14:36:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
14:36:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/24-wai-wcag-irc
14:36:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:36:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wai-wcag
14:36:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
14:36:41 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WAI_WCAG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
14:36:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
14:36:42 <trackbot> Date: 24 March 2015
14:36:54 <Joshue108> zakim, agenda?
14:36:54 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
14:38:29 <Joshue108> agenda + WCAG F2F @ TPAC Sapporo, and comment responses etc New survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/
14:38:47 <Joshue108> agenda+ Techniques work
14:39:01 <Joshue108> agenda+ Charter update
14:39:15 <Joshue108> agenda+ Reminder about outstanding actions
14:50:22 <Joshue108> Zakim, code?
14:50:22 <Zakim> the conference code is 9224 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Joshue108
14:50:48 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()11:00AM has now started
14:50:54 <Zakim> +Joshue
14:51:07 <Joshue108> is Joshue
14:51:28 <Joshue108> Joshue108 is Joshue
14:52:07 <Zakim> +AWK
14:52:46 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
14:52:49 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:52:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Joshue, AWK
14:53:12 <Joshue108> Zakim, this is Joshue
14:53:12 <Zakim> sorry, Joshue108, I do not see a conference named 'Joshue' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:54:23 <Joshue108> Zakim, I am Joshue
14:54:23 <Zakim> ok, Joshue108, I now associate you with Joshue
14:55:05 <AWK> Zakim, Joshue is Joshue-the-Zakim-resistant
14:55:05 <Zakim> +Joshue-the-Zakim-resistant; got it
14:55:20 <AWK> Zakim, Joshue-the-Zakim-resistant is Joshue
14:55:20 <Zakim> +Joshue; got it
14:55:40 <AWK> Zakim, agenda?
14:55:40 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
14:55:42 <Zakim> 1. WCAG F2F @ TPAC Sapporo, and comment responses etc New survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/ [from Joshue108]
14:55:42 <Zakim> 2. Techniques work [from Joshue108]
14:55:42 <Zakim> 3. Charter update [from Joshue108]
14:55:42 <Zakim> 4. Reminder about outstanding actions [from Joshue108]
14:55:53 <Joshue108> Chair: Joshue
14:59:59 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
15:00:47 <Zakim> +Kathy_Wahlbin
15:00:53 <Zakim> + +1.650.464.aaaa
15:01:09 <yatil> zakim, call EricE-Skype
15:01:09 <Zakim> ok, yatil; the call is being made
15:01:10 <Zakim> +EricE
15:01:26 <marcjohlic> marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag
15:01:33 <Zakim> +Marc_Johlic
15:01:36 <yatil> zakim, I am EricE
15:01:36 <Zakim> ok, yatil, I now associate you with EricE
15:01:38 <yatil> zakim, mute me
15:01:38 <Zakim> EricE should now be muted
15:01:40 <Joshue108> zakim, aaaa is Dan
15:01:40 <Zakim> +Dan; got it
15:02:43 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:03:06 <Joshue108> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Joshue, AWK, Kathy_Wahlbin, Dan, EricE (muted), Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:04:12 <marcjohlic> scribe: marcjohlic
15:04:53 <Loretta> Loretta has joined #wai-wcag
15:05:09 <marcjohlic> zakim, next item
15:05:09 <Zakim> agendum 1. "WCAG F2F @ TPAC Sapporo, and comment responses etc New survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/" taken up [from Joshue108]
15:05:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:05:36 <Loretta> zakim IPcaller is Loretta
15:05:59 <marcjohlic> Dan Frank - Wells Fargo - joining working group
15:06:18 <Mike_Elledge> Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:34 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
15:06:49 <Zakim> +Mike_Elledge
15:06:57 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
15:07:12 <Zakim> +jon_avila
15:08:09 <marcjohlic> DF:  Creating an approach to scoring, prioritizing - metrics for accessibility testing
15:08:31 <marcjohlic> JC:  Will send Dan a URI to work Shadi is doing also
