IRC log of wai-wcag on 2016-04-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:45:39 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag

14:45:39 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-wai-wcag-irc

14:45:41 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

14:45:43 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG

14:45:43 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot

14:45:44 [trackbot]

Meeting: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference

14:45:44 [trackbot]

Date: 05 April 2016

14:45:50 [AWK]

Chair: AWK

14:45:58 [AWK]

Zakim, agenda?

14:45:58 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:

14:45:59 [Zakim]

1. Any interesting updates from CSUN attendees [from Joshue108]

14:45:59 [Zakim]

2. Github issues https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues [from Joshue108]

14:45:59 [Zakim]

3. WCAG.next [from Joshue108]

14:46:00 [Zakim]

4. can we make WCAG better, faster, quicker and shorter? [from Joshue108]

14:46:15 [AWK]

zakim, clear agenda

14:46:15 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

14:46:44 [AWK]

agenda+ Update on WCAG.next sub-group (John, if ready)

14:46:59 [AWK]

agenda+ DPub document discussion and review request - http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/

14:47:09 [AWK]

agenda+ Discussion on handling aging GitHub issues

14:47:25 [AWK]

Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results

14:50:15 [MichaelC]

MichaelC has changed the topic to: WCAG telecon WebEx https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m2c6416ba23424cf61cbea8b2300fcc9e pwd w3c tel +1-617-324-0000 code 642 418 206

14:52:50 [Makoto]

Makoto has joined #wai-wcag

14:52:54 [kirkwood]

kirkwood has joined #wai-wcag

14:55:57 [Wayne]

Wayne has joined #wai-wcag

14:56:27 [AWK]

regets+ Kathy

14:56:59 [allanj]

allanj has joined #wai-wcag

14:57:32 [kirkwood]

present: kirkwood

14:57:55 [AWK]

+AWK

14:58:25 [laura]

laura has joined #wai-wcag

14:58:31 [Joshue108]

Joshue108 has joined #wai-wcag

14:58:52 [marcjohlic]

marcjohlic has joined #wai-wcag

14:58:55 [AWK_]

AWK_ has joined #wai-wcag

14:59:03 [marcjohlic]

present+ marcjohlic

14:59:05 [AWK_]

trackbot, list attendees

14:59:05 [trackbot]

Sorry, AWK_, I don't understand 'trackbot, list attendees'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

14:59:15 [AWK_]

zakim, list attendees

14:59:15 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been kirkwood, AWK, marcjohlic

15:00:36 [JF]

JF has joined #wai-wcag

15:00:37 [alastairc]

alastairc has joined #wai-wcag

15:00:53 [KimD]

KimD has joined #wai-wcag

15:01:02 [Sarah_Swierenga]

Sarah_Swierenga has joined #wai-wcag

15:01:04 [AWK_]

zakim, agenda?

15:01:04 [Zakim]

I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:

15:01:05 [Zakim]

1. Update on WCAG.next sub-group (John, if ready) [from AWK]

15:01:05 [Zakim]

2. DPub document discussion and review request - http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/ [from AWK]

15:01:05 [Zakim]

3. Discussion on handling aging GitHub issues [from AWK]

15:01:16 [KimD]

Present+KimD

15:01:40 [AWK_]

agenda+ Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results

15:01:42 [JF]

Present+ JF

15:02:03 [Sarah_Swierenga]

present+ Sarah

15:02:03 [Joshue108]

present+ Joshue108

15:02:13 [alastairc]

Present+ alastairc

15:02:18 [laura]

present+ Laura

15:02:19 [Makoto]

present+ Makoto

15:02:26 [Wayne]

Present+ Wayne

15:03:55 [AWK_]

Scribe: alastairc

15:03:56 [laura]

Scribing Commands and Related Info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

15:04:07 [SarahHorton]

SarahHorton has joined #wai-wcag

15:05:02 [AWK_]

Thanks for scribing Alastir

15:05:21 [AWK_]

s/Alastir/Alastair

15:05:21 [David]

David has joined #wai-wcag

15:06:14 [MichaelC]

present+ MichaelC

15:06:18 [Joshue108]

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

15:06:20 [AWK_]

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

15:06:22 [yatil]

present+ EricE

15:06:59 [Ryladog]

Ryladog has joined #wai-wcag

15:07:15 [AWK_]

Zakim, take up item 1

15:07:15 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Update on WCAG.next sub-group (John, if ready)" taken up [from AWK]

15:08:00 [Mike_Elledge]

Mike_Elledge has joined #wai-wcag

15:08:42 [alastairc]

JF: Feeling under the weather, but progressing. Still doing an email, coming soon with more details.

