15:32:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
15:32:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-irc
15:33:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:33:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
15:33:03 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:33:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
15:33:04 <trackbot> Date: 12 January 2016
15:33:12 <Joshue108> agenda+ Virtual FtF planning (duration? Video?)
15:33:23 <Joshue108> agenda+ TPAC meeting planning
15:33:30 <Joshue108> agenda+ UAAG/ATAG update
15:33:39 <Joshue108> agenda+ Survey (Same one as last week, but the first question has been changed and a final question added): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/
15:33:53 <Joshue108> agenda+ Github issues walkthru. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues
15:33:59 <Joshue108> Chair: AWK
15:40:23 <Wayne> Wayne has joined #wai-wcag
15:41:55 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
15:47:24 <AWK> AWK has joined #wai-wcag
15:57:49 <david_000> david_000 has joined #wai-wcag
15:57:49 <yatil> zakim, code?
15:57:49 <Zakim> I have been told this is WCAG https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=mf2aaeee7cfba75b6e38fe4f173844e0c code 642 418 206 password wcag
16:00:55 <Sarah_Swierenga> Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:24 <david_000_> david_000_ has joined #wai-wcag
16:02:55 <JF> JF has joined #wai-wcag
16:03:40 <AWK> password is in the IRC header
16:04:22 <JF> Present+ JF
16:04:31 <AWK> +AWK
16:04:37 <Joshue108> present+ Joshue108
16:05:20 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wai-wcag
16:05:37 <Kathy> Hi - can you tell me what the webex password is?  I cannot connect
16:06:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> scribemic:Sarah_Swierenga
16:06:44 <Sarah_Swierenga> scribenic: Sarah_Swierenga
16:06:47 <laura> present+ Laura
16:07:04 <Sarah_Swierenga> Scribe: Sarah_Swierenga
16:07:14 <Sarah_Swierenga> third time's the charm! :-)
16:07:21 <JF> agenda?
16:07:42 <AWK> regrets+ Jan
16:08:05 <MichaelC> +MichaelC
16:08:09 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 1
16:08:09 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Virtual FtF planning (duration? Video?)" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:08:34 <Sarah_Swierenga> Item 1: face-to-face CSUN
16:09:16 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #wai-wcag
16:09:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> AKW: no formal f-t-f this year. F-t-t at TPAC
16:09:21 <yatil> s/scribemic:Sarah_Swierenga//
16:09:32 <yatil> s/scribenic: Sarah_Swierenga//
16:10:12 <shorton> shorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:10:25 <david_000> david_000 has joined #wai-wcag
16:10:49 <Sarah_Swierenga> Katie: no f-to-f at Deque?
16:11:29 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag
16:11:30 <Sarah_Swierenga> AWK: want to have virtual f-to-f to gather the group
16:11:34 <MichaelC> q+ to say special travel is harder to organize
16:12:29 <laura> laura has left #wai-wcag
16:12:39 <Joshue108> scribe list updated,Wayne to scribe next week, Katie week after.
16:12:48 <Sarah_Swierenga> michael: videoconferencing?
16:12:50 <Joshue108> ack mich
16:12:50 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say special travel is harder to organize
16:13:02 <MichaelC> q+ to say special travel is harder to organize
16:13:11 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: probably not for quality reasons
16:13:21 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag
16:13:33 <laura> laura has joined #wai-wcag
16:13:37 <jnurthen> jnurthen has joined #wai-wcag
16:13:45 <Wayne> Wayne+
16:14:02 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie Haritos-Shea
16:14:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: maybe videoconferencing or webex, and some in-person locations. goal to deepen connections in group
16:14:20 <Wayne> +Wayne
16:14:47 <MichaelC> ack me
16:14:47 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say special travel is harder to organize
16:14:57 <Ryladog> q+
16:15:04 <Joshue108> ack ryla
16:15:04 <AWK> ack ry
16:15:06 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: reaction to virtual face-to-face?
16:15:31 <Wayne> q+
16:15:51 <AWK> ack w
16:16:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> wayne: could the one at TPAC be virtual?
