AGWG Teleconference

22 Jun 2021


ChrisLoiselle, alastairc, Detlev, Ben, sajkaj, JakeAbma, Rachael, bruce_bailey, Rain__, Nicaise, jeanne, johnkirkwood_, MelanieP, MattOrr, Lauriat, mbgower, Makoto, Fazio, mgarrish, JF, KimD, PeterKorn, sarahhorton, Wilco, david-macdonald, KarenHerr, SuzanneTaylor, StefanS, Francis_Storr
Justine Pascalides, Azlan Cuttilan, Melissa Douros, Todd Libby
Detlev, sarahhorton


<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2021-06-22

<Detlev> Scribe: Detlev

Chuck: Any introductions?
... Any topic suggestions?

WCAG 3.0 Explainer survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer-V2/

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer-V2/results

Explainer survey - has been reviewed in past meetings, proposals were made and implemented

scribe: two questions in survey

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose a plan for the Explainer

scribe: second was for including explainer in heartbeat

for first, there were varied responses

Jeanne: Looked at survey results, wondering what the best way forward is
... more objections than expected
... Proposes that any one who objected to including the explainer, please get in touch and discuss what they want changed
... we want to get it in shape and re-survey it

the diversity equity inclusion goal is not ideal, but that is all we got in the meeting minutes, we need moe work on that

<jennifer__> I would be interested in involvement in that work.

Chuck: group of individuals should formulate details to satifsfy WG members concerns

Jeanne: diversity, equity, inclusion = long term group of volunteers

Chuck: We should start email thread with individuals who raised objections to lead to a second round of surveys for the explainer

Jennifer: Objections to DEI explainer - should we review them?

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer-V2/results

Chuck: Jeanne suggested reviewing that outside call to save time, have more time for third-party content issue

<jennifer__> Thanks for that, Jeanne!

Alastair: Looking to results to second question was resolve first question first; Wilco thought thare was too much detail

<Chuck> ack

Alastair: The idea was to get more contextual stuff out of the actual normative text

Chuck: Jeanne's proposal to flush out requirement outside call should work - then get approval of WG

Conformance Options Subgroup 3rd Party Content Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

Chuck: Any questions, if not we proceed as suggested

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

<jennifer__> I am glad I could review the responses to the survey. As an intersectional individual that participates in a number of groups of historically marginalized individuals, including those with disabilities, I see good intent and an opportunity to learn. Please include me on any of this DEI work.

COnformance option for third-party content

Janina: Will try to explain
... thanks to engage in email conversation
... we all want more accessible content online, but thoughts on best way forward differs
... partial conformance is too loose
... we want to encourage more accesible content, starting from use cases
... what does a content publisher do when they want to use 3rd party content

<Chuck> definition: Author Arranged (services or media) third party content (which includes copyrighted content where the authority to publish may be provided in law). Author Arranged is defined as content the claimant hosts or facilitates, but which the web content publisher has limited or no control of either the underlying markup or what the user sees and interacts with.

Janina: two definitions, author-arranged, and user-generated

<Chuck> definition: User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, store fronts, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested from content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email).

the 3rd party provider has control over their stuff, not always are accessible other 3rd party options available

other part of author-arranged is for media (video hosting), many issues here

user-generated is different, there is some control, how accessible i sthe platform for contributing and how can accessible input be encouraged (like alt text for images)

Janina: many users will not deliver good content, impossible to prevent
... so the result migh tbe, guidance is provided, but for the content the provider i soff the hook
... many things to work out before it becomes a recommendation

Peter: Giving some context where this came from - conformance group was built after first PWD for silver
... today you have only the option of conform or partial conformance
... proposals for thrird party content are expressed in a number of guidelines, separating copyrighted and non-copyrighted content

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about Author Arranged Service Content in relation to 3rd party integrations and where the boundaries lie (ex: 3rd party UI frameworks, platforms)

Peter: so discuss...

Shawn: Question to author-arranged content - what is the boundary to third-party? If you use a third part yUI framework, is that already 3rd party content?

Janina: Important question Mike Gifford raised question - should we encourage good tooling? This wasn't the intend here

Peter: Have begun discussing this in the conformance options subgroup - is there a conformance concept for those framework
... think of use case B, where provider uses a third-party library - but we don't have something mature enough right now

Gundula: Similar question - What if an open source library is used?

David: Are we talking about the categories of 3rd part yconformance, or about the allowance for scoping out third party content?

Peter: we can do that today, its then non-conformance for the site overall
... 266 million hours of video per year uploaded, no one can do AD for that
... do we give an incentive (score, badge etc) for providers if they do some things they can manage to do even if they cannot make it perfect?

