14:21:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:21:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/05/03-ag-irc
14:21:10 <Chuck> rrsagent, make logs world
14:21:18 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
14:21:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/03-ag-minutes.html Chuck
14:21:25 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
14:21:32 <Chuck> Zakim, start meeting
14:21:32 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:21:34 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:21:45 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2022-05-03
14:22:01 <Chuck> agenda+ Chartering Conversation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/
14:22:14 <Chuck> agenda+ Visible controls (No Survey)
14:22:28 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/
14:22:38 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Page break locators https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/
14:22:51 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2.2 Target Size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/
14:50:22 <janina> janina has joined #ag
14:52:40 <janina> present+
14:52:54 <jeanne> present+
14:53:02 <Rachael> present+
14:55:00 <Chuck> regrets:  Todd Libby
14:57:12 <Chuck> present+
14:58:30 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
14:59:13 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
14:59:18 <shadi> present+
14:59:30 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
14:59:33 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
14:59:36 <Jennie> present+
14:59:39 <Lauriat> Present+
15:00:12 <JF> JF has joined #ag
15:00:17 <JF> Present+
15:00:17 <Jennie> Scribing commands for those that want to try: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info
15:00:21 <alastairc> present+
15:01:08 <jweismantel> jweismantel has joined #ag
15:01:10 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
15:01:10 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
15:01:10 <JF> agenda
15:01:11 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #AG
15:01:15 <JF> agenda?
15:01:18 <Jaunita_George> present+
15:01:30 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:01:37 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:01:41 <maryjom> present+
15:01:47 <jweismantel> present+
15:02:18 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:02:18 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Chuck
15:02:22 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:02:22 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose bruce_bailey
15:02:23 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
15:02:26 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:02:26 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Francis_Storr
15:02:26 <JakeAbma> present+
15:02:34 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
15:02:34 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose GN
15:02:35 <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
15:02:46 <Judy> Judy has joined #ag
15:02:57 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:03:26 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:03:29 <Wilco> present+
15:03:42 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:03:43 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
15:03:44 <sarahhorton> present+
15:03:46 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:03:50 <Azlan> present+
15:03:51 <Detlev> present+
15:03:53 <Jaunita_George> present+
15:04:15 <Jem> present+
15:04:20 <Detlev> q+
15:04:23 <JF> Present+
15:04:29 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
15:04:39 <Chuck> ack mbg
15:04:51 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
15:04:54 <jon_avila> q?
15:04:55 <Chuck> ack detlev
15:04:56 <Caryn> Caryn has joined #ag
15:04:59 <Jen_G> Present+
15:05:03 <Caryn> present+
15:05:03 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
15:05:10 <MichaelC> topic: future topics
15:05:23 <mbgower> present+
15:05:27 <MichaelC> dl: @@
15:05:37 <MichaelC> topic: Announcements
15:05:41 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
15:06:03 <MichaelC> exploring reopening WCAG2ICT TF
15:06:24 <MichaelC> s/exploring/ca: exploring/
15:06:32 <AWK> AWK has joined #ag
15:06:39 <AWK> +AWK
15:06:48 <Chuck> q?
15:07:04 <MichaelC> jb: background - after WCAG 2 we were asked to map to non-Web
15:07:56 <MichaelC> non-normatively, what WCAG provisions would apply and how?
15:07:57 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
15:08:30 <Judy> existing WCAG2ICT Overview: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/
15:08:31 <Judy> existing WCAG2ICT Note: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/
15:08:55 <MichaelC> ^ are background on what was produced
15:08:55 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
15:08:58 <joeyang> joeyang has joined #ag
15:09:03 <kirkwood> present+
15:09:23 <MichaelC> we´ve been asked to update for post 2.0
15:09:58 <joeyang> present+
15:10:09 <MichaelC> propose to reconstitute TF with constrained scope
15:10:15 <Chuck> q?
15:10:40 <MichaelC> draft work statement
15:10:59 <MichaelC> Mary Jo Mueller expected to be a co-facilitator, exploring second balancing one
15:12:21 <MichaelC> mjm: for those who don´t know me, I work at IBM accessibility on many technologies and standards
15:13:23 <MichaelC> goal of WCAG2ICT refresh is update guidance for 2.1 and 2.2 SC
15:13:37 <MichaelC> also address open issues on the previous version
15:14:35 <jon_avila> FYI Annex C of EN 301 549 has some guidance on how to apply WCAG 2.1 to software - that may be helpful to look at as part of this exercise.
15:14:41 <MichaelC> address topic of ¨closed products¨, to which generalized AT cannot interface
15:15:05 <janina>                                                                                                                                                      Noting some WCAG2ICT issues listed in Appendix B of the Challenges Note draft. Don't believe we moved them to github issues, but that could be done.