15:08:43 [Sarah_Swierenga]

I could scribe on April 12, but wouldn't be able to scribe on April 19 (as requested)...

15:09:10 [alastairc]

JF: Several sessions at CSUN that talked about where we go from here. For background see the URLs posting now.

15:09:17 [JF]

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

15:09:49 [MichaelC]

q+

15:10:02 [alastairc]

JF: Talked through several models (4 or 5), to get feedback about which people prefer. The one that seemed to resonate most was having milestone dates.

15:10:29 [AWK_]

ack mi

15:10:43 [alastairc]

JF: Would like to get the email out today, leave the feedback open for 10-14 days, and distill that down to a recommendation.

15:11:08 [alastairc]

MichaelC: Would like to know more about the process proposed.

15:11:20 [jon_avila]

jon_avila has joined #wai-wcag

15:11:21 [jon_avila]

present+jon_avila

15:11:42 [yatil]

s/present+jon_avila/present+ jon_avila/

15:12:07 [alastairc]

JF: Would like to have feedback to the WAI-IG list, a public list. Any changes to WCAG 2 will have a big impact, so we want an opportunity to provide feedback, are there other ways to collect feedback?

15:12:38 [alastairc]

MichaelC: Just need to be clear about meeting announcements, proposals under review etc.

15:13:14 [alastairc]

JF: Will email out to WCAG & WAI-IG, and Webaim lists as well. Open to other methods as well.

15:13:20 [Ryladog]

q+

15:13:53 [alastairc]

MichaelC: Might need to allow for non-public feedback as well.

15:14:05 [AWK_]

q+

15:14:44 [alastairc]

JF: Looking for balance of process & progress. Would like it to be as open & public as possible, but happy to consider other more private methods.

15:14:50 [AWK_]

ack ry

15:15:26 [alastairc]

Ryladog: Would ask that when something like this goes out, please include how to subscribe, as it gets sent around to other people not on the list.

15:15:50 [MichaelC]

https://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/#subscribe

15:15:54 [Joshue108]

q+

15:15:57 [JF]

Feedback on potential models can be submitted to w3c-wai-ig@w3.org with the Subject Line: WCAG Next Possible Models Information on how to join the WAI-IG mailing list can be found at https://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/#mailinglist

15:16:33 [Ryladog]

Thanks John!

15:16:50 [David]

q+

15:17:06 [alastairc]

JF: Will send this around for editors today.

15:17:29 [AWK_]

ack me

15:17:37 [alastairc]

MichaelC: Could setup a survey that is open to public submissions, readable for members.

15:19:12 [alastairc]

AWK: Whether people submit comments to editors, or through anon survey, we should emphasis that it is more helpful to comment publicly, as we want an open process. A gently steer.

15:19:28 [AWK_]

ack Josh

15:19:30 [Joshue108]

ack me

15:20:05 [AWK_]

ack david

15:20:11 [yatil]

q+ Josh

15:20:37 [alastairc]

David: Are we planning on going through the 4 options, to give us an overview? Is it ok to edit & add to the wiki?

15:20:59 [alastairc]

JF: Please do, with discretion.

15:21:27 [AWK_]

ack Josh

15:21:40 [yatil]

q+ Josh

15:22:04 [AWK_]

Models: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

15:22:26 [alastairc]

JF: 2 of the models would be a 2+, others would be 2.1 naming convention.

15:23:08 [Joshue108]

q?