David: Trying to figuring out if this is about scoping out bits and still claim conformance?
... we are not talking about sites, just pages for conformance right now

<alastairc> Ideal conformance for me would be: Is the site owner / author doing what they reasonably can to ensure it is accessible?

Peter: The nuance is: is the site doing everything in its power to make stuff accessible rather than excluding it from a claim, and we recognise that in some fashion (point score, label etc.)?

<JF> If Bronze = "Good", Silver = "Better", Gold = "Best" (Platinum = "Perfect") then conformance will accept less than perfect in out current proposal.

JF: Concerned about talking about conformance is that we go back to binary model - now the idea i sthat the model will b graded - that would apply to main content as well as 3rd party content

<jeanne> +1 JF

<jennifer__> +1 to JF re the reminder of levels of conformance

Chuck: Under the current reporting, you can add a claim and say what is not covered

<JF> Also, a W3C "conformance statement" is not the same as a legally mandated "minimum level of accessibility" - that is for the regulators to determine

Jennifer: When we talk about conformance, is our primary focus the developers / complanies, or the users?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about details of the Steps to Conform

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

<PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content#Steps_to_Conform

Jeanne: we haven't talk about section "steps to conform"
... importasnt to look at that, aim is to make site owners more responsible than today - pleas not have this discussion on the Silver list

<bruce_bailey> If anyone has Pea Pod link handy, pls paste into IRC

<johnkirkwood> I would argue that we are trying to reduce the burden

<bruce_bailey> https://www.ada.gov/peapod_sa.htm

We try to put steps in to make authors more responsible, the assumption is that we want to give people an get-out-of-jail card, but that is not true

<bruce_bailey> (ii) If, after following the process set forth above, Peapod is unable to obtain Third-Party Content that conforms to WCAG 2.0 AA, it shall demonstrate through its reporting to the United States, under Paragraph 21, that obtaining or providing conforming Third-Party Content would fundamentally alter the nature of its goods and services or would result in an undue burden.

<Fazio> This is part of our Maturity Model

<Fazio> it establishes a sphere of committment and responsibility

Jeanne: if accessible fine, they need an a11y statement; they call out the third party content that is NOT accessible so people are warned about it better; there si reporting towards the 3rd party provider to create pressure to improve matters

<jennifer__> Appreciate this. It makes it clear for people with disabilities what to expect and creates a workflow for those who add the third party service to document.

Jeanne: so if users find inaccessible content quicker they can decide to use alternatives, that is better than today's situation
... information can be in the metadata

<JF> metadata: https://schema.org/caption

DavidF: We have been pushing this in the maturity model
... timeline of how to address issues
... mitigation, package how to address the issues (undue burden), it creates a roadmap

<Fazio> that we be part of procurement in our maturity model

Jon: Have seem mixed responses regarding 3rd content - in some cases third party content was forced to conform
... user cannot always to a different site, like for paying the water bill

<Fazio> although many retail locations accept utility payments

Jon: still supportive of a realistic approach, but the issue may be over-simplified here

<jeanne> frameworks are not part of this proposal or definitions

Jon: you shouldn't be entitled to say "I use thid 3rd party framework, thats the culprit"

<Rain__> +1 to jon_avila's example. The key being whether or not the key tasks and functionalities of the site are possible, regardless of whether they are being serviced by a 3rd party system

Jon: we need to focus in the user, can it be resolved, are we addressing this enough?
... should we not post to the list, is that correct?

Jeanne: We don't want long threads on the Silver mailing list

<JF> +1 to Jon - how do we have asynchronous discussions if not on list

Jon: so what is the best way to contribute?

<MelanieP> +1 to Jon

<johnkirkwood> +1 to Jon (esp regarding what is third party conent?)

<sarahhorton> +1 Jon has summarized my concerns about "author arranged service content"

Jeanne: Feel free to do it the way that works for you if wemail is the best option

DavidmD: We make sites better by getting people to report what they have been doing - question if we want a situation where users can't find out from the content itself whether it conforms but have to look at background info - my experience is that people don't get off the hook easily - thir dparty content is becoming more accessible due to that pressure - hard to believe that another model where people report would improve the issue

<johnkirkwood> +1 to David

DavidmD: there is a blurry line between content proper and 3rd party content - should be decide by jurisdictions rather than us

Chuck: Peter, Janina - any more=

<PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content#Use_Cases

<johnkirkwood> I too am concerned that this would weaken 3rd part content

<johnkirkwood> l… conformance that is.