16:16:16 <MichaelC> q+
16:16:27 <Ryladog> q=
16:16:32 <Ryladog> q=
16:16:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: will have a phone call, but may not have capability to have videoconferencing
16:16:45 <yatil> q+ Ryladog
16:16:50 <Ryladog> q+
16:17:03 <MichaelC> ack mic
16:18:16 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: webex may be available at TPAC
16:18:59 <AWK> ack ry
16:19:02 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: routinely have a way to share visuals and powerpoints
16:19:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: what about WWW2016 in montreal?
16:20:32 <shorton> plans to be at W4A
16:20:41 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: for most travel is difficult, so exploring other ways to have face-to-face
16:20:57 <david_000> so we're on for TPAC Lisbon?
16:21:07 <david_000> Cool
16:21:20 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: yes, we're on for TPAC Lisbon
16:22:00 <Sarah_Swierenga> jk: M-Enabling? (June 13-14)
16:22:09 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: not likely for f-t-f
16:23:19 <AWK> Zakim, take up item 2
16:23:19 <Zakim> agendum 2. "TPAC meeting planning" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:23:35 <AWK> Planning on meeting F2F at TPAC in September
16:23:37 <AWK> https://www.w3.org/blog/2015/09/tpac-2016-dates-and-location-announced/
16:23:43 <Sarah_Swierenga> item2 TPAC meeting planning - already covered - meeting at TPAC in Sept
16:24:12 <AWK> zakim, take up item 3
16:24:12 <Zakim> agendum 3. "UAAG/ATAG update" taken up [from Joshue108]
16:24:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: uatag group is closed. discussions with Judy about the group
16:25:42 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: uaag/atag are both closed. future is currently under discussion for implications for WCAG
16:25:48 <AWK> zakim, take up item 4
16:25:48 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Survey (Same one as last week, but the first question has been changed and a final question added): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/" taken up [from
16:25:51 <Zakim> ... Joshue108]
16:25:54 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: survey
16:26:18 <Joshue108> q?
16:27:03 <AWK> TOPIC: Issue 80
16:27:08 <Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20161stSurvey/results
16:28:17 <jnurthen> q+
16:28:22 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: general idea is that F3 and whether we should have a change to the procedure to indicate that it's about when the image is not displayed, and that the image is accounted for programatically
16:29:02 <jnurthen> can we change line "For all images added to the content via CSS, HTML style attributes, or dynamically in script as background images:" to "For all background images added to the content via CSS, HTML style attributes, or dynamically in script:"
16:29:13 <Joshue108> q?
16:29:15 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: F3 is just for 1.1.1, but is not necessarily for making it visual
16:29:17 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk:
16:30:11 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: want to see a failure identified for a contrast, as a new item
16:31:02 <Joshue108> +1 to James
16:31:11 <Wayne> +1 Wayne
16:31:21 <Ryladog> +1 to James
16:31:24 <laura> +1
16:31:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: wants to clarify that this is for all background images
16:32:28 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: wayne doesn't want to use background images for anything other than background image functionality
16:32:45 <jnurthen> ack me
16:33:06 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: this change wouldn't be for the march release
16:33:21 <Joshue108> q?
16:33:58 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: no change for current round. this proposed change would be in the sept release
16:34:16 <jon_avila> I agree it's better to keep the two concepts separate as lack of alternative applies to 1.1.1 and another HC issue possiblies to 1.3.1
16:34:40 <jon_avila> I would be ok with leaving the comment open and making the change
16:34:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: keep the comment open while we're working on it, so we don't forget about it. Issue 80
16:35:36 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: this comment has been here since March 2015, so would like to do something - new issue that says we need to make a new technique
16:36:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: timeline of the issue shouldn't necessarily be a factor
16:37:30 <Sarah_Swierenga> joshua: accessible alternatives for images in background elements in css. developers are putting images in backgrounds that are important
16:38:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> joshua: for cases when it's not robust
16:38:26 <jon_avila> q+
16:38:26 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: if it's not conveyed to AT then there is a failure
16:38:30 <jon_avila> q?
16:39:22 <Sarah_Swierenga> joshua: how do i provide alt text for background images - not sure what to recommend
16:39:31 <AWK> ack jon
16:39:34 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: we need to work on this
16:39:43 <JF> +1 to Josh's point - real world is critical
16:40:04 <Joshue108> s/joshua/Joshue
16:40:12 <Sarah_Swierenga> john: need to make sure we still have a failure. am okay with creating new issue. change and the new failure should come at same time.