15:23:11 [alastairc]

JF: The first is WCAG 2 + extensions, e.g. WCAG 2 + Cogn + Mobile

15:23:55 [alastairc]

Second is based on TF, but as it is completed, it would be WCAG 2.1. Same thing, but different naming ext. Then 2.2 could be with the next extension included.

15:26:33 [jamesn]

jamesn has joined #wai-wcag

15:26:33 [alastairc]

JF: Third one is having milestone dates, e.g. 6 months apart, 12 months apart, to be decided. Setup milestone dates, and then as particular SCs & techniques get added, they are incorporated into that milestone.

15:26:42 [jamesn]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:26:42 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html jamesn

15:27:55 [alastairc]

JF: Forth is extending WCAG 2.0 by platform / technology, e.g. taking info from Mobile. Or STB & gaming devices, as tech-specific versions.

15:28:33 [AWK_]

_rrsagent, set logs public

15:28:43 [alastairc]

JF: Open to other ideas, please add if you have them. We need to make a decision soon, knowing soon ish (e.g. summertime) would be a good thing.

15:28:51 [Joshue108]

ack me

15:28:55 [Joshue108]

ack me

15:29:02 [AWK_]

ack jo

15:29:34 [alastairc]

Joshue108: Thanks John, question: have you managed to talk to Sarah & Alastair about SWAT analysis?

15:30:05 [AWK_]

s/SWAT/SWOT

15:30:33 [alastairc]

JF: There are a couple of discussion going on, one about the big picture (WAI 2020), and another about shorter term goals.

15:30:47 [David]

q+

15:30:50 [alastairc]

JF: We need both discussions.

15:31:06 [JF]

Q+

15:31:26 [AWK_]

ack david

15:31:27 [alastairc]

Joshue108: Those discussions are going on, at least with some people. Very interested in the work progressing, thanks.

15:31:32 [Ryladog]

Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea

15:32:46 [alastairc]

David: got the perceptions of the charter in my mind. Assuming we build these things over the year (e.g. with mobile TF progress), we can pop those in when we re-charter next year.

15:33:20 [alastairc]

JF: There's some great progress being made in TFs, but not sure how it will be incorporated, that's the question we're trying to answer.

15:33:22 [AWK_]

q+ to respond to charter question

15:33:38 [Joshue108]

q+ to say this is about longevity not just getting something out.

15:34:34 [alastairc]

JF: It's the specifics we aren't sure of, e.g. what numbers for SC are added by TFs.

15:35:01 [David]

ack david

15:35:06 [AWK_]

ack jf

15:35:35 [AWK_]

ack AWK

15:35:35 [Zakim]

AWK_, you wanted to respond to charter question

15:35:43 [alastairc]

JF: If there's progress on WAI 2020, I'd like to know more, and I'd like to see those discussions & thoughts appear somewhere.

15:36:20 [AWK]

AWK has joined #wai-WCAG

15:37:40 [alastairc]

Joshue108: It's been going on for a couple of years, plans & ideas. Still working things out. WAI 2020 is only one aspect.

15:38:19 [alastairc]

Joshue108: An important point is longevity & stability. We have to be conscious of that.

15:40:13 [David]

ok

15:40:19 [alastairc]

AWK_: We need to figure out what implications it might have for the charter. The charter might be fine, or we might need to re-charter urgently. Not concerned yet as the charter allows for re-chartering early, but will see.

15:40:24 [AWK]

zakim, agenda?

15:40:24 [Zakim]

I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:

15:40:25 [Zakim]

1. Update on WCAG.next sub-group (John, if ready) [from AWK]

15:40:25 [Zakim]

2. DPub document discussion and review request - http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/ [from AWK]

15:40:25 [Zakim]

3. Discussion on handling aging GitHub issues [from AWK]

15:40:26 [Zakim]

4. Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results [from AWK_]

15:40:31 [alastairc]

Zakim, next item

15:40:31 [Zakim]

I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, alastairc

15:40:41 [alastairc]

Zakim, close item 1

15:40:41 [Zakim]

I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, alastairc

15:40:45 [AWK]

ack awk

15:40:50 [AWK]

ack josh

15:40:50 [Zakim]

Joshue, you wanted to say this is about longevity not just getting something out.