15:09:16 <Zakim> +??P33
15:09:40 <yatil> ack me
15:09:55 <AWK> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:09:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Joshue, AWK, Kathy_Wahlbin, Dan, EricE, Marc_Johlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, [IPcaller], Mike_Elledge, jon_avila, Michael_Cooper (muted)
15:10:07 <yatil> zakim, mute me
15:10:07 <Zakim> EricE should now be muted
15:10:27 <MichaelC> zakim, IPclaler is Loretta_Guarino_Reid
15:10:27 <Zakim> sorry, MichaelC, I do not recognize a party named 'IPclaler'
15:10:38 <MichaelC> zakim, IPcaller is Loretta_Guarino_Reid
15:10:38 <Zakim> +Loretta_Guarino_Reid; got it
15:10:39 <Loretta> zakim, IPcaller is Loretta
15:10:39 <Zakim> sorry, Loretta, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
15:10:52 <Loretta> zakim, [IPcaller] is Loretta
15:10:52 <Zakim> sorry, Loretta, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
15:10:54 <MichaelC> ack me
15:11:09 <Zakim> +Kenny
15:11:14 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:11:27 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:12:02 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/%22
15:12:21 <marcjohlic> TOPIC:  Would you attend a WCAG Face to Face meeting at TPAC Sapporo 2015?
15:12:48 <AWK> q+
15:12:58 <Joshue108> ack AWK
15:13:04 <marcjohlic> JC:  2 "definitely will be there"  and 2 "definitely won't be there"  responses so far
15:13:32 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Need more responses from WG members before we can make a final decision
15:13:47 <marcjohlic> s/JC:/JOC:
15:14:08 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Would like to get a consensus as soon as possible
15:14:12 <Joshue108> [Updated Test Procedure F68] Procedure looks wrong
15:14:21 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/81
15:14:23 <marcjohlic> RESOLUTION:  Leaving open awaiting more responses from members
15:14:28 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/85/files?diff=split
15:14:39 <marcjohlic> TOPIC:  [Updated Test Procedure F68] Procedure looks wrong
15:15:22 <marcjohlic> KHS:  Changes to my comment based on Andrew's response
15:15:47 <Ryladog> For all input, textarea and select elements in the Web page (EXCEPT those of type hidden, submit, reset, or button ) one of the following checks must be true:"
15:16:42 <marcjohlic> AWK:  propose "inputs of type hidden..  etc"   vs  "those of type"
15:17:12 <Ryladog> For all input, textarea and select elements in the Web page (EXCEPT input type hidden, submit, reset, or button ) one of the following checks must be true:"
15:18:05 <marcjohlic> RESOLUTION:  Accepted Katie's updated text for F68
15:18:10 <Joshue108>  [Comment Response F3] Clarify the meaning of "is also available" in step #3 of F3 test #80
15:18:23 <marcjohlic> TOPIC:  [Comment Response F3] Clarify the meaning of "is also available" in step #3 of F3 test #80
15:18:24 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/80
15:19:31 <Joshue108> q?
15:19:35 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Agree there is an issue here - just want to ensure we are marking this against the correct SC
15:20:08 <marcjohlic> AWK:  If someone has CSS turned off, then an image may not appear then they may not have any alt text - is that was folks are talking about as well?
15:20:13 <marcjohlic> JOC:  My understanding as well
15:20:23 <marcjohlic> JA:  Also agree
15:20:37 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Is that a Failure of 1.1.1 or 2.4.6 or a User Agent thing?
15:21:03 <marcjohlic> JA:  I see it as a 1.1.1 because it's an image that doesn't have a text equivalent
15:21:39 <marcjohlic> JA:  2.4.6 Is that if you already have a heading or label then i has to describe the purpose
15:22:01 <marcjohlic> AWK:  I was thinking it was a control image, but if it's just a content image then label doesn't really come into play
15:22:15 <marcjohlic> KHS:  Even as a control image it will still fit under 1.1.1
15:22:31 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Should we put a note in the technique?