16:40:46 <Sarah_Swierenga> sarah: thanks Joshue for correction. sorry about that
16:41:06 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: not thinking about high contrast mode being part of 1.1.1
16:41:08 <jon_avila> q-
16:41:41 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: propose to accept this change and add a new issue. Consensus:
16:41:44 <Sarah_Swierenga> +1
16:41:53 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: any objections:
16:41:57 <jon_avila> sure, but I'd also like some clarification on AT
16:42:03 <Joshue108> A la Jons point High Contrast (OS level) is AT. just not 'off the shelf' etc - we should park this for future UA/WCAG work IMo.
16:42:15 <shorton> I am also concerned with the use of "assistive technology"
16:42:45 <shorton> I agree that it's not okay
16:43:16 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: have loosened the requirements, which could be an issue with interpretation
16:43:51 <Joshue108> SS: I think it is a 1.1.1 issue.
16:43:59 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: want to clarify that while the bground image topic is an issue 1.1.1, but the contrast issue
16:44:05 <Joshue108> SS: I suggest leave it where it is and produce another one.
16:44:07 <Joshue108> AWK: Why
16:44:17 <Joshue108> SS: Its a non text content that has no alternative.
16:44:17 <Sarah_Swierenga> sarah: this is a 1.1.1 issue - non-text content that doesn't have an alternative
16:44:32 <Joshue108> AWK: If you have background image with a text alt via aria label.
16:44:44 <Joshue108> AWK: Then it would pass, which you are talking about.
16:45:11 <Sarah_Swierenga> sarah: would provide a visible text alternative - replacement
16:45:14 <Joshue108> SS: The way I would do this is to prove a visible text alt, as a replacement.
16:45:20 <Joshue108> AWK: Thats fine but not the only one.
16:45:41 <Joshue108> SS: Its still a text alt to an image. Its not just about programmatic alternatives.
16:45:54 <Joshue108> SS: the use of the term AT does imply that those with AT will have access.
16:46:03 <Joshue108> SS: What about those without AT?
16:46:03 <Sarah_Swierenga> shorton: still a text alternative to an image, but still a programatic and visual for those not using AT
16:46:27 <Joshue108> s/SS/shorton
16:46:41 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: does replacement have to use text?
16:46:45 <Sarah_Swierenga> shorton: no
16:46:48 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk:
16:47:23 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: then it's not 1.1.1
16:48:10 <Sarah_Swierenga> shorton: still ambiguity - need more investigation
16:48:45 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: then we should leave this open for now.
16:48:48 <Joshue108> q?
16:49:05 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: need a new technique
16:49:25 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: looking ofor volunteers to work on this
16:49:43 <Sarah_Swierenga> shorton: volunteer to help
16:50:01 <Joshue108> ACTION, Sarah Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images.
16:50:04 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: new technique for disappearing background images
16:50:07 <Joshue108> ACTION: Sarah Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images.
16:50:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-318 - Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images. [on Sarah Horton - due 2016-01-19].
16:50:26 <Sarah_Swierenga> RESOLUTION: leave Issue 80 open
16:50:38 <Sarah_Swierenga> TOPIC: Issue 96
16:50:48 <yatil> s/ACTION, Sarah Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images.//
16:51:03 <Sarah_Swierenga> TOPIC: Issue 133
16:51:03 <JF> ISSUE 133?
16:51:33 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/133
16:52:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: proposes referring to HTML5 instead of earlier versions
16:52:19 <JF> q+
16:52:20 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/137/files?diff=split
16:52:39 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: specific changes in github
16:53:04 <Sarah_Swierenga> john: there was work done on polygraph (?) html
16:53:29 <Ryladog> q+
16:53:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> john: we should reference "the most version of HTML5" and give a pointer
16:53:43 <JF> S/polygraph /POLYGOT
16:54:07 <JF> s/POLYGOT/polygot
16:54:19 <shorton> shorton has joined #wai-wcag
16:54:26 <JF> ack me
16:55:04 <Sarah_Swierenga> michael5: is this a specific or general comment. specific technique
16:55:32 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: would like consistent advice for all html techniques. we are mostly doing that anyways.
