AGWG meeting

17 Mar 2020


AlastairC, Chuck, MichaelC, PeterKorn, Jennie, bruce_bailey, Laura, JakeAbma, JF, ShaneW, Rachael, Brooks, Fazio, CharlesHall_, StefanS, Caryn, GN015, Katie_Haritos-Shea, kirkwood, jon_avila, david-macdonald, we, have, specific, user, needs, in, coga, identified, for, this, stevelee, Raf
JustineP, Nicaise, MichaelG
Laura, jon_avila


<laura> Scribe: Laura


ac: Welcome everyone.

<AWK> +

Conformance challenges reminder

<pwentz> Hello, my name is Pascal Wentz and I work at SAP in the ACC Team. (Wasn't in the IRC before)

lots of updates.

<scribe> … new member Pascal Wentz

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: we have reviewed the doc before Christmas. somewhat contentious.
... useful to have a preliminary look.
... look through and see if your comments have been addressed before survey.

<alastairc> Link for the document: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-working-draft3/conformance-challenges/index.html

pk: appreciate comments and issues
... eager to have confirmation and further review.

<alastairc> (It should be here in future, but not finished updating yet: https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/)

pk: would like to address. comments.

<sajkaj> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-working-draft3/conformance-challenges/index.html

pk: email comments are partially addressed.

<alastairc> Use the working-draft3 version for review now.

pk: within a few minutes working draft 3 should be up to date.

js: please look at it by end of business on thursday

New members

<Chuck> welcome!

shane: interested in general ag testing

ac: welcome

Virtual F2F reminder (March 24th / 25th)

ac: we sometime have a f2f at CSUN but that didn’t happen this year.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

ac: provisional dates and times for Virtual F2F.

<alastairc> Mar 24th

<alastairc> 9:00 - 11:30 GMT / 5:00 - 7:30am Boston

<alastairc> WCAG 2.2 SC refinement

<alastairc> 16:00 - 18:30 GMT / 12 - 14:30 Boston

<alastairc> Silver conformance

ac: looking at Mar 24th and 25th.
... https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

<alastairc> 16:00 - 18:30 GMT / 12:00 - 14:30 Boston.

<alastairc> WCAG 2.2 SC refinement

<alastairc> 19:30 - 22:00 GMT / 15:30 - 18:00 Boston.

<alastairc> Silver conformance

<alastairc> Other items

<alastairc> March 25th ^

ac: plan is on the wiki page.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to renege on meeting space

bb: had offered a meeting room but offices are closed so that won’t be happening now.

<bruce_bailey> I can no longer offer meeting space for people in DC

pk: agendas will be sent prior?

<kirkwood> pressent+

ac: yes probably send agenda tomorrow

bb: silver conformance is really struggling.

pk: I really liked it.

ac: in discussion. with jeanne and shawn.

jf: +1 to bruce.
... needs more specificity
... quantifiable and qualifiable.
... concerned we a losing focus.
... need scoring
... it is loosing traction.

<CharlesHall_> my impression is no one is opposed to JF’s point. just deffered.

ac: will discuss with jeanne and shawn

pk: need more ideas by ag

<JF> +1 to Peter

<kirkwood> +1 ro Pwrwe

<kirkwood> pwrwe/Peter

pk: looking forward to discussion here.

<Chuck> March 24 9:00 - 11:30 GMT / 5:00am - 7:30am Boston

<Chuck> WCAG 2.2 Custom interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Custom_interactions/

<bruce_bailey> Here's the straw man Draft Adjectival Ratings that I started last week:

<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G0KLv1Nfvy5QWN7t9jPxyE6UEcTHE5A8tKYiDOhuZRY/edit#gid=1833982643

<Chuck> WCAG 2.2 Dragging: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging/

ac: looking to finish off SCs by the end of the month.

<Chuck> WCAG 2.2 Touch target spacing: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/target-spacing/

<Rachael> March 24: WCAG 2.2 Custom interactions: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Custom_interactions/; WCAG 2.2 Dragging: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-dragging/ WCAG 2.2 Touch target spacing: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/target-spacing/

<Chuck> March 25 16:00 - 18:30 GMT / 12:00 - 14:30 Boston

<Chuck> March 25 16:00 - 18:30 GMT / 12:00 - 14:30 Boston

<Chuck> WCAG 2.2 Findable help: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/

<Chuck> WCAG 2.2 Error Correction (was Confirm before submission): https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-confirm-before-submission/ Steve and John can only make this timeslot

ac: looking at mobile the first day and coga the 2nd day.

