21:00:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/20-wai-wcag-irc
21:00:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
21:00:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
21:00:15 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM already started
21:00:16 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
21:00:16 <Zakim> +James_Nurthen
21:00:16 <trackbot> Date: 20 February 2014
21:00:23 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
21:00:28 <Joshue108> zakim, who is on the phone?
21:00:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.617.766.aaaa, [IPcaller], Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.910.278.aabb, James_Nurthen
21:00:50 <AWK> Agenda+ discuss ARIA10/F65 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/imagediscussmtg/results
21:00:53 <Joshue108> zakim, [IPcaller] is Joshue
21:00:53 <Zakim> +Joshue; got it
21:00:59 <Joshue108> zakim, mute me
21:00:59 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:01:03 <AWK> Zakim, aaaa is AWK
21:01:03 <Zakim> +AWK; got it
21:01:08 <Joshue108> zakim, unmute me
21:01:08 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
21:01:17 <Zakim> +[Google]
21:01:25 <Kathleen> zakim, aabb is me
21:01:25 <Zakim> +Kathleen; got it
21:01:29 <Loretta> akim, Google is Loretta
21:01:41 <Loretta> zakim, Google is Loretta
21:01:41 <Zakim> +Loretta; got it
21:01:44 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
21:01:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see AWK, Joshue, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Kathleen, James_Nurthen, Loretta
21:01:54 <Joshue108> Chair: Ad-hoc
21:02:45 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:12 <Zakim> + +1.703.862.aacc
21:03:33 <AWK> Zakim, aacc is Jon Avila
21:03:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aacc is Jon Avila', AWK
21:03:45 <kerstin_probiesch> kerstin_probiesch has joined #wai-wcag
21:03:59 <Zakim> +Marc_Johlic
21:05:06 <AWK> Chair: AWK
21:05:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:05:40 <Jon_Avila> Jon_Avila has joined #wai-wcag
21:05:45 <AWK> Zakim, aacc is Jon Avila
21:05:45 <Zakim> I don't understand 'aacc is Jon Avila', AWK
21:05:50 <kerstin_probiesch> zakim, ipcaller is me
21:05:50 <Zakim> +kerstin_probiesch; got it
21:05:52 <AWK> Zakim, aacc is Jon_Avila
21:05:52 <Zakim> +Jon_Avila; got it
21:05:56 <kerstin_probiesch> zakim, mute me
21:05:56 <Zakim> kerstin_probiesch should now be muted
21:05:59 <Joshue108> zakim, mute me
21:05:59 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:06:03 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
21:06:03 <Zakim> agendum 1. "discuss ARIA10/F65 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/imagediscussmtg/results" taken up [from AWK]
21:06:24 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:28 <adam_solomon> adam_solomon has joined #wai-wcag
21:06:39 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/imagediscussmtg/results
21:06:48 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
21:07:06 <adam_solomon> zakim, [IPcaller] is adam_solomon
21:07:06 <Zakim> +adam_solomon; got it
21:08:18 <Ryladog> q+
21:09:58 <AWK> We need a scribe
21:10:34 <Joshue108> Zakim, unmute me
21:10:34 <Zakim> Joshue should no longer be muted
21:11:43 <Ryladog> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
21:11:45 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
21:12:55 <AWK> Scribe: James
21:13:06 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
21:13:06 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:13:08 <Joshue108> +q
21:13:11 <Joshue108> ack ryla
21:15:02 <jamesn> KHS: Value of having alt there is because some tools don't support aria-labelledby and aria-label
21:15:26 <adam_solomon> +q
21:15:36 <Ryladog> Alt works for most users who are PWD including those who do and do not use AT
21:16:03 <jamesn> JA: I like the idea of aria-labelledby is that generally the text is on screen. Think this is positive. Generally not supportive of aria-label as much as we already have alt. I beleive alt text should be available to low-vision users and users with cognitive imparments
21:16:28 <jamesn> JA: title I am very much against as the html spec says it is advisory information for these elements.