16:55:45 <yatil> s/michael5/michaelc/
16:56:53 <yatil> s/(?)//
16:56:57 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: agrees, but we should check the rest of the similar issues. doesn't want to leave things hanging until it's complete
16:57:42 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: using html according to spec, then in cases where there are differences with other html version, we would identify that specifically
16:57:46 <david_000> +1
16:58:36 <yatil> +1 to JF & Katie
16:58:57 <AWK> Current: At the time this technique was published, the appropriate versions of these technologies is HTML 5 and XHTML 1.0. HTML 5 is the latest mature version of HTML, which provides specific accessibility features and is widely supported by user agents. XHTML 1.0 provides many of the same features as HTML 5, but unlike HTML 5 it is not being currently maintained.
16:59:02 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: we need common languages for all of these situations, except where the versioning makes a difference
16:59:19 <david_000> can do it now...
16:59:33 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: suggestions for changing language?
17:00:18 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: proposal to make current version more general wrt versioning
17:00:48 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: xhtml is at 1.1
17:01:14 <Wayne> q+
17:01:41 <AWK> ack w
17:01:48 <david_000> How about this: The latest mature version of HTML is the best way to provide specific accessibility features that are widely supported by user agents. It is best to stay up to date with the latest version.
17:02:06 <Sarah_Swierenga> wayne: the xhtml is very important because of epubs groups that will be looking to wcag. the extensions have to be compatible with xhtml.
17:02:16 <Ryladog> Use HTML/XHTML according to specification supported in your environment.
17:03:04 <david_000> agree
17:03:07 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: likes david's first sentence
17:04:00 <Sarah_Swierenga> JF: more than html
17:04:25 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: but it is an html techique
17:04:57 <JF> suggest: The latest mature version of HTML (or related markup language) - ??
17:05:12 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: the goal of the technique is to say that if you use html according to spec, there is a benefit to doing so, e.g. addressing the parsing issue
17:05:45 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: one option is to replace the entire paragraph with david's sentences or first sentence (with minor edit)
17:06:00 <Ryladog> +1 to Davids first sentence
17:06:02 <david_000> I can accept that friendly amendment
17:06:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: timestamp 11:04
17:06:36 <david_000> OK with me
17:06:42 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: 12:04 in this thread - latest mature version of html
17:06:48 <Ryladog> +1 yes
17:06:58 <david_000> probably just the first
17:06:58 <Joshue108> +1 simpler is best.
17:07:00 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: asking which version people like
17:07:04 <Ryladog> first sentence
17:07:07 <laura> One sentence.
17:07:10 <Sarah_Swierenga> david: probably just first sentence
17:07:11 <jon_avila> +1
17:07:17 <Wayne> +1
17:07:19 <JF> +1 to one sentence
17:07:35 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: proposes making that change and adding jon's to that
17:07:54 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/137/files#diff-45dae38117526e3ccc3cd4e65e061fe4
17:08:28 <JF> Q+
17:08:42 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: Split version in github in upper right is helpful
17:08:44 <AWK> Ack ry
17:08:52 <Joshue108> q+
17:09:01 <JF> ack me
17:09:03 <jnurthen> did you mean to remove XHTML from line 14 too?
17:10:13 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: removing xhtml from line 14, too
17:10:25 <Joshue108> ack me
17:10:26 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: any concerns
17:10:51 <Ryladog> I agree with Josh
17:10:57 <Sarah_Swierenga> joshue: don't understand what 'there are a few broad aspects' means.
17:11:14 <Ryladog> q+
17:11:14 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: they are listed below it
17:11:37 <Joshue108> q?
17:13:05 <AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/137/files#diff-45dae38117526e3ccc3cd4e65e061fe4
17:13:26 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: would rather we vote and then she has a comment
17:13:53 <Joshue108> +1 to edited version
17:14:00 <yatil> +1 to edited version
17:14:01 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: votes for proposed edits
17:14:09 <Wayne> +1
17:14:12 <Sarah_Swierenga> RESOLUTION: accepted as recommended
17:14:15 <AWK> AWK will route for Cfc
17:14:30 <Joshue108> q?
17:14:33 <Joshue108> ack ryl
17:14:41 <david_000> yup
17:14:53 <jnurthen> yes
17:15:24 <david_000> q+
17:15:27 <Sarah_Swierenga> katie: in general, do we as a working group only consider only those 4 components for parsing? or, is parsing broader and needing more spec?
17:15:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: please raise this on the list.