chuck: everyone saying 2 hour format is good.

jf: if meeting on wed are we still meeting on tuesday?

ac: look at: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

jf: one conflict with APA

ac: will post more details in next few days.
... will refine.

jf: next tues extending meeting for 30 minutes.

ac: yes

Visual indicators https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Visual_indicators/results

<CharlesHall_> regrets for 3/25 meetings.

ac: was a wide scoped SC

<alastairc> Controls needed to progress or complete a process have a visual indicator, except where the control is in a group of controls that has a visual indicator for the group.

ac: has been updated to narrow it.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit#heading=h.4xsm60d8q1n2

ac: ”Controls needed to progress or complete a process have a visual indicator, except where the control is in a group of controls that has a visual indicator for the group.”
... jake was asking “Do we also need to mention "needed to go backwards" in contrary to 'progress' or 'complete' (go steps back…)”
... not sure that was the intent.
... trying to use the most important controls without using the word important

<PeterKorn> I need to drop now.

ac: need the exception or we would get a lot of comments.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if there are failure examples that might help understand what this is trying to prevent

awk: trying to understand what this is trying to prevent
... is there really a problem?

<ok> +1

brooks: problem is users don’t know they have interactive controls on the page.

awk: how would other users know?

<kirkwood> that's difficult on a touch screen though

brooks: look around on the page, hunt and peck.

ac: example: checkout form with so many controls don’t know what is next.

awk: if all are indicted it wouldn’t solve that problem.

ja: if just then scan. can focus on the next action.

df: attention capture
... s/caputere/capture/
... easy to get lost without indicators

jf: isn’t that a user agent issue.

ac: trying to figure out what fails.
... flat design.

awk: example form with button, white button, text in middle of the page
... . need to address the problem that not text contrast doesn’t solve.

ac: applies to a narrower set of things.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about "disabled states" (buttons, etc.)

jf: thinking of the concept of disables states. where does it fit in?

ac: once it is available it is in scope.
... "disabled” not in scope

brooks: think we should include "disabled” in scope.
... sc as is may cause unintended consequences
... we need more research.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Research_needed#Visual_indicators

ac: we have a research page on the wiki.

david: precedent of making incremental steps
... interested in coga speaking to the issues.
... trying to get people to stop using bolding or fonts as indicators.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to push back on "don't use text"

jf: using text is a basic way to explaining things to users.
... need to be very careful on how we explain the SC.
... text link should be discernable when not focused.

jk: proposes example

ac: would need a visual indicator
... would need a visual indicator to progress

chuck: sounds like it would pass
... confused by progressing a process

ac: may have misunderstood the example.

<kirkwood> both understood it

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc3

ac: on progressing don’t think everything would qualify. need more examples.

scribe change?

<scribe> unknown speaker: how is needing to progress defined?

<pwentz> Refer to comment in the bottom

Scribing Commands and Related Info


<jon_avila_> I can scribe if need be

<jon_avila_> scribe: jon_avila

<CharlesHall_> need = “in order to accomplish an activity” (in context of web) versus need = “in order to receive a package”

<jon_avila_> Alastair: asked about process of form example - as written it would apply to required inputs. Wilco put in survey that it should only apply to buttons rather than other controls.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Intent was for required inputs. Then means borders, backgrounds, etc. be required for inputs as you go through a form process. Does widen scope but seems reasonable.

<jon_avila_> GN: what about optional fields?

<jon_avila_> Alastair: That's correct - only required fields. Side effect -- you should make optional fields visible.

<jon_avila_> Chuck: Try to word question correct - interepted - a button needs to look like a button and link like a link - but now reading it as more about if I take a look at a form - ever necessary element on form needed to get to next step - needs to have indicator that these fields are needed to move on -- do they have to have the same visual indicators? Or is it more about buttons looking like buttons?

<jon_avila_> Alastair: not prescription -- just says a visual indicator.

<jon_avila_> Chuck: So they could be different.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: yes, as it's written

<jon_avila_> Brooks: little bothered that providing specificity is prescriptive. For example, roles -- do they need to use specific terms - yes - specific terms that is likely to work with AT and part of a standard. Thinking about people who can't see page - use semantically meaningful. Is the issue simply about not being able to see page -- is that why the role vs. those who can see the page?