21:16:33 <jamesn> JA: this is pretty much it
21:16:44 <Ryladog> +1 ti title comment by A
21:16:51 <Ryladog> JA
21:16:56 <jamesn> JA: if i had to pick a choice - i would side with something which didn't require aly
21:17:16 <jamesn> JA: I would like to see a matrix of current support. Would like to see all the possible cases
21:17:34 <jamesn> JA: just testing an image may not be the same as testing an image inside a link
21:17:39 <Joshue108> ack me
21:17:45 <Ryladog> q+
21:17:47 <jamesn> AK: Stefan not on the call
21:17:56 <AWK> ZAkim, queue?
21:17:56 <Zakim> I see adam_solomon, Ryladog on the speaker queue
21:18:32 <jamesn> JOC: wanted to frame the discussion. For me there are a lot of issues in this. One of the reasonds aria10 came to our attention is places where it is not possible to use alt
21:18:40 <AWK> ack adam
21:18:40 <Joshue108> ack adam
21:18:45 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
21:18:45 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:19:10 <jamesn> AS: Q? Is tools not supporting aria-labelledby only an issue for images or is it for everything
21:19:34 <jamesn> KHS: It is not supported in general. It is s a limited set oif configurations today
21:19:54 <jamesn> KHS: what we want to do is support aria but without dropiing support for other things
21:19:56 <Joshue108> +q
21:20:00 <Joshue108> ack ryla
21:20:11 <jamesn> KHS: want to continue using alt along with aria-label and aria-labelledby
21:20:19 <jamesn> KHS: perhaps dropping in the future
21:20:21 <jamesn> q?
21:20:24 <jamesn> q+
21:20:40 <AWK> ack ryla
21:21:02 <jamesn> AS: accoridng to that should we also consider for other techniques
21:21:27 <AWK> ack josh
21:21:29 <jamesn> AWK: interesting question and a large can of worms
21:22:29 <AWK> ack james
21:22:31 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
21:22:31 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:22:32 <jamesn> JOC: really all should try to rememebr that one of the reasons we are habving this discussion is want to be able to expand beyond screen reader use. We are in a fuzzy area with poor accessibility support for other than screen readers. Need a little bit of leeway for this discussion
21:22:54 <Joshue108> s/habving/having
21:23:46 <Joshue108> AWK: To add to Joshs framing, is we are trying to figure out the classic a11y support question
21:23:47 <Ryladog> q=
21:23:50 <jamesn> AWK: key question is the classic accessibility support question. When is a technology sufficientlyready?
21:23:55 <Ryladog> q+
21:24:11 <jamesn> AWK: easy when you have something that works everywhere all the time
21:24:52 <jamesn> AWK: NVDA have indiciated that they will have fixes by their may realease on IE.
21:25:07 <Joshue108> s/indiciated/indicated
21:25:24 <Joshue108> s/realease/release
21:25:31 <jamesn> AWK: if we put the same level of thought to some things we miught be suprised at the level of support we see
21:25:43 <Joshue108> Zakim, queue?
21:25:43 <Zakim> I see Ryladog on the speaker queue
21:25:53 <Joshue108> s/miught/might
21:25:56 <jamesn> AWK: part of the reason that the E&O WG suggested we provide strong cautionary statements
21:26:38 <jamesn> AWK: there is a question about how technoligy gets built - if folks want to experiment then they can
21:26:42 <Joshue108> ack ryla
21:26:56 <Joshue108> s/technoligy/technology
21:27:14 <jamesn> KHS: I agree we want to pus the aoption of aria. I believe we can't do this at the expense of basic access
21:27:34 <jamesn> KHS: I believe we should be cocerned about accessibility support
21:28:13 <Joshue108> s/cocerned/concerned
21:28:20 <Joshue108> s/aoption/adoption
21:28:21 <jamesn> q+ to ask where the support isn't there?
