiden> '
15:51:22 <MaryJo> Perhaps we should propose some language of where we are on the remaining SC along with opposing opinions.
15:52:30 <korn> Gregg: we can construct a software UI that looks exactly like a web page that doesn't use HTML, and therefore observe that it could apply there.
15:52:33 <Andi> action: Peter to work with Gregg to draft summary of our positions on applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3 to software
15:52:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-75 - Work with Gregg to draft summary of our positions on applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3 to software [on Peter Korn - due 2012-10-26].
15:52:38 <korn> But that doesn't mean it can be made to apply generally to software.
15:54:36 <Zakim> -Peter_Korn
15:54:37 <Zakim> -Pierce_Crowell
15:54:37 <Zakim> -Kiran_Kaja
15:54:39 <Zakim> -Judy
15:54:41 <Zakim> -Mary_Jo_Mueller
15:54:42 <janina> janina has left #wcag2ict
15:54:43 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
15:54:49 <Zakim> -Janina
15:56:17 <Zakim> -Bruce_Bailey
16:03:34 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:03:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
16:06:43 <MaryJo> Regrets: Mike_Pluke, Loïc_Martínez_Normand
16:10:44 <MaryJo> Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Janina, Alex_Li, Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, Pierce_Crowell
16:11:04 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:11:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
16:13:10 <MaryJo> s/Puch boundaries of defnition/Push boundaries of definition/
16:14:22 <MaryJo> s/proposal 9 was created by Andi/Proposal #9 was created by Andi/
16:14:26 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
16:14:28 <Zakim> -Gregg_Vanderheiden
16:14:30 <Zakim> WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM has ended
16:14:30 <Zakim> Attendees were Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Janina, Alex_Li, Bruce_Bailey, Kiran_Kaja, Peter, _Korn, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, Pierce_Crowell, Judy,
16:14:30 <Zakim> ... +1.510.334.aaaa
16:16:35 <MaryJo> s/and what a software application are,/and what a software application is,/
16:17:39 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:17:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
16:18:22 <MaryJo> Present: Andi_Snow_Weaver, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Janina, Alex_Li, Bruce_Bailey, Kiran_Kaja, Peter, _Korn, Peter_Korn, David_MacDonald, Pierce_Crowell, Judy,
16:18:34 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
16:18:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/10/19-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
16:18:47 <greggvanderheiden> greggvanderheiden has left #wcag2ict
16:40:17 <MaryJo> zakim, bye
16:40:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
17:15:35 <Judy> Judy has joined #wcag2ict
17:27:10 <korn> korn has left #wcag2ict