15:15:25 <MichaelC> bring together global standards reps
15:15:40 <MichaelC> ca: will have survey open for next call, further discussion on that
15:16:05 <MichaelC> subtopic: ISO
15:16:50 <MichaelC> WCAG 2 went through a process to be co-endorsed by ISO as international standard
15:17:01 <MichaelC> W3C is de facto standards body for Web
15:17:09 <MichaelC> but some orgs need ISO references
15:17:25 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:17:47 <MichaelC> we decided not to do this for 2.1, partly because of its rush and associated issues
15:17:59 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:18:03 <Francis_Storr> present+
15:18:04 <MichaelC> have been asked to do so for 2.2
15:18:20 <MichaelC> important that this come from W3C to ensure harmonization
15:18:31 <Chuck> q?
15:18:33 <shadi> q+
15:18:40 <Chuck> ack Shadi
15:18:56 <MichaelC> i/ca: exploring/subtopic: WCAG2ICT/
15:19:20 <MichaelC> saz: will there be a need to address comments from the previous ballot
15:19:36 <MichaelC> jb: there are some details to be looked at
15:19:54 <MichaelC> such as providing an accessible format
15:20:18 <MichaelC> there may have been issues slated to address in subsequent versions
15:20:22 <Chuck> q?
15:20:27 <MichaelC> think that´s done or OBE, but will check
15:20:51 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
15:20:51 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Chartering Conversation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
15:21:19 <MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/results
15:21:44 <MichaelC> ca: there have been questions about how things would look in a 2-group scenario
15:21:55 <MichaelC> we find it´s best to discuss that by reference to concrete draft charters
15:22:01 <Judy> s/such as providing an accessible format/such as ISO ensuring that they will post an accessible format/
15:22:25 <MichaelC> these are drafts for discussion, not final proposals
15:22:39 <MichaelC> 1-charter group would have the kitchen sink
15:22:54 <Chuck> q?
15:22:55 <MichaelC> 2-charter version has a WCAG 2 and related materials group, and a WCAG 3 and related materials group
15:23:33 <MichaelC> rbm: want to clarify goals related to  the survey
15:23:37 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2348/files
15:23:39 <MichaelC> have made the straightforward changes
15:23:57 <MichaelC> ^ is for the single-group
15:24:21 <Rachael> propose approaches to known challenges, including those listed above.
15:24:30 <MichaelC> remove ¨website¨ from conformance
15:24:55 <MichaelC> drop ¨all¨ from ¨address all issues¨
15:25:12 <MichaelC> editorial on functional needs list
15:25:15 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:25:33 <Wilco> q+
15:25:33 <Chuck> q?
15:25:35 <AWK> q+
15:25:37 <MichaelC> also request to remove it
15:25:38 <Chuck> ack wilco
15:25:58 <MichaelC> wf: why ¨website¨ removed in conformance?
15:25:59 <JF> Q= to note a minor quibble - Line 259
15:26:08 <JF> Q+
15:26:09 <GreggVan> present+
15:26:11 <GreggVan> q+
15:26:13 <jon_avila> Website is too limited - what about web apps?
15:26:16 <alastairc> Ah, website as in tackling the full website rather than the conformance of websites. I see.
15:26:17 <Chuck> ack AWK
15:26:46 <MichaelC> awk: same question
15:26:52 <GreggVan> q+  to say  it is not just websites  but pages  processes etc.
15:27:01 <Chuck> ack JF
15:27:10 <alastairc> q+ to say we mean (I think) whole-site conformance.
15:27:15 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:27:15 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  it is not just websites  but pages  processes etc.
15:27:16 <MichaelC> jf: typo
15:27:46 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
15:27:50 <Nicaise> present+
15:27:57 <Chuck> q?
15:27:58 <MichaelC> gv: there´s all sorts of words for the content we target
15:27:59 <Chuck> ack ala
15:27:59 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we mean (I think) whole-site conformance.
15:28:02 <MichaelC> how about just ¨web¨
15:28:25 <jon_avila> What about web app conformance?
15:28:30 <GreggVan> +1 to alistair
15:28:31 <MichaelC> ac: challenge with conformance of complex sites, maybe say ¨whole website conformance¨
15:28:41 <Chuck> q?
15:29:12 <alastairc> Our general scope is "web technologies", so yes, but the tricky bit we are trying to tackle is "whole website"
15:29:36 <janina> Believe "such as" should cover unlisted web-based techs, like watches; etc
15:29:42 <Chuck> poll:  option 1) whole website conformance, option 2) "web conformance", option 3) no reference to web
15:29:48 <MichaelC> gv: withdraw, there are cans of worms
15:29:56 <Rachael> 1 or 2
15:30:00 <Wilco> 1
15:30:02 <jweismantel> 1
15:30:03 <joeyang> 1
15:30:04 <janina> +1 to #1
15:30:04 <Chuck> 1 or 2
15:30:06 <MichaelC> <2>
15:30:06 <Jaunita_George> 2
15:30:09 <alastairc> 1, 2 ok
15:30:11 <JakeAbma> 1
15:30:11 <Azlan> 1 or 2
15:30:12 <jeanne> 1
15:30:16 <GreggVan> 1 or 3  (to match other issues that don't say web
15:30:18 <ShawnT> 1 or 2
15:30:20 <Francis_Storr> 1 or 2
15:30:20 <MelanieP> 2 or 1
15:30:22 <laura> 1 or 2
15:30:24 <maryjom> 1
15:30:31 <JF> 3
15:30:55 <JF> Q+ to ask if XR = 'web'?