Peter: Look at the use cases as well as steps to conform - are ther things actors in the use cases could do more than what they are doing (describing use case B about 3rd parrty payment site)
... use cases help cystallise the mor eabstract ideas - please read them

Janina: first use case is closer to market power to change it

<jon_avila> Third party content often comes from business to business customers who are not required to meet any requirements so they need pressure to make accessible content and that only comes from a sale or lack of sale to the business customer.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to speak to scale

DavidmD: The entire movement is the web has become more accessible - will a judge make thempull doen a ste because there is no accessible payment system? Probably not - but accessible alternatives start appearing

JF: the small sites (for scouts) has view page views, a large site like Amazon has millions so the impact is much higher

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Peter and Janina on next steps

Chuck: Questino to Peter / Janina: next steps?

Peter: Our idea is continue to refine, then include in heartbeat pub of WCAG 3 for wider discussion
... what came out was the need to reflect some of these issues in guidelines (may be for media) to bring in the 3rd party nuance in something like a scoring example

<jennifer__> +1 to sajkaj

Janina: if you want accessiblitiy, it matters what you choose to work with

<jeanne> +1 Wilco and harmonized standards

Wilco: Respond to DavidmD concerns - we want to figure out where we can provide standardised advice - leaving it to jurisdicition is creating a mess, there are lots of gaps. We need to figure otu where responsibility starts and ends - is it the UA, the author?

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is there a reason advertising isn't covered here somewhere?

Wilco: we need to tease out these responsibilities and assign them right

<jon_avila> Conformance claims are not required.

MikeG: Even if its considered out of scope, we may want to make a statement about advertisment content?

janina: We should address that

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to suggest as this is explored further to have verified/partners/checkmarked users (who are influencers) have greater responsibilities/requirements

Peter: interestign class of 3rd party content

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to call for scribe change

Suzanne: not sure whether the new approach will be an improvement, but exploringit i a good idea - we should consider whether users that have validiation form site owners would be important

<sarahhorton> I can scribe

WCAG 3.0 Explainer survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer-V2/

<sarahhorton> scribe: sarahhorton

WCAG 2.3, possible sub-group

Chuck: Interest in additional sub-group, not enough people responded

Alastair: 6 responses, need 10 or so for sustainable group, anyone else can volunteer to get numbers up

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose a name change "Testable Rules"

JF: Calling WCAG 2.3, change to "testable rules", as more requirements come forward, could create new testable rule
... focusing on WCAG 3 structural change, ACT group writing rules, need to generate prose rule to break into ACT rule
... rules about XR, could be more to add

Chuck: Don't have list of names

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about mechanism for what the world needs versus what AG WG members interest

Bruce: How do we tell we're focused on what's best for world rather than what is most compelling to AGWG
... feel we need 2.9 more than 3.0, understand why it's not compelling

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to mention the name

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to maybe answer Bruce

alastairc: Appreciate point, coming up with new requirements, immediate need is whether 2.3, new requirements by next summer, short time to look at new requirements
... if we don't get group going, 2.3 answer will be "no"
... could change into different name, change into taskforce if it works out ...re: Bruce, venn diagram, need people working on things to get things done, trying to align with what outside world wants, usually works out

JF: Will see 2.3 and 2.4 before 3, point remains to create testable states, have goals, don't have mechanism to bring forward new ideas
... have ideas that are not linked to publication deadline

Chuck: If interested in WCAG 2.3, let chairs know, will add names to list

<alastairc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2021AprJun/0164.html

WCAG 3.0 Explainer survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG30-Explainer-V2/

WCAG 2.x, separate meeting

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2-backlog-meeting/

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2-backlog-meeting/results

Chuck: Purpose to come up with time to work on responses to backlog
... results from survey, Wed 11am has plurality of votes

alastairc: Looking like Wed at 11 or 12 Boston time
... have enough issues, triaging, struggling to come up with solutions and resolutions

WCAG 2.x issue resolutions https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/

Chuck: Survey is still open, please select your preferred time for focused call to work on backlog

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/results

Question 1 - Error Identification, updated question #977

Chuck: Have discussed, haven't resolved, 3.3.1 Error Identification, includes recent updates (reads survey)

<Chuck> sarah: Spoke to it last week.

Chuck: (reviews responses)

alastairc: Detlev puts things back that were removed, had removed them, now asked to put them back in

Detlev: Issues with error description, always struggle with where to put them, put them in errors or other SCs, what had been taken out made sense, haven't looked in holistic way for pros and cons

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that this is not worth an errata and we can clarify the use of the word "text" being the same "text" that is in the glossary.