15:22:43 <marcjohlic> LGR:  Think we may be making this more complex than it is
15:22:44 <Mike_Elledge> !
15:23:26 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Seems like we are depending on user agent behavior to fill the gap
15:23:53 <marcjohlic> AWK:  If we turn CSS off, we are counting on user agent to fill that gap
15:24:01 <Joshue108> zakim, mute me
15:24:01 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
15:24:05 <Joshue108> ack me
15:24:07 <Joshue108> q?
15:25:11 <Joshue108> zakim, mute me
15:25:11 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
15:25:40 <marcjohlic> JA:  The way I look at this is CSS is presentation only.  We have a programmatic method but we also have to have a visual alternative...
15:25:50 <marcjohlic> JA:  If this was a control, 4.1.2 would apply
15:25:59 <Loretta> q+
15:26:04 <Joshue108> ack me
15:26:09 <marcjohlic> JA:  Some situations more SC could apply
15:26:50 <Joshue108> ack lore
15:27:25 <marcjohlic> JA:  Until we have another technique, I would be careful about changing this one  (this is the only one that covers need to present alternatives for CSS images)
15:28:23 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Suggest leaving this open before making a response because it may hit a few areas that we didnt' consider
15:28:54 <marcjohlic> JA:  We could make the same argument for color
15:29:07 <marcjohlic> LGR:  But we have specific SC that address use of color
15:29:47 <marcjohlic> LGR:  This may be an oversight
15:29:49 <Joshue108> q?
15:30:29 <marcjohlic> KHS:  Brings back the one that we wanted to get rid of in 508 around turning off CSS and having all functionality available  (going away in Refresh)
15:31:23 <marcjohlic> RESOLUTION:  Leave open while AWK works on wording
15:31:33 <Joshue108> [Comment response G136] Meaning of "Alternate version" is not clear
15:31:36 <marcjohlic> TOPIC:  [Comment response G136] Meaning of "Alternate version" is not clear
15:31:47 <marcjohlic> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/73
15:32:25 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Mixed response on this one
15:33:35 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Commentor's comment was just on the example - don't think there is anything in G136 that says you "must do this" like link has to be called something specific
15:33:58 <marcjohlic> AWK:  We already have a standard that says you must name links appropriately
15:35:22 <Zakim> +James_Nurthen
15:35:36 <Joshue108> q?
15:35:48 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Issue is around ambiguity of "alternate version" - so we should clear that up
15:35:56 <Joshue108> On a Web site, for each page that does not conform to WCAG at the declared level, the first link on the page is called "Alternate accessible version" (or using other link text that properly conveys the purpose of the link). The target of this link is the alternate version of the page that conforms to WCAG at the declared level.
15:36:16 <marcjohlic> +1
15:37:10 <Joshue108> +1
15:37:13 <Loretta> +1
15:37:21 <Joshue108> +1 from James
15:37:22 <Kathy> +1
15:37:30 <Kenny> +1
15:37:55 <marcjohlic> JN:  Suggest dropping "alternate" and just got with "accessible version"
15:37:58 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Agree
15:38:00 <marcjohlic> +1
15:38:52 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Preference for removing "alternate" but I can live with it
15:39:13 <Joshue108> MJ: I like it is will shorten link
15:39:23 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Just updating the Example
15:39:32 <Joshue108> s/it is/ as it
15:39:39 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Test does not mention link text
15:39:50 <marcjohlic> JA:  Does not say that it has to be first link either
15:40:00 <Ryladog_> Ryladog_ has joined #wai-wcag
15:40:32 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Making me re-think the use of "alternate" - but that is a discussion for another day
15:40:54 <marcjohlic> RESOLUTION:  Accepted as amended per AWK's suggested text minus the word "alternate"
15:41:31 <Joshue108> Zakim, agenda?