15:31:17 <Jaunita_George> I think we don't want to limit ourselves to websites...
15:31:38 <alastairc> E.g. "Complex conformance challenges, such as third-party content, whole website conformance, scoring, accessibility statements, etc."
15:31:57 <Chuck> ack JF
15:31:57 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if XR = 'web'?
15:32:10 <MichaelC> ca: leans towards 1, anyone not tolerate?
15:32:12 <alastairc> 1+
15:32:14 <alastairc> q+
15:32:20 <Judy> q+
15:32:27 <Wilco> WCAG 3 is only scoped for web
15:32:32 <Chuck> ack alast
15:32:33 <GreggVan> q+
15:32:35 <MichaelC> jf: though we wanted to go beyond web
15:32:37 <Judy> q+ notes "web-based technologies" is common usage in w3c
15:32:57 <MichaelC> ac: we address web technologies, regardless of how they´re delivered
15:33:03 <Jennie> q+ is whole web understood by the target audience?
15:33:08 <Chuck> q?
15:33:11 <Chuck> ack Judy
15:33:17 <Rachael> Context: Examples of known challenges include ...Complex conformance challenges, such as third-party content, website conformance, scoring, accessibility statements, etc.
15:33:18 <Jennie> q+ to ask about whole web
15:33:19 <MichaelC> in this bullet, we´re responding to specific conformance challenges, of which whole sites are one
15:33:30 <MichaelC> jb: W3C uses web-based technologies
15:33:50 <MichaelC> there are W3C standards related to XR, RTC, etc.
15:33:57 <Chuck> q?
15:33:59 <Judy> q+ to note "web-based technologies" is common usage in w3c, and w3c and wai are both developing standards and accessibility user requirements for these areas
15:34:01 <Chuck> ack Gregg
15:34:07 <Judy> ack ju
15:34:07 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to note "web-based technologies" is common usage in w3c, and w3c and wai are both developing standards and accessibility user requirements for these areas
15:34:38 <Rachael> q+ to restate context
15:34:47 <MichaelC> gv: <wordsmithing>
15:34:53 <AWK> Suggesting "Complex conformance questions, such as third-party content, scoring, accessibility statements, etc."
15:34:57 <AWK> q+
15:35:01 <Chuck> ack Jennie
15:35:01 <Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to ask about whole web
15:35:22 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:35:22 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to restate context
15:35:25 <Rachael> Context: Examples of known challenges include ...Complex conformance challenges, such as third-party content, website conformance, scoring, accessibility statements, etc.
15:35:31 <MichaelC> jd: some reviewers might not know what we mean by ¨whole website conformance¨
15:35:50 <MichaelC> rbm: ^ is context for why this wording is here
15:35:57 <alastairc> Suggest: Either except 'whole website conformance', or remove.
15:35:58 <MichaelC> it´s a sample list of a sample list
15:36:01 <Chuck> ack AWK
15:36:25 <MichaelC> awk: suggest s/challenges/questions/
15:36:34 <StefanS> StefanS has joined #ag
15:36:37 <Chuck> q?
15:36:39 <StefanS> present+
15:36:43 <MichaelC> more clear without reducing scope
15:36:45 <Jennie> +1 to Shadi's "entire"
15:36:56 <ShawnT> present+
15:37:03 <Rachael> Context: Examples of known challenges include ...Complex conformance questions, such as third-party content,  scoring, accessibility statements, etc.
15:37:10 <AWK> Andrew's Examples of known challenges include... Complex conformance questions, such as third-party content, scoring, accessibility statements, etc."
15:37:36 <alastairc> +1, let's move on.
15:37:39 <Chuck> +1
15:37:43 <GreggVan> ah   good point  Rachael  --   I move to  1  or   AWK suggestion of leavign that one out
15:37:44 <Wilco> +1 to moving on
15:37:45 <Jem> +1
15:37:45 <kirkwood> +1
15:37:48 <JakeAbma> +1
15:37:48 <Jennie> +1
15:37:49 <GreggVan> +1
15:37:50 <ShawnT> +1
15:37:51 <jon_avila> +1
15:37:51 <Azlan> +1
15:37:51 <jeanne> +1
15:37:54 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
15:37:54 <Francis_Storr> +1
15:38:00 <MelanieP> +1
15:38:03 <MichaelC> ca: accepting the AWK proposal
15:38:09 <Jaunita_George> +1
15:38:24 <JF> Q+
15:38:29 <Chuck> ack JF
15:38:35 <michael> michael has joined #ag
15:38:37 <Rachael> +1
15:38:39 <MichaelC> rbm: what about keeping / removing list of functional needs?