<jon_avila_> Brooks: can't support this SC - not because I don't support folks who it's intended for -- but because it might make things worse.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: roles do need to be picked from lists - links can be presented many ways. AAA requirements can be more prescriptive... Does it improve the situation or not make enough difference - or is it counter productive -- which is also possible.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: other topics from survey - revolve around visual indicator that doesn't include things like font weight or position - or the aspect of process -- what comes within a scope of a process

<Fazio> It's part of Objective 1 of our User Stories

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Talked through process aspect. Talked through intent of visual indicators - more than text styling -- be good to get an indication of how people feel. Haven't seen big changes proposed. Do we except or not?

<Fazio> Objective 1: Help users understand what things are and how to use them includes "Clear Operation" "Clear Purpose"

<jon_avila_> Chuck: Refined question: Is intent of SC to be able to tell if it's a button that isn't obscured or is the intent or I can look at the page that there are x number of instances and all of these are required for me to interact to advance page. The fact that I'm asking means it's confusing to me.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: The intent is that within the process you can see and understand control needed to progress.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: within our SC that is not as prescriptive as some would like. That's the intent. If you don't think it's going to push toward that.

<jon_avila_> Chuck: One that I'm able to tell it's a button that needed along with other controls to progress.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: SC would require all buttons or only buttons needed for process.

<jon_avila_> DavidF: Would it be helpful to understand user needs from cognitive task force?

<jon_avila_> DavidF: objective is to help users where things are and help them use it - purpose - users with memory impairment and others can know when they are right place and don't lose focus. Know what site offers and what contents so they can move on. They need to know relationships and site and features -- especially if they get distracted. Need to know context and purpose. People find it hard to learn new interfaces and patterns and new controls.

<jon_avila_> DavidF: Need to know how to effectively use controls and action and do not need to mistaken actively controls they think are controls...

<jon_avila_> DavidF: thinking of submit buttons - if a button is grayed out - it doesn't looked grayed out. Thought it was not working and refresh page -- without visual indicators people might think it's not working and leave.

<jon_avila_> David-macdonald: Visual indicator required on actionable items - stopped short on what type of thing it has to look like. Just a difference between static text.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Mandatory fields would be required - does apply to more than just buttons -- just looking through questions people asked.... Would need more examples for process aspect in understanding document.

<Brooks> -1

<CharlesHall_> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<Rachael> 0

<Fazio> +1


<jon_avila_> Alastair: Would support including this with some updates in the understanding docs. Ask for plus 1s

<alastairc> Plus 1s for putting into the WCAG 2.2. draft.

<jon_avila_> +1

<Jennie> +1

<AWK> Not sure

<JakeAbma> +1

<Chuck> 0

<alastairc> Katie +1s

<Ryladog> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<jon_avila_> Alastair: does look like substantial support.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Can anyone address some of the comments on the understanding documents and techniques

<jon_avila_> David-macdonald: I could do that

<Fazio> I could help too

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Some open questions on process aspect that requires updates to understanding.

<jon_avila_> david-macdonald: Does is link to the WCAG definition of process helpful?

<jon_avila_> Alastair: In this context how does this work -- for which controls...

<jon_avila_> Alastair: will need brief review once understanding and technique are updated.

findable help https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/findable-help/results

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fX4Iw169OGUny5RTd70S8qAneYy5e0hr7zupE21gPBM/edit?usp=sharing

s/loosing /losing /

<jon_avila_> Alastair: been through a few iterations - basically scoped certain types of web pages....

<jon_avila_> Alastair: intent is that help is available when you are on a particular site. The results currently mixed -- difficult to tell how up to date they are in survey as it has changed.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: in terms of comments - some editorial. Wilco had comment about actively supported which is tricky for conformance model that is done on a page by page basis.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: you could conform because you were active - but then fail because you stop maintaining.

<jon_avila_> Bruce: Previous concerns have been addressed - mostly taken out things around pages and PDFs.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Bruce's other comments were old

<jon_avila_> Jennie: Bruce had put suggested text for archival content that was labeled as such. Question for Bruce - is there a standard definition for archived.

<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce

<jon_avila_> Bruce: Media alternatives has a page is clearly labeled as X. I don't think you want to have an exception for archival. There are FOIA request - just because something is an archive that gets into dangerous territory.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: Comment about very end of survey - you suggested an exception.

<jon_avila_> Bruce: There was one already in there - I just wrote it a little more clearly. I wasn't suggesting it. Someone else had something there - I was trying to spell it out to keep it at Level AA

<jon_avila_> Jennie: I had misunderstood. I do have responses for other comments.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: First suggestion - ordered as going through document - suggestion of moving chatbot under self help. Reasonable way to move bullet 4 under bullet 3. Can put fully automated chatbox that can -- then make sub bullets apply to self help option. Is that how you envisioned it?