15:40:57 [alastairc]

Zakim, close item 1

15:40:57 [Zakim]

agendum 1, Update on WCAG.next sub-group (John, if ready), closed

15:40:58 [Zakim]

I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

15:40:58 [Zakim]

2. DPub document discussion and review request - http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/ [from AWK]

15:41:04 [alastairc]

Zakim, next item

15:41:04 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "DPub document discussion and review request - http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/" taken up [from AWK]

15:43:12 [alastairc]

AWK_: Digital pub group working on a doc, providing advice on ePub accessibility. Looking to release editors draft. Recommending WCAG 2 AA, requiring single-A, adding some additional requirements. Looking for comments from the group if they want to. Would need the comments for next Tuesday if we did, not sure we have time.

15:43:56 [Joshue108]

AC: How does it relate to the other dPub thing?

15:44:49 [alastairc]

David: Great that they are asking at WCAG.

15:45:33 [David]

s/asking at/requiring

15:45:40 [alastairc]

Zakim, close item

15:45:40 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'close item', alastairc

15:45:51 [alastairc]

Zakim, close item 2

15:45:51 [Zakim]

agendum 2, DPub document discussion and review request - http://www.idpf.org/epub/a11y/, closed

15:45:53 [Zakim]

I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

15:45:53 [Zakim]

3. Discussion on handling aging GitHub issues [from AWK]

15:46:03 [alastairc]

Zakim, next item

15:46:03 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "Discussion on handling aging GitHub issues" taken up [from AWK]

15:46:26 [AWK]

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues

15:47:14 [alastairc]

AWK_: We have quite a few issues still there. With Github, there are 43 open issues. We've asked for people to take up different items, and we've closed 61. But still have a lot. Some get dealt with quickly, but some sit for a long time.

15:47:32 [Wayne]

guilty too

15:48:25 [alastairc]

AWK_: Would like to be able to address issues that are urgent / critical to understanding. But, for things that we don't have people to deal with it, but it isn't urgent, we'd like a quicker process to make as deferred. Let us keep the issues list smaller and more manageable.

15:48:43 [AWK]

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Handling_Issues

15:49:53 [alastairc]

AWK_: This process (linked above) would help to keep it manageable, would allow us to mark as deferred. Would also be able to view list of deferred issues.

15:50:57 [alastairc]

AWK_: People will be able to open these items and work on them. Could see issue with some issues being considered important, but if people aren't willing to work on it, can't be that important...

15:52:00 [alastairc]

Marc: Seems good, not sure if a month is long enough?

15:52:52 [alastairc]

AWK_: If someone is regularly working on it, then that would keep it open.

15:52:53 [SarahHorton]

I like the proposed process

15:52:54 [Mike_Elledge]

q+

15:53:19 [AWK]

ack mike

15:53:21 [Sarah_Swierenga]

no objections to keeping the issues list shorter

15:53:29 [alastairc]

Ryladog: Seems good.

15:53:41 [alastairc]

Mike_Elledge: How is this different?

15:54:53 [alastairc]

AWK_: Currently issues sit there, want to keep it more manageable, a method to sort them out. If a month goes by and no-one has taken the issue on, then it goes to the deferred list (label feature in Github).

15:55:38 [alastairc]

Mike_Elledge: Would propose that 'critical' ones (for editors), they might be starred or don't go on deferred list.

15:56:19 [alastairc]

AWK_: We'd send a note out about issues that are going on the deferred list soon, so people are reminding. Working on it is basically the method for showing that it is important.

15:56:47 [Ryladog]

q+

15:57:39 [alastairc]

JohnK: Would it be noted as something that is not attended to? Differentiate deferred due to lack of interest, and not important.

15:58:13 [AWK]

ack ry

15:58:19 [alastairc]

AWK_: We'd probably resolve as closed things that are not going to be dealt with in WCAG2.