15:38:51 <MichaelC> jf: had proposed another
15:39:21 <Chuck> q?
15:39:23 <MichaelC> rbm: request was to add conformance to bullets, worked that into context-setting
15:39:25 <alastairc> JF - see line 180
15:39:36 <MichaelC> jf: requested ¨defined model¨
15:39:51 <alastairc> Is that on the same topic?
15:40:28 <MichaelC> rbm: noting as open issues
15:40:35 <MichaelC> <scribe now lost>
15:40:44 <Rachael> Themes: Do we keep the functional needs list, and do we commit to a "defined model" instead of "answering questions including ...complex conformance challenges"
15:40:54 <JakeAbma> q+
15:40:59 <MichaelC> ca: refocusing, there were competing suggestions for the functional needs list, add to or remove
15:41:07 <Chuck> ack Jake
15:41:34 <MichaelC> ja: functional needs sub-group now part of APA, maybe the list not needed here?
15:41:51 <Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2348/files
15:41:56 <MichaelC> rbm: not about committing to specific work, it´s explanatory for scope of work
15:42:01 <Rachael> lines 248-261
15:42:15 <alastairc> q+
15:42:20 <janina> q+
15:42:20 <Chuck> ack alastair
15:42:40 <Chuck> +1 to removing, maybe including a link
15:42:41 <Wilco> +1 to remove it
15:42:48 <MichaelC> ac: might be better to link than include for charter
15:42:48 <Chuck> ack janina
15:42:49 <Rachael> +1 to removing and adding link
15:42:54 <michael> +1 to remove
15:43:04 <jeanne> +1 to remove
15:43:04 <MichaelC> js: we should be indicative rather than exhaustive for WCAG 3
15:43:16 <Jem> no objection
15:43:18 <MichaelC> rbm: ok to substitute with link?
15:43:22 <GN015> +1 to janina
15:43:22 <maryjom> +1 I agree with Janina, Shawn.
15:43:24 <MichaelC> ca: no disagreements
15:43:25 <jon_avila> +1 to remove list and add link
15:43:57 <MichaelC> ca: back to complex conformance challenges
15:43:57 <Chuck> q?
15:44:16 <MichaelC> rbm: request that scope commit to a conformance model for wcag 3
15:44:28 <Chuck> q+
15:44:32 <Chuck> ack Chuc
15:44:33 <MichaelC> we previously said we´d address conformance questions
15:44:47 <MichaelC> ca: think if we list, need to list ´em all again
15:44:59 <Chuck> q?
15:45:05 <Chuck> q?
15:45:27 <jeanne> -1 to calling out just one challenge
15:45:35 <MichaelC> jf, would that address your comment?
15:46:33 <Rachael> q+
15:46:34 <MichaelC> jf: <reads from survey response>
15:46:38 <Chuck> ack Rach
15:46:44 <MichaelC> I request by end of charter we have defined what conformance model looks like
15:46:50 <MichaelC> rbm: hesitant to do so explicitly
15:46:54 <Wilco> -1, it's already in the document
15:47:04 <MichaelC> plan wide reviews, expect lots of comments
15:47:07 <michael> +1 to not making explicit
15:47:19 <alastairc> +1 to Rachael, and it's already in the 2.1 scope as something that goes into the wide review(s).
15:47:21 <MichaelC> don´t think we can have finished by by end of charter period
15:47:21 <JF> Q+
15:47:25 <Chuck> ack JF
15:47:54 <MichaelC> jf: think we´ve waited long enough
15:47:55 <AWK> +1 to JF's concern.
15:47:59 <Wilco> q+
15:48:04 <MichaelC> think we need a forcing mechanism to finally define conformance
15:48:33 <AWK> Doesn't mean that the conformance model can't change if the work of the group makes a change necessary
15:48:37 <alastairc> q+ to say it's already in the scope.
15:48:58 <MichaelC> we keep kicking the can down the road, want to say by 2024 we know where the can will land
15:49:00 <Wilco> q-
15:49:18 <Chuck> ack ala
15:49:18 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say it's already in the scope.