<jon_avila_> Alastair: I would put chat bot under self help. Also thinking about chatbot as part of a definition as the SC is wordy.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: To address some of the concerns of the COGA - Chatbot is problematic for people with cognitive disabilities. Want to make sure it is addressed in criteria.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: New definition are highlighted in spec while in draft.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: would say self help options -- fully automated help button and then definition with sub bullets.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Can leave in SC text for clarity now -- but we could move later to definition if needed.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: question about mispelled words being included - part of reason why people with COGA have barrier using the chatbot.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: don't know from a testing standpoint -- how would a human recognize.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: The difference - a communication partner - if I don't understand something you say - I will rephrase - then suggest other words based on how people interact. The way fully automated ones - we don't have that level of sophisticaion in how it works. The number of suggestions is overwhelming. Recognizing misspelled words is best way to address that.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: might need some supporting information on recognizing misspelled words.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to mention that "spelling" has a knock-on issue with i18n as well

<jon_avila_> JF: when we start getting into languages with internationalization and testing we need to be aware of. It's hard to do with ones that aren't primary. Tooling might depending on dictionaries.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: don't think it's a barrier -- but it is a complication for testing. We do have others for language.

<jon_avila_> Chuck: My question is around human contact - is there an actual definition for what that means. I'm presuming the intent ist that you can get to a living breathing. Automation is getting better. Email will get back to you in 3 hours versus email bots, etc.

<jon_avila_> Chuck: Is the intent that this is direct access to a living breathing DNA-filled human or starts a process that could end in a living human being? For example steps to reach human.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: Goal was that human being could be reached and quickly and efficiently and it's difficult to quantify that. also known factors do not have the ability to respond in person with a human being the responder -- which is why we put those in. With that one particular particular point that there was a person at end of interaction.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: Are you saying "Human contact details"? That would be acceptable.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: As far as first paragraph - comment from Wilco - single page app - put response in comments that there is phrase in Wikipedia.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: would extend and make a clear definition - we could provide a definition for single page app - but would need support in creating it.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: This is a landmine because of how WCAG was scoped and defined as pages at urls.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: something we have avoided that we have not made progress. Defining single page apps might help tricky from a conformance point view.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Moves it beyond small scale webite?

<jon_avila_> Jennie: put in single page apps to address Bruce's concern such as when a document is viewed on a web page we don't want to be covered - but there are other types of sites like single page app that we did want to apply

<jon_avila_> Alastair: put in definition for that.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: In addition to what was discussed - actively supported could be changed or working or current or staffed. One concern is that a definition for those things. Actively supported may still be a sticking point unless I'm misunderstanding.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: tricky thing from regulation

<jon_avila_> Bruce: How does someone who comes into the page know if it's archived?

<jon_avila_> Bruce: Assume it's all in scope unless you have this disclaimer.

<AWK> Pages that are not actively supported get updated?

<jon_avila_> Chuck: Is it necessary to have any reference to actively supported? By definition if they are making a claim then it's supported - otherwise no one is supporting it anyway - that would be true of any authored thing in the world. Do we need to articulate it?

<jon_avila_> Jennie: So one of the issues - some people may be able to notice that it's active - some sites that are case examples where they are posted and available and fill purpose and it's a notification that the site has moved and we want to be sure that those sites will be excluded from this. that is why the exclusion statement may be the one.

<jon_avila_> Chuck: The page still has value purpose but no one is updating it.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Archive site - no one is looking after it - but they have to keep it hosted. Old reference material.

<jon_avila_> JF: Thinking about human contact - not seeing in terms of human contact details is hours of operation. Seems unreasonable to say it's manned by human 24/7/365. We will get push back. I understand you want help at the time you need it.

<jon_avila_> JF: An explicit of when a real life human contact can be available.

<alastairc> Adding a note?

<alastairc> Note: There is no requirement for a human to be available at all times, it is a requirement for the contact mechanism to be available.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: We were purposely vague - for example I'm a small shop and for some reason my site hits the new. If my volume increases dramatic There is different use case for how long a response can take. That becomes a testability problem

<jon_avila_> JF: It's not about the immediate response. That's understood if you get higher volume. But the indication that this is staff during certain hours. At least you will know it won't be staffed at certain times such as 3am.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: don't know we should prescriptive. It's about the mechanism - not that a human is available at all items. It is a requirement for contact mechanism.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: any form of human contact could be phone number or email, etc. don't want to be prescriptive.