AWK: Didn't respond to survey, don't feel like last week's concern was addressed, changing normative spec, don't need to and shouldn't

<Wilco> +1

AWK: unless full scrub, we used words in ways that are different than used in the glossary

Chuck: Agree with what it's saying but there are risks/consequences

<JF> +1 to AWK

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask @AWK if we should just go slower?

bruce_bailey: Agree on both halves, should do more considered scrub, link to terms when only correct

alastairc: Problem solved by linking to definition, crux was that 3.3.1 means text in page, heard from people that it would include alternative text, adding link to glossary would help

AWK: Avoided if we updated in understanding document to say that it includes alternative text
... handle in understanding, not send signal that, unless term is linked it does not match glossary definition

<bruce_bailey> +1 agree that linking this one and not other sends the wrong message

<alastairc> The new link has been removed from the PR.

david-macdonald: Agree that we don't want to make normative change
... we not thinking about image with alternative text as describing error to user in text
... could see how we could reason it through but remembered as text

Chuck: Current PR includes errata change, understanding document change is sufficient and don't need errata change

<bruce_bailey> my recollection is that we were mostly considering situations where there is not IMG elements per se

jon_avila: Alt text is not available to all users, error icon doesn't communicate error, doesn't seem accessible
... icon on its own would have to communicate error to users without access to alt text
... provided to screen reader users but not to others
... need to communicate error, communicating through alt text only

This has been my issue

<alastairc> If the image doesn't indicate an error, then yes, it fails

mgower: Conveying meaning visually, alt provides visual. Here we are saying it has to be in text, opens door to something concerning
... same exists in label or instructions, label is required, text or other component with text alternative
... if there was not label visible but you had hidden label then that should pass, wouldn't say that, but seems like we're doing that for 3.3.1

<alastairc> In Patrick's example here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/977#issuecomment-559556805 The icon *could* indicate the error, and then the text is for 3.3.3.

Chuck: Think we have disagreement to resolve first

alastairc: Removed link from SC, doesn't have support
... check other issues in survey, can proceed in close to current form or go back to drawing board

bruce_bailey: Working example that fails without text, e.g., warning sign, error is identified, seeing symbol for first time, new to website, symbol isn't meaningful

<mbgower> An exclamation mark on its own would fail this IMO, regardless of the Alt text on that exclamation mark.

bruce_bailey: error is identified, detected, problem for every user, some key that is in plain text that indicates that the symbol means there is an error

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/977#issuecomment-559556805

alastairc: Visual example, screenshot, create account, input with red line, red triangle, (describes image)

<mbgower> "error is identified and the error is described to the user in text."

alastairc: identified, could be icon only, alt text would be "error", message "please enter email address" would fulfill the text part or 3.3.3
... cognitive wasn't originally covered

<mbgower> +1 to Jon "error is identified and the error is described to the user in text."

jon_avila: Icon could identify with proximity, describing is missing, error would need to describe what is wrong
... hard to communicate through graphic, stuff into alt text in icon, not in text
... error suggestions, only when possible, can't suggest a date

mgower: If alt is "error" would it meet 3.3.1

<bruce_bailey> +1 that maybe date in wrong format is good way to test this

<Chuck> poll: Does alt text of "Error" on a graphic icon currently meet 3.3.1?

<JakeAbma> No

AWK: Yes, not great, unfortunate that language wasn't more careful, also think when there's a site and an error, needs to be conveyed, if it's not then they're not doing a good job

<mbgower> No. It's just identifying, not 'describing'

AWK: issue that doesn't speak to users with disabilities

<Chuck> undecided

<bruce_bailey> -1 that alt="error" is enough (on its own) to meet "the error is described"

AWK: form with image, image of text, password field is required, must have 8 characters, image of text, alt text matches, does that satisfy requirement?


<jon_avila> -1 is not enough

<jennifer__> No, absolutely not enough.

<Rain__> -1 agree not enough

Chuck: Graphic icon with alt text of "error" is not sufficient to meet 3.3.1

<alastairc> Leaning to no, as it doesn't fulfil "and the error is described to the user"

<JakeAbma> No

Chuck: what if expanded alt text?

<jennifer__> No, because the alt text isn't available for those with cognitive considerations.