15:58:54 [alastairc]

Ryladog: Given all the buzz for accessibility, can we put out a call for additional working group members?

15:59:19 [alastairc]

AWK_: Can do things on github without being in the group.

16:00:08 [Wayne]

q+

16:00:09 [alastairc]

MichaelC: Would like to see a recruiting drive, although might need to split up a bit. Wouldn't differentiate invited experts from member org experts.

16:00:22 [Wayne]

q-

16:00:49 [alastairc]

AWK_: Seems like people are happy to try this process. Not carved in stone, can adjust the process later.

16:01:15 [alastairc]

Zakim, close item 3

16:01:15 [Zakim]

agendum 3, Discussion on handling aging GitHub issues, closed

16:01:16 [Zakim]

I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:

16:01:16 [Zakim]

4. Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results [from AWK_]

16:01:24 [alastairc]

Zakim, next item

16:01:24 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results" taken up [from AWK_]

16:01:51 [AWK]

TOPIC: Issues 171

16:03:58 [alastairc]

AWK_: everyone felt these are not required. Various comments, in this SC is the "or is available in text", so fairly clear and understood in the group.

16:04:21 [Joshue108]

q?

16:05:28 [alastairc]

AWK_: Goal was to get clarity & feedback so we can provide a response with call for consensus. No further comments?

16:05:51 [Wayne]

q+

16:06:12 [AWK]

RESOLUTION: WG agrees that Landmarks are not required to meet SC 1.3.1 for any page with head/foot/navigation areas as there are other ways to indicate a page's structure.

16:06:29 [alastairc]

TOPIC: Issue 170

16:08:13 [David]

q+

16:08:22 [AWK]

ack w

16:08:23 [alastairc]

AWK_: Couple of grammar points, and two people disagreed with the point

16:08:26 [AWK]

ack f

16:08:29 [AWK]

ack d

16:08:36 [Joshue108]

q?

16:08:44 [kirkwood_]

kirkwood_ has joined #wai-wcag

16:08:55 [Joshue108]

q+ to talk about change of context and change of focus definitions

16:09:02 [jon_avila]

q+

16:09:35 [AWK]

ack josh

16:09:35 [Zakim]

Joshue, you wanted to talk about change of context and change of focus definitions

16:09:43 [alastairc]

David: Change of context is the difficult part, whether it is the user's action or not? WCAG1 had different context, and the consensus was around whether it was a user action or not.

16:11:22 [alastairc]

Joshue108: Issue around change of context and our definitions. E.g. a mega menu always appears on mouseover. A monstrous menu appears. Technically it could be bypassed, but it seems like it should be a fail on something. 3.2.2 & 3.2.1 are specific, don't tend to cover this. Should we open/expand the definitions for the change of context?

16:11:25 [Ryladog]

q+

16:11:35 [AWK]

ack jon

16:12:30 [alastairc]

jon_avila: If you're on a page, didn't press tab, a modal pops-up, that doesn't seem to be covered by AA, but is under AAA. We perhaps thought it was due to this technique mapped to 3.1, but re-reading, it is not covered (well).

16:12:37 [David]

Here is my point alastair David: It is a Change of context but it is as a result of a user action. So it is not a failure of WCAG, because it is not on Input and not on Focus

16:12:42 [jon_avila]

q-

16:12:55 [David]

That is correct John

16:12:56 [AWK]

ack ry

16:13:46 [David]

What about a failure of redirecting the user??

16:13:53 [alastairc]

Ryladog: Where you click a link and go to a new page, 3 ads pop-up and steal the focus. If the link said that it would be one thing, but stealing focus is something we need to clarify, probably within the existing SC.

16:14:47 [alastairc]

David: We have a failure on re-direct? If you re-direct without someone asking for it, isn't that a fail?

16:15:37 [jon_avila]

q?

16:15:39 [jamesn]

q+ to say that I don't think 2.2.1 covers this

16:15:44 [jon_avila]

When any component receives focu

16:15:49 [alastairc]

Ryladog: On input is an issue?

16:16:11 [alastairc]

Wayne: It is specific in the language, perhaps too focused to cover this situation.