21:28:25 <AWK> q+
21:28:39 <jamesn> KHS: this is a very basic accessi bility sompoonent
21:28:43 <Loretta> q+ to disagree that this kills alt
21:28:53 <AWK> ack james
21:28:53 <Zakim> jamesn, you wanted to ask where the support isn't there?
21:29:08 <Joshue108> +q I also disagree with this killing alt
21:29:16 <Joshue108> q+ I also disagree with this killing alt
21:29:33 <Joshue108> JN: Where else is support lacking?
21:29:59 <jamesn> KHS: going to be doing a hackathon at CSUN
21:30:10 <Joshue108> JN: I'm still not hearing specifics
21:30:34 <Jon_Avila> I can speak
21:30:39 <Joshue108> JN: So, are people complaining? Regarding SRs, I understand alt not being displayed with images off.
21:30:48 <AWK> Zakim, queue?
21:30:48 <Zakim> I see AWK, Loretta on the speaker queue
21:30:49 <Joshue108> JN: Aside from that where is support lacking?
21:30:51 <Joshue108> ack awk
21:31:22 <jamesn> AWK: one fo the tings that is worth thinking about too is are there uses of web technolofy where there is very solid support.
21:31:27 <Joshue108> q+ to say I also disagree with this killing alt
21:31:42 <jamesn> AWK: for example when creating a mobile application on iOS or Android - the support seems very very solid
21:32:12 <Joshue108> s/technolofy/technology
21:32:14 <jamesn> AWK: some issues with IE10 + JAWS13 - but later versions of jAWS seem to be doing better
21:32:22 <Joshue108> s/fo the tings/of the things
21:32:30 <Ryladog> Related to someones comment that we SHOULDNT be worried about accessibility support, working group is tracking the accessibility support status of techniques, which is not an appropriate expectation to be setting." I think we absolutly *do* need to do this - it is why we update the techniques/understanding as new technologies are coming on board. If we do it for technologies - that means we include OS/UA/and*AT*.
21:32:44 <jamesn> AWK: KHS comment that is it the role of the WG to be tracking accessibility support. My concern is that it is a tremendous amount of work to do that
21:32:59 <Joshue108> +1 to Ryladog
21:33:16 <jamesn> AWK: developers should be paying attention to accessibility support on their project and to make compiance statement based on that
21:33:19 <jamesn> q+
21:33:44 <jamesn> AWK: may be a better use of our time to encourgae developers to make wise decisions
21:34:04 <Joshue108> s/encourgae/encourage
21:34:09 <AWK> ack loretta
21:34:09 <Zakim> Loretta, you wanted to disagree that this kills alt
21:34:14 <jamesn> KHS: why don't we just leave stuff alone rather than update stuff.
21:34:25 <jamesn> LGR: we generally don't update stuff like this
21:35:17 <jamesn> KHS: if we release something tomorrow that does not require alt will some people not have to pay to upgrade?
21:35:18 <Joshue108> ack me
21:35:19 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say I also disagree with this killing alt
21:35:26 <Joshue108> ack lor
21:35:31 <Zakim> -James_Nurthen
21:36:09 <Zakim> +James_Nurthen
21:36:51 <AWK> Loretta and Josh say that they don't think that this is about killing alt
21:36:53 <jamesn> LGR & JOC: want to say that we are not killing alt
21:37:26 <jamesn> JOC: may be cases where aria is a better solution and alt is not possible
21:38:19 <jamesn> JOC: user agent support. Something we should be doing but who is going to do it. The accessibility support DB from Shadi may do some of this work. Once that is there it is an option which may work
21:38:48 <jamesn> KHS: agree that i don't see people killing alt
21:39:08 <AWK> Zakim, queue?
21:39:08 <Zakim> I see jamesn on the speaker queue
21:39:10 <jamesn> KHS: people being left behind bothers me
21:39:15 <AWK> Ack james
21:39:32 <Joshue108> JN: My aim is to ensure that people aren't penalised if they have done things that work.