<johnkirkwood> depends on the description

mbgower: Once alt text needs more than image conveys, not longer equivalent, dangerous
... holistically, would make error identification, an error is indicated, would be indicated, suggestion, flag that error exists, other to get user to understand it

<bruce_bailey> +1 that a PW not meeting complexity requirement is (1) something that can be automatically detected but (2) not something which would be explained (to anyone) by an icon

<JakeAbma> +1 to MBGower

<JakeAbma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1773

<JakeAbma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1774

Chuck: not seeing path to resolution, let's get to stuff we can conclude

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if its worth a metaconversation about how to adjust normative text and to ask if the title plus alt text is enough

Rachael: Hearing same pattern, reflecting group's challenge in how to adjust normative text, is it worth taking step back, coming to agreement about how to make adjustments

<Rain__> +1 to Rachael's suggestion

Rachael: if icon has title and alt, is that enough?

<JakeAbma> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1810

<Chuck> Future: Come to a conclusion on how we handle normative changes.

Rachael: That would be my vote

alastairc: PR includes text that alternative text is enough, not agreed on that

Question 2 - Can text buttons fail 1.1.1 and 3.3.2? #985

Chuck: (reads survey)
... (reads responses)

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/results#xq18

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/results

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1568/files

mbgower: Going back to review

Chuck: ACT proposal and PR are both being reviewed, observation

Wilco: ACT rules reviewed and approved

Chuck: This is just accepting PR

<Chuck> From: Lastly, controls that submit the user input, or proceed to the next step in a multi-step process, must also provide a label.

<Chuck> To: Lastly, controls that submit the user input or result in the user proceeding to the next step in a multi-step process, must also have an appropriate label.

Wilco: Disagree with that change, adds buttons under 3.3.2, which isn't right except to make a choice (rating), not to submit

Chuck: Mix, proposing resolution to get temp

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that the PR doesn't seem to touch on images as such.

<bruce_bailey> From 1.1.1

<bruce_bailey> Controls, Input

<jon_avila> 2.4.6 could apply to buttons

alastairc: Suggestions, comes back to normative text, when content requires user input, clarification sentence, necessary to address issue

<bruce_bailey> If non-text content is a control or accepts user input, then it has a name that describes its purpose. (Refer to Success Criterion 4.1.2 for additional requirements for controls and content that accepts user input.)

alastairc: 1.1.1 not applicable, PR doesn't speak to that, part of ACT rules
... neither comment applies

Wilco: Disagreeing with PR

alastairc: Trying to work out what problem is, controls must also provide label

<mbgower> input type="submit"

mbgower: We have buttons that have input type submit, how can that not be considered an input?

Wilco: Not all html label elements are labels

Chuck: Acknowledge submit button as an input?

mbgower: Fine with PR, can't give user input without submitting, hard to say not a form of input

<alastairc> UPdated: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1568/files

Chuck: PR updates to respond to comments

AWK: Are we saying 1.1.1 doesn't apply if it's a control, or 3.3.2?

alastairc: 3.3.2, small update to understanding

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1568 to address issue 985

<Wilco> +1

Chuck: Will keep in survey

<Chuck> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<MelanieP> Need time to look at updated PR

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Rain__> +1

<AWK> +1

<Detlev> +1

<mbgower> So we've removed buttons entirely from 3.3.2?

<jon_avila> no

<alastairc> "This Success Criterion does not apply to links or other controls (such as an expand/collapse widget, or similar interactive components) that are not associated with data entry."

<mbgower> I can live with it

<MelanieP> 0

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1568 to address issue 985

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept amended PR 1568 to address issue 985
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/06/22 17:05:53 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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/test/text/
Default Present: ChrisLoiselle, alastairc, Detlev, Ben, sajkaj, JakeAbma, Rachael, bruce_bailey, Rain__, Nicaise, jeanne, johnkirkwood_, MelanieP, MattOrr, Lauriat, mbgower, Makoto, Fazio, mgarrish, JF, KimD, PeterKorn, sarahhorton, Wilco, david-macdonald, KarenHerr, SuzanneTaylor, StefanS, Francis_Storr
Present: ChrisLoiselle, alastairc, Detlev, Ben, sajkaj, JakeAbma, Rachael, bruce_bailey, Rain__, Nicaise, jeanne, johnkirkwood_, MelanieP, MattOrr, Lauriat, mbgower, Makoto, Fazio, mgarrish, JF, KimD, PeterKorn, sarahhorton, Wilco, david-macdonald, KarenHerr, SuzanneTaylor, StefanS, Francis_Storr
Regrets: Justine Pascalides, Azlan Cuttilan, Melissa Douros, Todd Libby
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: sarahhorton
Inferring ScribeNick: sarahhorton
Scribes: Detlev, sarahhorton
ScribeNicks: Detlev, sarahhorton

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: 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]