<jon_avila_> JF: could be interpreted in certain quarters that if you don't have a 24/7 chat line that it's failing.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: Keep component it says at least one of the following - if it provided a self help option then phone number isn't required 24/7.

<jon_avila_> JF: The FAQ would meet the requirement even if it doesn't address your issue.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: We hope that it would start driving help on site. Right now there is not a requirement to offer help.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: As we go scoping these there is a wider user requirement to a more narrow requirement.

<jon_avila_> Alastair: Some sites have such a lot of support that they start to have a landing page -- assuming that this approach would pass although it doesn't have human contact pages on that landing page.

<jon_avila_> Jennie: Suggested changing embedded to included. The other to addres consistent location such as changing perspective such as viewport or orientation.

<jon_avila_> alastair: don't think that consistency is huge issue. We already have consistent navigation which covers repeated order. Perhaps we could refer to the other success criteria.

<jon_avila_> *We are at 1 ET

<Chuck> +1 to advance

<alastairc> Support continueing this SC?

<jon_avila_> Alastair: does anyone have concerns about this who would not support at this time?

<CharlesHall_> +1 to advance but still imperfect language

<Ryladog> +1

<stevelee> +1

<Rachael> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<JF> +.5

<kirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jon_avila_> +1 as long a FAQ can be used...

<Fazio> 0

<JF> +1 to Jon (Perhaps we also state that the FAQ MUST provide alternative contact details)

<jon_avila_> DavidF: peolple could game FAQ.

<jon_avila_> JF: wrote in that the FAQ provide alternative contact details.

<jon_avila_> JF: need to be a way for user to find real help such as contact details in FAQ

<CharlesHall_> contact info in the context of the faq is parallel to privacy terms required in the context of a form

<jon_avila_> JF: worried about gaming FAQ.

<kirkwood> +1 JF

<jon_avila_> DavidF: difficult to get a resource available 24/7.

<jon_avila_> *We are at time

<jon_avila_> *Please respect others times

<Jennie> * thank you!

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/03/17 17:05:27 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/AWK//
Succeeded: s/lookeing/looking/
Succeeded: s/meeting oom /meeting room /
Succeeded: s/siver/silver/
Succeeded: s/lookinf/looking/
Succeeded: s/lookg/looking/
Succeeded: s/ig meeting /if meeting /
Succeeded: s/one conflict with ap/one conflict with APA/
Succeeded: s/nes few days/next few days/
Succeeded: s/next tues extending meeting for 1 hour./next tues extending meeting for 30 minutes./
Succeeded: s/sove that/solve that/
Succeeded: s/thing of t/thinking of t/
Succeeded: s/misundersttod/misunderstood/
Succeeded: s/ needing a to progress/ needing to progress/
Succeeded: s/chrismas/Christmas/
Succeeded: s/thorugh /through /
Succeeded: s/agends wil/agendas wil/
Succeeded: s/stugggling/struggling/
Succeeded: s/qaulfiable/qualifiable/
Succeeded: s/lossing /losing  /
Succeeded: s/to finnish off scs /to finish  off SCs /
Succeeded: s/moble /mobile /
Succeeded: s/thats /that's /
Succeeded: s/fosus /focus /
Succeeded: s/attention caputere/attention capture/
Succeeded: s/fiure /figure /
Succeeded: s/probelm /problem /
Succeeded: s/boling /bolding /
Succeeded: s/disernable /discernable /
Succeeded: s/indicatior/indicator/
Succeeded: s/progessing /progressing /
Succeeded: s/progessing /progressing /
Succeeded: s/addresed/addressed/
Succeeded: s/interesed /interested /
FAILED: s/loosing  /losing  /
Default Present: AlastairC, Chuck, MichaelC, PeterKorn, Jennie, bruce_bailey, Laura, JakeAbma, JF, ShaneW, Rachael, Brooks, AWK, Fazio, CharlesHall_, StefanS, Katie_Haritos-Shea, kirkwood, jon_avila, david-macdonald, we, have, specific, user, needs, in, coga, identified, for, this, stevelee, .5, Raf
Present: AlastairC Chuck MichaelC PeterKorn Jennie bruce_bailey Laura JakeAbma JF ShaneW Rachael Brooks Fazio CharlesHall_ StefanS Caryn GN015 Katie_Haritos-Shea kirkwood jon_avila david-macdonald we have specific user needs in coga identified for this stevelee Raf
Regrets: JustineP Nicaise MichaelG
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: jon_avila
Scribes: Laura, jon_avila

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]