21:40:18 <Joshue108> JN: Its more important to make the failure work - I'd be happy if something doesn't fail if they have provided an accessible name, without provision of a positive technique.
21:40:46 <Joshue108> Zakim, queue?
21:40:46 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
21:40:50 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
21:40:50 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:41:28 <jamesn> AWK: <reads Stefan Schnabel comments>
21:41:43 <Joshue108> ack me
21:42:47 <jamesn> LGR: I think Stefan is arguing that we should be allowing aria and not casting something in stone which would obstruct this
21:43:03 <Joshue108> JN: Yes
21:43:14 <Joshue108> JN: @alt is still required in HTML.
21:43:40 <jamesn> AWK: validating for WCAG is a differnt check
21:43:45 <kerstin_probiesch> zakim, unmute me
21:43:45 <Zakim> kerstin_probiesch should no longer be muted
21:44:01 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
21:44:01 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:44:02 <Zakim> -adam_solomon
21:44:04 <jamesn> AWK: kerstin's comment is that aria is a good thing and the price here is too high
21:45:21 <jamesn> KP: did some screen reader testing today with NVDA + IE11 and support not there
21:45:39 <jamesn> AWK: NVDA + IE is not a very common use case
21:45:51 <jamesn> AWK: Jamie stated they will have this fixed by May
21:46:11 <kerstin_probiesch> zakim, mute me
21:46:11 <Zakim> kerstin_probiesch should now be muted
21:46:26 <jamesn> AWK: if you say should it means doesn't have to
21:46:33 <Joshue108> zakim, mute me
21:46:33 <Zakim> Joshue was already muted, Joshue108
21:47:02 <Joshue108> zakim, queue?
21:47:02 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
21:47:08 <jamesn> KA: it is the "in addition to" instead of "instead of"
21:47:31 <jamesn> KA: if i were to rewite I would change the word should
21:47:51 <jamesn> AWK: Alastair is suggesting being more conservative
21:48:27 <jamesn> AWK: Sailesh also in support of option 1 - requiring alt eith minor edits
21:48:56 <jamesn> AWK: answers to questions
21:49:03 <jamesn> AWK: point 1 - no it doesn't
21:49:17 <jamesn> AWK: point 2 - agree this seems to need changing
21:49:28 <jamesn> AWK: point 3 - find that confusing
21:49:45 <jamesn> LGR: 2 parts. Is there accessibility support or is there not
21:50:10 <jamesn> LGR: I understand the motivation to explain what the WG is thinking but should keep the WG out of the techniques
21:50:33 <jamesn> LGR: discussion about a11y support belongs in the UA notes
21:51:00 <jamesn> LGR: if we want to require alt on the elements which support alt then we may want to break this in half
21:51:18 <jamesn> LGR: should perhaps put more explanation about these in here
21:51:35 <Joshue108> +q
21:51:48 <jamesn> LGR: if we do that then labelledby with an image becomes advisroy becuase we are saying it is not sufficient
21:52:10 <jamesn> LGR: even if we look at the current state of things there are people with older versions
21:52:22 <jamesn> KHS: this is vital
21:52:35 <jamesn> LGR: i would hope all the wcag techniques are vital
21:53:01 <jamesn> LGR: here there is an easy alternative and others may not have them
21:53:30 <jamesn> LGR: If we say they must provide alt then authors will not provide aria-labelledby as there is no point in them doing so
21:53:34 <Joshue108> ack me
21:53:40 <AWK> Zakim, queue?