15:49:30 <MichaelC> ac: the scope section addresses the point
15:49:43 <Chuck> poll:  add the edits proposed by JF to section 1.2 "Focus for the 2022 - 2024 Charter"
15:50:13 <Wilco> -1, it's already in the doc
15:50:15 <jeanne> -1
15:50:16 <Chuck> poll:  add the edit proposed by JF to section 1.2 "Focus for the 2022 - 2024 Charter"
15:50:20 <alastairc> -1, already in the doc
15:50:20 <Lauriat> -1
15:50:22 <Rachael> -1 already in document
15:50:22 <JF> +1
15:50:22 <Chuck> -1
15:50:23 <janina> -1
15:50:26 <Jem> -1
15:50:27 <sarahhorton> -1
15:50:31 <ShawnT> -1
15:50:36 <AWK> q+
15:50:43 <Chuck> ack AWK
15:50:57 <MichaelC> awk: I agree with JF on addressing conformance model
15:51:19 <MichaelC> I heard RBM saying we´re not committing to having that done by end of charter
15:51:28 <MichaelC> but AC saying already there
15:51:53 <shadi> +1
15:51:53 <MichaelC> rbm: I understand the discussion to be about making conformance model final and unchangeable by end of charter
15:51:54 <alastairc> See under "https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html#scope-wcag3"
15:51:56 <MichaelC> don´t think we can go that far
15:51:57 <shadi> q+
15:52:13 <Rachael> yes, I do
15:52:19 <alastairc>  This wide review of WCAG 3 will include the following:... A conformance model, and
15:52:20 <MichaelC> awk: when we go to wide review, will there be a conformance model?
15:52:31 <JF> Q+
15:52:34 <alastairc> "This wide review of WCAG 3 will include the following:... A conformance model"
15:52:34 <MichaelC> or a request for input on one
15:52:50 <laura> +1 to awk
15:52:53 <Chuck> ack sh
15:52:57 <MichaelC> I say there should be one, which we´re open to changing based on feedback
15:53:07 <MichaelC> saz: +1 to AWK
15:53:13 <alastairc> q+ to say it includes "This wide review of WCAG 3 will include the following:... A conformance model"
15:53:23 <jon_avila> I agree with Andrew.  We want a full model - but not one that can't be changed at all in the wide review.
15:53:23 <MichaelC> if the milestone is wide review draft, operative word is ¨draft¨
15:53:26 <MichaelC> things aren´t unchangeable
15:53:46 <MichaelC> would like language about having taken a good step ahead
15:53:53 <Rachael> q+
15:53:56 <Chuck> ack JF
15:54:02 <MichaelC> while avoiding misinterpretation about done deal
15:54:43 <Rachael> q-
15:54:45 <Wilco> q+
15:54:55 <MichaelC> jf: I want to know how the conformance model will work
15:55:08 <MichaelC> it gates other activities
15:55:23 <MichaelC> so think this should be more than just in scope
15:55:23 <Chuck> ack ala
15:55:23 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say it includes "This wide review of WCAG 3 will include the following:... A conformance model"
15:55:28 <AWK> Seems like there is inconsistency between the 2.1 WCAG 3 section's "A conformance model, and" and the text in the WCAG 3 Conformance model.
15:55:49 <MichaelC> ac: <quotes from charter where it says these things>
15:55:56 <AWK> WE should make these sections consistent
15:56:05 <AWK> s/WE/We
15:56:10 <MichaelC> jf: want a working example of WCAG 3 conformance model
15:56:21 <MichaelC> at least differences between levels
15:56:51 <Chuck> q?
15:56:54 <Chuck> ack wilco
15:57:08 <MichaelC> wf: I see it as already there
15:57:12 <MichaelC> <quotes>
15:57:22 <JF> Q+
15:57:32 <Chuck> ack JF
15:57:56 <MichaelC> jf: s/define scope of conformance model/define working conformance model/
15:58:11 <Chuck> poll:  add the edit proposed by JF to section 1.2 "Focus for the 2022 - 2024 Charter"
15:58:11 <alastairc> Suggest: "In this charter period, AG WG will define *a* conformance model for WCAG 3."
15:58:13 <Rachael> q+
15:58:17 <Chuck> ack
15:58:29 <JF> Q+ to remind the W3C Process document
15:58:29 <SuzanneTaylor> +1 to "working conformance model"
15:58:43 <Chuck> +1
15:58:47 <laura> +1 to "working conformance model"
15:58:48 <ShawnT> +1
15:58:52 <JF> +1
15:58:52 <jon_avila> +1
15:58:54 <MichaelC> rbm: suggest JF additions with a caveat
15:58:56 <shadi> +1 to alastairc
15:58:56 <janina> +1 to initial
15:58:57 <JakeAbma> +1
15:59:02 <Wilco> +1
15:59:02 <Jaunita_George> +1
15:59:04 <jweismantel> +1
15:59:06 <Lauriat> 0, seems redundant
15:59:06 <alastairc> "In this charter period, AG WG will define a working conformance model for WCAG 3."