17:15:47 <Joshue108> +1 to raising on list
17:15:50 <david_000> ack
17:16:03 <david_000> ack david_000
17:16:08 <Sarah_Swierenga> TOPIC: Issue 96
17:16:11 <yatil> ach d
17:16:12 <david_000> ack d
17:16:17 <david_000> no
17:16:22 <yatil> s/ach d/
17:17:44 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: kathy indicates that if images have multiple colors then all colors must meet contrast 3.1.
17:18:05 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/96
17:18:12 <JF> Q+
17:18:13 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: images aren't meant to be read, but 3:1 color contrast ratio for icons, since they are usually bigger
17:18:37 <Wayne> q+
17:18:55 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: usually does this based on size, since they are usually larger
17:19:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> awk: my take - right now graphical info that is not text is not currently covered. would be hard to defend a different position.
17:20:00 <yatil> I think that UI contrast should be covered somehow. I usually shoot for a 4.5:1 ratio.
17:20:23 <Sarah_Swierenga> kathy: number of considerations, and does agree that it isn't currently under WCAG
17:20:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> laura: suggest referring to low vision task force
17:21:03 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: there are multiple threads that need to be parsed out
17:21:43 <Joshue108> q?
17:21:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: don't want to confound issues. let's address them piece by piece to cover the whole problem, but not beyond.
17:21:55 <AWK> ack jf
17:22:49 <AWK> I think that when Kathy said "larger" she meant "large-scale" e.g. equivalent to 18pt+
17:23:16 <Sarah_Swierenga> JF: wants to push back - icon is meant to be read. what are they usually bigger than? icons tend to be actionable, so just like text they would need to be contained inside a size threshold.
17:23:53 <Joshue108> ack way
17:24:26 <Joshue108> +1 to Wayne
17:24:31 <Sarah_Swierenga> wayne: we have icon fonts now, so the spec applies
17:24:36 <jnurthen> q+
17:24:36 <Joshue108> q+ to ask about techniques for icon fonts
17:24:48 <david_000> 1.4.3 applies to any font including icon fonts as long as they are text characters
17:25:47 <AWK> WCAG defines text as sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence is expressing something in human language
17:25:52 <Sarah_Swierenga> wayne: spec should change when technology changes and icon text is being used to talk now.
17:25:59 <MichaelC> q+ to say requirements on the visual presentation of icons is one thing; requirements *because they are implemented as a font* is a different issue and is more for techniques
17:26:40 <Wayne> +1
17:27:12 <AWK> ack Jn
17:27:17 <shorton> I agree that icons don't fit the WCAG definition of text
17:27:29 <MichaelC> q-
17:27:43 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: don't think we can apply icons specs the same as text
17:27:54 <AWK> ack jo
17:27:54 <Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to ask about techniques for icon fonts
17:28:19 <Joshue108> sry!
17:28:21 <Joshue108> cant unmute
17:28:26 <AWK> ack mi
17:28:39 <shorton> +1 to making it a technique issue
17:28:50 <Sarah_Swierenga> michaelc: adds that icons font might be a techniques issue, but need to separate icons from the implementation
17:29:20 <Sarah_Swierenga> james: this could fall between the cracks, so has added an issue in github
17:29:47 <Sarah_Swierenga> joshue's comment (not james)
17:30:03 <Joshue108> I think techniques for Icon fonts are needed. I've added an issue in Github
17:30:04 <Joshue108> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/144
17:30:15 <Joshue108> q?
17:30:42 <laura> bye
17:31:10 <AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open
17:31:28 <Sarah_Swierenga> trackbot, end of meeting
17:31:28 <trackbot> Sorry, Sarah_Swierenga, I don't understand 'trackbot, end of meeting'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
17:31:42 <Sarah_Swierenga> trackbot end meeting
17:31:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:31:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AWK, Josh, wayne, jon_avila, JF, Sarah_Swierenga, MichaelC, Katie, Haritos-Shea, JamesNurthen, Laura, Mike, Elledge, Jan, Rakesh, Eric,
17:31:45 <Zakim> ... LisaS, Kathy, David_MacDonald, Joshue108
17:31:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:31:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot
17:31:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:31:51 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-actions.rdf :
17:31:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Sarah Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images. [1]
17:31:51 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-irc#T16-50-07