21:53:40 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
21:54:38 <Ryladog> q+
21:54:48 <jamesn> JOC: I am very concerned about things I see in my day job. Very concerned that some of the good stuff I see aria can do gets put into advisroy. I would sit on the side of taking a chance with this. I would try to push to support aria. Maybe not in this iteration
21:54:49 <Joshue108> ack ryla
21:55:07 <jamesn> KHS: I have no interest in not supporting aria  but want to additionaly require alt
21:55:12 <Joshue108> s/advisroy/advisory
21:55:22 <jamesn> LGR: don't need to. Doesn't improve accessibility
21:55:28 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
21:55:28 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
21:55:41 <jamesn> KHS: allows the adoption of aria and allows ackwards compatibiolity
21:56:25 <Joshue108> s/ackwards compatibiolity/backwards compatibility
21:56:28 <AWK> q+
21:56:38 <Joshue108> ack awk
21:56:45 <Loretta> q+
21:57:16 <Ryladog> q+
21:57:27 <jamesn> AWK: would agree that having both doesn't increase accessibility. Will make AT vendors look and see that they don't need to pay attention to aria-labelledby as there is always alt
21:57:56 <Ryladog> If the understanding by *all* is that ALT will be retired than tool makeers and devlopers can build their stuff appropriately
21:58:26 <jamesn> AWK: someone that is creating a site or ann application is supposed to do their due dilignece. May mean allowing poieple to do things we are not thrilled about tofday
21:58:41 <Joshue108> s/tofday/today
21:59:05 <jamesn> LGR: would be willing to go down a 2 use cases
21:59:07 <jamesn> q+
21:59:13 <Joshue108> s/dilignece/diligence
21:59:15 <Joshue108> ack lor
21:59:25 <Joshue108> s/poieple/people
21:59:34 <Joshue108> s/ann/an
21:59:39 <Joshue108> ack ryla
21:59:42 <jamesn> LGR: would really like to modfy the failure such that aria-labelledby is ok providied it is accessibility supported
21:59:59 <jamesn> KHS: leaves door open.
22:00:03 <Joshue108> s/modfy/modify
22:00:13 <Joshue108> s/providied/provided
22:00:24 <Loretta> q+
22:00:31 <jamesn> KHS: the failure - don't agree with the fact that AT vendors will not implement things if we make it very clear that tthe requirement for alt will be removed
22:00:36 <AWK> ack james
22:00:42 <Joshue108> JN: I think the failure has to be changed.
22:01:14 <Joshue108> JN: For in intranet only app, or a packaged solution, why would they have a failure when their configurations are supported?
22:01:20 <Joshue108> RD: It wouldn't be
22:01:22 <Joshue108> JN: Sorry
22:01:34 <Joshue108> RD: How is a tool going to be able to determine that?
22:01:59 <Joshue108> JN: I don't understand, this is a failure. In my job, we sell a product, and will only support certain configurations.
22:02:24 <Joshue108> JN: If all platforms we support, and our clients say you fail this failure, and you fail WCAG?
22:02:30 <AWK> Zakim, queue?
22:02:30 <Zakim> I see Loretta on the speaker queue
22:02:43 <AWK> ack lor
22:02:45 <Joshue108> RD: Right, we need a safety valve for where it isn't a controlled environment
22:02:46 <jamesn> KHS: I want to make sure there is a safety valve for when things aren't in a controlled environemnt
22:02:49 <Joshue108> RD: How can we do that?
22:03:20 <Joshue108> Zakim, queue?
22:03:20 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
22:03:23 <jamesn> LGR: want to add a check i nthe failure to make sure that something is accessibility supported
22:03:32 <Joshue108> s/environemnt/environment
22:03:41 <Joshue108> s/i nthe/in the
22:04:08 <Joshue108> JN: Do you recall I sent a proposal for this, AWK?
22:04:11 <Joshue108> AWK: No
22:04:14 <Joshue108> JN: I'll have a look
22:04:28 <Joshue108> JN: It's what Loretta is suggesting
22:04:34 <jamesn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/F65_Round_2#Example_1:_Missing_alt_text
22:04:50 <Joshue108> JN: It's similar to what Loretta is suggesting
22:05:08 <Joshue108> +q
22:05:27 <Joshue108> ack me
22:05:29 <jamesn> LGR: having nothing about labelledby in a positive way for these elements
22:05:34 <Joshue108> -q
22:06:05 <Joshue108> +q to say being very cautious with our techs and failures may be the way to crack this
22:06:37 <Joshue108> RD: Support and access to the a11y API has to be considered.