15:59:10 <sarahhorton> +1 with "working"
15:59:10 <Rachael> straw poll Change "scope of conformance model" to "working conformance model
15:59:11 <michael> +1
15:59:15 <Rachael> 0
15:59:18 <alastairc> +1
15:59:21 <JF> +1
15:59:24 <AWK> +.5 Can live with it but think that the "working" is already implied by the draft status
15:59:25 <Jem> +1
15:59:28 <SuzanneTaylor> +1
15:59:28 <MichaelC> ca: poll passes
15:59:56 <Chuck> q?
15:59:59 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:00:03 <Jem> agenda?
16:00:07 <sarahhorton> I can scribe
16:00:08 <Chuck> ack JF
16:00:08 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to remind the W3C Process document
16:00:18 <alastairc> ack jf
16:00:45 <sarahhorton> scribe: sarahhorton
16:00:47 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 2
16:00:47 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Visible controls (No Survey) -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:01:18 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Acknowledge Gregg's effort
16:01:42 <sarahhorton> ... wanting to make progress, need to wrap things up, haven't gotten past core issue of applying conventions
16:02:02 <sarahhorton> ... haven't made enough process, need to pull SC out
16:02:25 <sarahhorton> Chuck: Recommended approach? No survey, last week resolved to finalize or pull, addition resolution needed?
16:03:20 <Chuck> q?
16:03:21 <sarahhorton> alastairc: at stage to pull it, no further resolution needed, didn't make enough progress
16:03:24 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
16:03:24 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 2.2 Focus appearance https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:03:31 <michael> Q+
16:04:08 <Chuck> ack mich
16:04:08 <sarahhorton> michael: Resolution, yes, add something that it was brought up and addressed?
16:04:32 <michael> Okay
16:04:35 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Have in minutes, brought up as topic, has scribe
16:04:37 <Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
16:04:59 <sarahhorton> Chuck: [reads survey]
16:04:59 <alastairc> q+
16:05:19 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:05:39 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:06:01 <sarahhorton> Chuck: 4 agree, 1 revert, 2 something else
16:06:09 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2341/
16:06:26 <AWK> Can we see this in context of the full SC?
16:06:46 <Jem> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2341/
16:07:22 <Chuck> q?
16:07:24 <Chuck> ack ala
16:07:25 <Nicaise> Nicaise has joined #ag
16:07:35 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Had 2 topics, came up with 3rd which is link
16:07:36 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 1 - Adjacent contrast
16:07:44 <alastairc> "has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent non-focus-indicator colors, or is no thinner than 2 CSS pixels."
16:07:44 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to:  Question 1 - Adjacent contrast
16:07:51 <SuzanneTaylor> present+
16:07:57 <sarahhorton> ... non-focus indicator, new term
16:08:07 <AWK> q+ to ask if overlapping is included in adjacent?
16:08:14 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2341 to address issue 2333
16:08:18 <Detlev> q+
16:08:23 <Chuck> ack AWK
16:08:23 <Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if overlapping is included in adjacent?
16:08:33 <alastairc> Plain preview: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/30ec82a645f256c6a4a1a4fd9b603ae1746f868e/guidelines/sc/22/focus-appearance-minimum.html
16:09:06 <Chuck> q?
16:09:14 <Chuck> ack Detlev
16:09:22 <alastairc> q+ to say adjacent / change of
16:09:22 <sarahhorton> AWK: Brings up other question re scope of adjacency, e.g., focus indicator dot in control? Is that adjacent? Could address in understanding, just make sure clear
16:10:31 <sarahhorton> Detlev: PR, not sure understand, 3 bullets, meets all, 2nd stipulates contrast and next says "or", e.g., 2-px border, does it not have to 3:1?
16:10:42 <Chuck> ack ala
16:10:42 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say adjacent / change of
16:11:25 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Meets all, must have changed compared to unfocused, falls down with dark indicator, dark button, trying to catch that with last bullet
16:11:51 <sarahhorton> ... without punishing gradient indicators, because gradient won't have contrast with self
16:12:13 <sarahhorton> Detlev: 2px indicator, slightest contrast possible, would it still pass?
16:12:26 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Would have to meet change of contrast
16:12:47 <Chuck> q?
16:12:50 <sarahhorton> ... anything inside controls working on change of contrast, adjust comes with up against other things
16:12:55 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept PR 2341 to address issue 2333
16:12:59 <alastairc> q+
16:13:02 <sarahhorton> s/adjust/adjacent
16:13:03 <Chuck> ack ala
16:13:16 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Other things in PR?
16:13:55 <AWK> q+
16:13:59 <AWK> q-
16:14:13 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Resolve normative change first, not accept PR
16:14:20 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept normative change of PR 2341 to address issue 2333.
16:14:28 <alastairc> +1
16:14:29 <Chuck> +1
16:14:30 <Detlev> +1
16:14:31 <Jem> +1
16:14:31 <jon_avila> +1
16:14:42 <MelanieP> MelanieP has joined #ag
16:14:44 <ShawnT> +1
16:14:45 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:14:45 <jweismantel> +1
16:14:52 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:14:55 <laura> +1
16:14:55 <GN015> 0
16:14:57 <joeyang> +1
16:14:59 <JakeAbma> +1
16:15:04 <sarahhorton> RESOLUTION:  Accept normative change of PR 2341 to address issue 2333.