16:16:31 [alastairc]

David: Can do a bit in the understanding doc, but not the SC.

16:16:57 [alastairc]

jamesn: Have to be careful not to hamper useful functionality, e.g. tabbing out of a field triggers useful things.

16:17:26 [Ryladog]

The issue of aan ad stealing focus when a link is hit to go to a new page I think is new covered by 3.2.2 On Input: Changing the setting of any user interface component does not automatically cause a change of context unless the user has been advised of the behavior before using the component. (Level A)

16:17:28 [AWK]

q?

16:17:31 [AWK]

ack ja

16:17:31 [Zakim]

jamesn, you wanted to say that I don't think 2.2.1 covers this

16:17:49 [alastairc]

jamesn: Many of these things with pop-ups might be useful, e.g. 40% coupon pop-up, don't want to discriminate there.

16:18:07 [Wayne]

q+

16:19:19 [alastairc]

Ryladog: someone who sees it has a choice, interferes with some people more.

16:20:03 [AWK]

ack wa

16:20:03 [Ryladog]

Agreed with link text

16:20:04 [alastairc]

AWK_: In that situation it could be a failure of the link text. You aren't getting to where you expect.

16:20:11 [Ryladog]

but also on input

16:20:17 [Joshue108]

q?

16:20:35 [AWK]

q+

16:20:41 [alastairc]

Wayne: don't think that a dev of a commercial site who wants everyone to see an ad should be prevented.

16:20:52 [jamesn]

+1 to Wayne

16:21:12 [AWK]

ack me

16:21:13 [alastairc]

Wayne: filtering advertisements isn't our concern from accessibility point of view.

16:21:52 [Ryladog]

It is disorienting to land on something that is not what the page's main purpose

16:22:31 [alastairc]

AWK_: don't have a resolution right now, survey to find out more. Hoping we can get enough agreement so someone can right up what the resolution would be.

16:23:36 [AWK]

AC: The original problem needs more clarity. Feels that this is a problem, but isn't sure where in WCAG it falls

16:23:47 [Joshue108]

AC: Its disorentating. The specificness of some of the language, maybe need to re-read.

16:23:58 [Joshue108]

AC: I'll do that and comment on the thread.

16:25:33 [SarahHorton]

q+

16:25:40 [jon_avila]

yes failure of 3.2.5 IMO

16:26:14 [alastairc]

AWK_: Initial part of question was about 3.2.1, which I don't think it fails under. But under 3.2.5 is more applicable.

16:26:50 [jon_avila]

+1 to Michael

16:26:56 [AWK]

ack s

16:27:01 [alastairc]

MichaelC: Agree that it should stay under 3.2.5, but could remove from 3.2.1

16:28:45 [alastairc]

SarahHorton: Could be brought up under 4.1? (Missed a bit, sorry)

16:29:12 [Mike_Elledge]

4.1.2

16:29:36 [alastairc]

AWK_: Would someone like to have a go at this? Might not be a case under 4.1.2 as AT generally announces new windows.

16:30:14 [alastairc]

SarahHorton: Depends on how it's implemented, in some cases it is not announced. Custom dialogues probably not.

16:30:55 [AWK]

RESOLUTION: The WG generally agrees that F52 doesn't apply to 3.2.1 and needs someone to write up the official proposal of changes in GitHub

16:31:29 [alastairc]

AWK_: There are a few more items in the survey, please feel free to answer those if you haven't. That's it for today.

16:31:32 [Mike_Elledge]

bye

16:31:37 [Joshue108]

bye all

16:31:39 [SarahHorton]

Thanks all, bye!

16:31:49 [alastairc]

Trackbot, end meeting

16:31:49 [trackbot]

Zakim, list attendees

16:31:49 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been kirkwood, AWK, marcjohlic, KimD, JF, Sarah, Joshue108, alastairc, Laura, Makoto, Wayne, MichaelC, EricE, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea

16:31:57 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:31:57 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html trackbot

16:31:58 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, bye

16:31:58 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items

16:31:58 [Makoto]

bye all