22:06:42 <Joshue108> JN: Yes
22:07:10 <Joshue108> JN: This is failure, if this is being shown to the A11y API, then it's not a failure!
22:07:12 <Joshue108> AWK: Right
22:07:55 <Joshue108> LGR: Failure were meant to highlight common things people were doing wrong
22:08:01 <Joshue108> LGR: Not capture everything
22:08:12 <Joshue108> ack me
22:08:12 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to say being very cautious with our techs and failures may be the way to crack this
22:09:11 <Loretta> Looking at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Aria-Edit:_F65:_Failure_of_Success_Criterion_1.1.1_due_to_omitting_the_alt_attribute_on_img_elements,_area_elements,_and_input_elements_of_type_image#Description, I propose change steps 1, 2, and 4 to something like:
22:09:26 <jamesn> JOC: people will say we can only use wcag technqieus perhaps something we want to break
22:09:44 <jamesn> JOC: should we be erring on extreme caution or should we be pushing the envelope a bit
22:09:46 <Joshue108> Zakim, queue?
22:09:46 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
22:09:55 <Loretta> 1. check if aria-labelledby referencences one or more id elements in the page AND that aria-labelledby is accessibility supported for the target audience
22:10:13 <Joshue108> s/referencences/references
22:10:42 <Joshue108> ack me
22:10:44 <jamesn> AWK: mandate as part of the procedure step that this is accessibility supported
22:11:19 <jamesn> LGR: not just view the API
22:11:34 <jamesn> KHS: also needs to be explanation in the top part as to why this is necessary
22:11:49 <AWK> Loretta's suggestion is on ARIA10
22:12:06 <jamesn> LGR: accessibility support implies that you undersand waht versions of browsers and what AT your target audience is using
22:12:22 <jamesn> LGR: this goes back to JN example where they know the answers to these questions
22:12:41 <jamesn> KHS: then Katie's concern that in the wild west these answers may not be known
22:13:01 <kerstin_probiesch> and we should add a note about what "target audience" means: intranet, closed environments
22:13:02 <jamesn> q+
22:13:21 <Jon_Avila> q+
22:13:28 <Joshue108> JN: Is this a slippy slope?
22:13:34 <Joshue108> JN: Is it a can of worms?
22:13:40 <Joshue108> LGR: Yes
22:13:52 <Joshue108> JN: Why do this in this case but not in others?
22:14:05 <Joshue108> LGR: Do we have failures for those situations?
22:14:14 <Joshue108> LGR: But is there a documented failure?
22:14:18 <Joshue108> JN: I think there is
22:14:30 <Joshue108> <discussion on variou failures>
22:14:43 <Joshue108> LGR: Maybe we need to look at modification to failures.
22:14:54 <Jon_Avila> I don't see any 1.3.1 failures for label of label or title
22:14:58 <AWK> ack james
22:15:01 <AWK> ack jon
22:15:13 <jamesn> JA: wanted to bring up title being allowed
22:15:24 <jamesn> JA: wanted to know if i am the only one concerned
22:15:26 <Loretta> q+
22:15:30 <jamesn> q+
22:15:41 <Loretta> q-
22:15:57 <jamesn> JOC: it is one of the things that it is looked at
22:16:21 <Joshue108> JN: It's in the API mappings doc etc
22:16:30 <Joshue108> JN: Its defined in teh HTML5 API doc
22:16:43 <Joshue108> s/teh/the
22:17:01 <Joshue108> JA: But its in an advisory tech, is that valid?