16:15:12 <Wilco> q+
16:15:15 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Adjusting sub-component requirement
16:15:23 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to:  Question 2 - Adjusting sub-component requirement
16:15:42 <Chuck> ack Wilco
16:15:42 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2341/files
16:16:03 <sarahhorton> Wilco: Does this include "a" to "the" for bounding box
16:16:04 <Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2341/files#diff-444c5829eebc004b2bed36e50ccd93bbc460c08d46c2bf15d4675daa34bfd9bfR21
16:16:21 <sarahhorton> alastairc: Just the non-focus indicators
16:16:28 <alastairc> Sorry - that was focused on "non-focus-indicator colors"
16:16:32 <sarahhorton> Chuck: [reads survey]
16:17:45 <sarahhorton> ... 7 agree, 1 adjustment
16:17:50 <Jem> #2 question in https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/
16:18:39 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey: All good with edits
16:18:39 <alastairc> q+
16:18:43 <Chuck> ack ala
16:18:48 <Jem> better link is https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results#xq50
16:18:58 <alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2345/files
16:19:31 <sarahhorton> alastairc: In survey, agree with "instead"? Mike suggested advancement
16:19:38 <alastairc> "Where a user interface component has active sub-components, if a sub-component receives a focus indicator, these requirements are applied to the sub-component instead."
16:19:45 <sarahhorton> ... worth discussion
16:20:00 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:20:04 <Chuck> ack Bru
16:20:11 <sarahhorton> ... update to make in addition to what's in survey
16:20:40 <sarahhorton> bruce_bailey: Can be choice that it can be either one, support for that in survey, clarity that it's up to author/page owner
16:20:45 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Accept amended understanding document update for sub-component requirement
16:21:09 <michael> Q+
16:21:12 <alastairc> "Where a user interface component has active sub-components (for example, an opened drop-down menu shows a list of menu items), if the focus indicator is applied to the sub-component then these requirements can be applied to the sub-components instead."
16:21:24 <Chuck> ack Mich
16:21:50 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  accept "Where a user interface component has active sub-components (for example, an opened drop-down menu shows a list of menu items), if the focus indicator is applied to the sub-component then these requirements can be applied to the sub-components instead."
16:22:05 <sarahhorton> michael: Bring back points from Bruce, focus on the "instead", tackle other topic in another PR
16:22:06 <Jem> +1
16:22:16 <alastairc> +1
16:22:18 <Chuck> +1
16:22:21 <Wilco> +1
16:22:22 <joeyang> +1
16:22:23 <jweismantel> +1
16:22:24 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:22:26 <ShawnT> +1
16:22:27 <JakeAbma> +1
16:22:31 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:22:50 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 3 - Bounding box for separated links #2323
16:22:56 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to:  Question 3 - Bounding box for separated links #2323
16:23:14 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results#xq51
16:23:30 <sarahhorton_> sarahhorton_ has joined #ag
16:24:04 <sarahhorton_> scribe: sarahhorton_
16:24:09 <alastairc> Chuck: Reading question 3 from survey
16:25:14 <Jem> +1 to wilko that it is too hard to understand.
16:25:17 <alastairc> See https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2323 for some visuals
16:25:32 <Chuck> q?
16:25:43 <sarahhorton_> GN015: Intention to catch, original wording not clear, hope for better wording
16:25:49 <bruce_bailey> oops, missed "concatenate rectangles" -- i agree that is not clear
16:26:04 <alastairc> q+
16:26:07 <Chuck> ack ala
16:26:50 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: 2 bits, normative useful, looking at size measure, "the" minimum bounding box tightens up
16:27:37 <sarahhorton_> ... disconnected parts, each component has own bounding box, if use border property and link wraps, miss out right-hand of first bit, second bit of second
16:27:55 <sarahhorton_> ... if considered separately and 1 pixel, going to fail
16:28:23 <sarahhorton_> ... if use outline won't fail, complete box around each link
16:28:41 <sarahhorton_> ... options, switch from border to outline, or use 2 pixels
16:28:54 <sarahhorton_> ... not clear how updating definition will work
16:29:01 <Chuck> q?
16:29:06 <sarahhorton_> ... would need different change
16:29:08 <Jem> By the way, "concatenation" is not a plain language
16:29:38 <sarahhorton_> GN015: Border vs outline, should not force all 4 lines for all parts, other ways to indicate
16:29:40 <Chuck> q+ to say still unaddressed concatenate rectangles
16:29:45 <Chuck> ack Chu
16:29:45 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say still unaddressed concatenate rectangles
16:30:01 <Jem> wondering what would be downside if we don't cover/address this.