15:41:31 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
15:41:32 <Zakim> 1. WCAG F2F @ TPAC Sapporo, and comment responses etc New survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/ [from Joshue108]
15:41:32 <Zakim> 2. Techniques work [from Joshue108]
15:41:32 <Zakim> 3. Charter update [from Joshue108]
15:41:32 <Zakim> 4. Reminder about outstanding actions [from Joshue108]
15:42:20 <AWK> For each image added to the content via CSS, HTML style attributes, or dynamically in script as background images.  1.	Check that the image conveys important information. 2.	Check that a text equivalent for the image is not available programmatically. 3.	Check that a text equivalent is not available visually when the CSS image is not displayed.
15:42:23 <marcjohlic> TOPIC:  Returning to [Comment Response F3] Clarify the meaning of "is also available" in step #3 of F3 test #80
15:44:10 <marcjohlic> AWK:  This doesn't change what we currently have, but it does make it clearer
15:44:20 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Would have to update Expected Results
15:44:21 <AWK> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F3.html
15:44:22 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
15:44:32 <jamesn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:44:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn
15:46:25 <marcjohlic> LGR:  Is it possible to programmatically associate text for CSS images?
15:46:42 <marcjohlic> LGR:  Seems that the only method is for hiding the text when the image is present
15:47:26 <marcjohlic> JN:  There are ways of doing this
15:47:32 <jon_avila> q+
15:47:56 <marcjohlic> LGR:  Concerned that there are ways of approximating it - but not that specifically associate the text with the image
15:48:15 <jon_avila> q-
15:48:46 <marcjohlic> JN:  They would both be associated w/ the same DOM node.  Correct that the text is not associated directly w/ the CSS image, but it is INDIRECTLY associated via the DOM node
15:48:59 <jon_avila> q+
15:49:03 <marcjohlic> JN:  People are going to be doing this anyway - so we need to provide them a way to do it correctly
15:49:47 <jon_avila> q?
15:49:50 <marcjohlic> LGR:  What is is WCAG that makes it true that if an image is not available neither is the alt text..   Would it be 1.1.1?  Discussion around that
15:49:58 <Joshue108> ack jon
15:49:59 <Zakim> -Dan
15:50:36 <marcjohlic> JA:  Strictly speaking you can't provide an alternative based on the text alt definition.  You could still meet WCAG through other methods - so maybe not under 1.1.1 it could be under conformance
15:50:51 <AWK> q+
15:51:04 <marcjohlic> JA:  If you had a chart that didn't provide all of the details via alt text, but the the details were provided on the page
15:51:18 <Joshue108> q?
15:51:30 <Joshue108> ack awk
15:51:36 <Ryladog_> q+
15:52:12 <marcjohlic> AWK:  The use case I see is where there is an icon - and for some reason they like to use <i> and maybe it has text inside it or sometimes it doesn't, and they use CSS to assign a background image
15:52:37 <marcjohlic> AWK:  The difference between this method and using <img> is that AT alerts the user that there is an image there
15:53:46 <marcjohlic> AWK:  It's very uncomfortable - probably an area where we should make a note for ourselves about future work.  Feel that the INTENT is clear enough, but there might be enough wiggle room in 1.1.1 where an argument could  be made that the <i> element is being made into non-text content
15:53:57 <Ryladog_> Q-
15:54:16 <marcjohlic> q?
15:55:32 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Big question really is:  We may be making some assumptions about what the UA is going to do with text alternatives
15:56:02 <marcjohlic> JOC:  To James' point to what degree can we rely on the UA to handle that correctly (indirect association via the DOM)
15:56:30 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Do we need to leave open and work on the Test procedure more?  My sense is yes
15:57:24 <marcjohlic> JOC:  I think we need to be more clear from the UA side on what is likely to happen in the majority of cases when CSS images aren't displayed.  Things have change from when this was first written.