22:17:19 <Joshue108> JN: I don't care about validity, but am more concerend about a11y support
22:17:31 <jamesn> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aapi/#img-element
22:18:13 <Joshue108> JOC: @title could come back better support in VoiceOver
22:18:46 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
22:18:46 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
22:18:53 <Loretta> q+
22:18:59 <jamesn> AWK: are we getting to a spot where we can agree
22:19:30 <jamesn> AWK: if the procedure reinforces that a11y support necessary then that may be satisfactoy
22:19:52 <Joshue108> s/satisfactoy/satisfactory
22:20:04 <jamesn> LGR: my comments were for F65
22:20:15 <AWK> s/Loretta's suggestion is on ARIA10/Loretta's suggestion is on F65
22:20:43 <Joshue108> ACTION: Loretta to draft changes to F65 and changes to ARIA 10 on elements that have @alt
22:20:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Draft changes to f65 and changes to aria 10 on elements that have @alt [on Loretta Guarino Reid - due 2014-02-27].
22:20:44 <Ryladog> +1
22:20:46 <jamesn> LGR: wanted to make a proposal and volunteer to make these changes to F65 and ARIA10 so we can survey them on Tuesday
22:21:40 <jamesn> AWK: going to have to do that. In terms of if we are trying to hit the CSUN schedule and we can't come to a resoiluton on this. What do we do then?
22:21:56 <Joshue108> s/resoiluton/resolution
22:22:21 <Ryladog> q=
22:22:26 <Ryladog> Q+
22:22:29 <Ryladog> Q+
22:22:30 <jamesn> AWK: I feel like there is a lot of value in regular techniques. Don't want to turn this into a 2 year technqieus cycle. Want to do somnething to get this out by CSUN. perhaps that means pulling the technqiues
22:22:35 <Ryladog> q+
22:22:46 <Joshue108> ack james
22:22:53 <jamesn> AWK: we can debate this until a11y support improves
22:23:06 <Joshue108> JN: I think a11y support is there in new versions.
22:23:20 <Joshue108> JN: I don't now what 'until a11y support improves'
22:23:25 <Joshue108> ack lor
22:23:54 <Joshue108> LGR: I don't think we can pull F65
22:24:00 <Joshue108> JN: Do you mean pulling the changes?
22:24:04 <jamesn> LGR: I don't think we can pull F65 without notice but could remove ARIA10
22:24:07 <Joshue108> LGR: No, dropping the tech
22:24:18 <Joshue108> LGR: We can't do that without warning
22:24:37 <Joshue108> ack ryla
22:24:39 <jamesn> AWK: there may be some procedural steps that need to be taken
22:24:57 <jamesn> KHS: have faith in what LGR is proposing
22:25:00 <jamesn> :)
22:25:04 <kerstin_probiesch> +1
22:25:37 <Joshue108> Zakim
22:25:44 <Joshue108> Zakim, queue?
22:25:44 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
22:25:51 <jamesn> AWK: are we going in a direction that sounds good
22:25:56 <jamesn> yes
22:25:56 <Joshue108> +1 from me
22:26:10 <Joshue108> thanks loretta
22:26:19 <Joshue108> ack me
22:26:34 <kerstin_probiesch> thanks Loretta
22:26:46 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
22:26:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/20-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
22:26:46 <Zakim> -Joshue
22:26:47 <kerstin_probiesch> bye
22:26:47 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
22:26:49 <Zakim> -Jon_Avila
22:26:52 <Zakim> -Kathleen
22:26:53 <Zakim> -James_Nurthen
22:26:55 <Zakim> -Marc_Johlic
22:26:56 <Zakim> -Loretta
22:27:07 <AWK> RRSAgent, set logs public
22:27:18 <Zakim> -AWK
22:27:22 <Zakim> -kerstin_probiesch
22:27:24 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
22:27:24 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.617.766.aaaa, Katie_Haritos-Shea, +1.910.278.aabb, James_Nurthen, Joshue, AWK, Kathleen, Loretta, +1.703.862.aacc, Marc_Johlic, kerstin_probiesch, Jon_Avila,
22:27:24 <Zakim> ... adam_solomon