15:58:07 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Are there differences when CSS is off vs when CSS images are off
15:58:20 <marcjohlic> JN:  We don't need to worry about CSS off for conformance
15:59:22 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Let's leave this open for another week to look at this one
15:59:32 <Mike_Elledge> q+
15:59:51 <marcjohlic> JA:  If you're going to propose changing the Test procedures, also need to update the Expected Results
15:59:55 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Agree
16:00:10 <Joshue108> ack mike
16:00:11 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Agree and would help to clear up all of the "if" cases
16:00:31 <marcjohlic> ME:  Wondering if we also need to take a look at SC for presenting alternate content
16:00:45 <Joshue108> Zakim, agenda?
16:00:45 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:00:46 <Zakim> 1. WCAG F2F @ TPAC Sapporo, and comment responses etc New survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/24thMarch2015/ [from Joshue108]
16:00:46 <Zakim> 2. Techniques work [from Joshue108]
16:00:46 <Zakim> 3. Charter update [from Joshue108]
16:00:46 <Zakim> 4. Reminder about outstanding actions [from Joshue108]
16:00:55 <marcjohlic> AWK:  That's were we can put a note in the wiki, but we can't change the SC itself (normative)
16:01:08 <marcjohlic> RESOLUTION:   Leave open (again)
16:01:15 <marcjohlic> Zakim, next item
16:01:15 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Techniques work" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:01:23 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
16:01:23 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:02:02 <AWK> Zakim, next item
16:02:02 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, AWK
16:02:16 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 3
16:02:16 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Charter update" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:02:40 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Brief update about charter - many of you have heard from us that the charters are out for review
16:02:53 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Word that we've gotten back is that we may need some modifications
16:03:19 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Substantial number of comments that came in on different topics
16:03:25 <Joshue108> ack me
16:03:29 <Joshue108> q?
16:03:37 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
16:03:37 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:03:41 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Charter proposed did not have any normative work defined in it - and that was raised by a number of commentors
16:04:09 <marcjohlic> AWK:  So there are things going on, and if you're a member of a W3C company you can go in and review the comments.
16:04:59 <marcjohlic> AWK:  For WCAG the main comment was that WCAG is very important and that there needs to be Normative work going on.  Folks have talked about normative extensions as opposed to "version" updates
16:05:48 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Based on conversations and WAI2020 meetings at CSUN, people feel there are pieces that might need to be updated.  Want to validate what I was hearing with folks on the WG call
16:06:02 <Ryladog_> q+
16:06:29 <jon_avila> YES!
16:06:30 <Kathy> yes!
16:06:43 <Joshue108> MJ: Yes
16:06:54 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Do you feel that there is enough that we've identified via Mobile and Cognitive work that there are things that need normative work
16:07:10 <Joshue108> ack ryl
16:07:43 <marcjohlic> KHS:  Extensions are a good idea.  We need to continue to leave the techniques as non-normative.
16:08:18 <marcjohlic> KHS:  So keep extensions normative - but any techniques that come out of those non-normative so that we can address any changes that are needed
16:09:00 <Joshue108> q?
16:09:01 <marcjohlic> KHS:  Would also include "Low Vision" concerns and possibly even "wearables" in addition to mobile
16:10:05 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Extensions idea - similar to the way the ongoing work to HTML5 is being done
16:11:05 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Discussing that WCAG extensions could be handled the same way.  WCAG would still be there - could be referenced, but that as extensions come out some other company / institution etc could say "OK we are WCAG plus Extension X"
16:11:34 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Then at some future time we could decide to wrap these all together
16:12:00 <marcjohlic> AWK:  That was the discussion at CSUN - smaller more agile extensions.  And yes techniques would still be normative
16:12:28 <marcjohlic> s/still be normative/still be non-normative/
16:13:07 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Even talking about finding ways to make techniques work even faster.  For example what if Techniques were pulled off of the TR track and updated much more quickly
16:13:31 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
16:13:31 <Zakim> Joshue was already muted, Joshue108
16:13:40 <Joshue108> q?
16:13:48 <marcjohlic> AWK:  We have already moved to every 6 months, but perhaps could make it faster.  Techniques could be modified, rolled out more readily.  Just something that was discussed.
16:14:08 <Joshue108> Zakim, agenda?
16:14:08 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:14:10 <Zakim> 2. Techniques work [from Joshue108]
16:14:10 <Zakim> 3. Charter update [from Joshue108]
16:14:10 <Zakim> 4. Reminder about outstanding actions [from Joshue108]
16:14:17 <marcjohlic> AWK:  We will be updating everyone about what happens, but we know it's certainly going to be a topic for a bit
16:14:19 <Joshue108> ack me
16:14:29 <marcjohlic> Zakim, take up item 2
16:14:29 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Techniques work" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:14:58 <marcjohlic> JOC:  Talking about work we need to do as a WG - techniques in Mobile space
16:15:40 <marcjohlic> KW:  We're taking information we have in the Mobile note and looking at the 4 key areas we discussed in the F2F
16:16:02 <marcjohlic> KW:  What are best practices that we need for keyboard navigation - what are things we need to document as Best Practice
16:16:06 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
16:16:06 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:16:18 <marcjohlic> KW:  What we could use help on is getting that list together - then going back to write the techniques
16:16:59 <marcjohlic> KW:  One thing we are waiting for is to see which way things go on WCAG Extensions as that could affect how we go about writing techniques
16:17:01 <Joshue108> ack me
16:17:14 <marcjohlic> KW: Please review Note and provide feedback
16:17:37 <marcjohlic> http://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-TF-Note/
16:18:42 <marcjohlic> KW:  Starting a new wiki page and inserting some placeholders in the Note.  Kim is creating new wiki this week to track things that came out of F2F  (touch size for example and research around all of that)
16:19:24 <marcjohlic> KW:  Collecting a lot of information around a lot of things - want to check research that is out there to help define as best practice vs advisory etc
16:20:41 <marcjohlic> AWK:  A lot work to be done - part of what Josh and I are suggesting is that it would be great for people looking over work that needs to be done, and seeing where they could contribute - their areas of expertise
16:20:49 <Joshue108> Zakim, mute me
16:20:49 <Zakim> Joshue should now be muted
16:21:30 <Joshue108> ack me
16:21:36 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Another example is that in the WCAG technique Examples use HTML 4 - where they could be updated to HTML 5 - and it doesn't make us look up to date when we don't have HTML5 in our exmaples.   Would be a great contribution to have folks that could update those to HTML5
16:22:07 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Working_Group_Techniques_Development_Assignments
16:22:31 <marcjohlic> AWK:  This url is where we have tracked this in the past (needed technique work)
16:22:57 <jon_avila> I don't think our aside technique never got finished.
16:23:13 <marcjohlic> AWK:  Similarly, if you found some techniques on your own, throw an item on this page indicating the work you're going to help out with
16:23:48 <AWK> zakim, agenda?
16:23:48 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
16:23:49 <Zakim> 2. Techniques work [from Joshue108]
16:23:49 <Zakim> 3. Charter update [from Joshue108]
16:23:49 <Zakim> 4. Reminder about outstanding actions [from Joshue108]
16:24:03 <AWK> Zakim, close item 3
16:24:03 <Zakim> agendum 3, Charter update, closed
16:24:04 <Zakim> I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:24:04 <Zakim> 2. Techniques work [from Joshue108]
16:24:16 <AWK> Zakim, close item 2
16:24:16 <Zakim> agendum 2, Techniques work, closed
16:24:17 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
16:24:17 <Zakim> 4. Reminder about outstanding actions [from Joshue108]
16:24:19 <Zakim> -Kathy_Wahlbin
16:24:36 <marcjohlic> trackbot, end meeting
16:24:36 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:24:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Joshue, Kathy_Wahlbin, +1.650.464.aaaa, EricE, Marc_Johlic, Dan, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Mike_Elledge, jon_avila, Michael_Cooper,
16:24:40 <Zakim> ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Kenny, James_Nurthen
16:24:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:24:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
16:24:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:24:45 <RRSAgent> I see no action items