16:30:10 <sarahhorton_> Chuck: Verbal explanation makes sense, didn't address concern about concatenate rectanges
16:30:27 <Wilco> q+
16:30:33 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Suggestion to change size measure based on if it hadn't wrapped
16:30:40 <Chuck> ack Wil
16:30:43 <sarahhorton_> GN015: Yes
16:31:13 <sarahhorton_> Wilco: Every case like that need multiword link with larger indicator than necessary even if side is missing, already passing
16:31:17 <Chuck> q?
16:31:18 <Jem> +1 to wilco
16:31:55 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Visual demonstration
16:32:40 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Demo using border and outline, outline fits requirement, border doesn't
16:33:00 <sarahhorton_> ... border version could fail, border rare because affects layout
16:33:03 <Jem> love to see the visual, but is that one word or two words?
16:33:22 <Jem> one word with multiple links.
16:34:03 <sarahhorton_> ... wraps, if 2 pixels passes even if 1 character
16:34:06 <Chuck> q+
16:34:09 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:34:26 <Wilco> q+
16:34:31 <Chuck> ack Wil
16:34:42 <sarahhorton_> Chuck: Confused, demo supports?
16:34:53 <Chuck> q?
16:34:54 <sarahhorton_> Wilco: More work needed
16:35:54 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Don't want to create hole, [demo], opening up holes
16:36:06 <Chuck> q?
16:36:15 <sarahhorton_> Chuck: resolution? Not sure supporting or against extended definition
16:36:44 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:37:03 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Could lead to odd things if you use border, but border rare, things without border, adding border makes it bigger, causes things to jump around
16:37:23 <sarahhorton_> ... don't think we need to solve it, could lead to more problem
16:38:19 <sarahhorton_> GN015: Focus indicator common, surrounding box isn't a rectangle
16:38:45 <mbgower> Okay, I'm back online.
16:38:50 <mbgower> It passes.
16:38:54 <sarahhorton_> ... indicates the object continues, current definition requires two outline
16:39:15 <mbgower> q+
16:39:17 <bruce_bailey> +1 to "I feel this should also be allowed" sentiment -- but also to alastair comment that it is a pass
16:40:09 <Chuck> ack mb
16:40:09 <sarahhorton_> GN015: Would like outline and border to pass
16:40:26 <Jem> +1 to edge case.
16:40:33 <Chuck> +1 to edge case
16:40:48 <joeyang> +1 at edge case
16:40:50 <sarahhorton_> michael: Edge case, not sure how often problem, as is provide easy solution (outline)
16:41:13 <sarahhorton_> michael: [walks through examples]
16:41:30 <bruce_bailey> link to comment under discussion in GitHub thread:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2323#issuecomment-1116069154
16:42:00 <sarahhorton_> ... proposed wording allows half a focus indicator and pass
16:42:29 <sarahhorton_> ... fragmented focus unusual except for text links
16:42:44 <Jem> agree with that it would be rare to have a fragmented focus indicator.
16:42:57 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Update the definition as proposed, do not accept the normative change
16:43:04 <GN015> q+
16:43:05 <sarahhorton_> ... use outline, easy technical thing, or thicker outline
16:43:06 <Wilco> maps can have this, countries with multiple islands
16:43:34 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: [demo of use of border, things move around]
16:43:44 <Jem> half focused 4 rectangle in one reatangle would be rare.
16:43:44 <Chuck> ack GN
16:44:24 <sarahhorton_> GN015: Focus indicator with outline instead of border, or 2 pixel, past discussion to not prescribe indicator
16:44:25 <Jem> agenda?
16:44:31 <sarahhorton_> ... moon shaped indicators
16:44:52 <Chuck> q?
16:44:54 <sarahhorton_> ... now prescribing
16:44:56 <Jem> AG have star rating focus indicator example
16:44:57 <mbgower> q+ to say the requirements have flexibility but are still prescriptive
16:45:08 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Very rare technique to use border
16:45:32 <sarahhorton_> ... harder to meet, not saying you can't use other methods
16:46:05 <sarahhorton_> ... harder to do than default
16:46:11 <Chuck> ack mb
16:46:11 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the requirements have flexibility but are still prescriptive
16:46:35 <sarahhorton_> michael: requirements have flexibility but are prescriptive, need to meet one of the approaches
16:47:03 <sarahhorton_> ... exception covers scenarios except this one edge case
16:47:20 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Update the definition as proposed, do not accept the normative change
16:47:46 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: "a" to "the" change is normative
16:47:49 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  Update the normative change, do not accept the changes to understanding
16:48:00 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Not update definition
16:48:15 <alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION:  Update the normative change to the SC, do not accept the changes to definition
16:48:20 <mbgower> +1
16:48:22 <Jem> +1
16:48:22 <Chuck> +1
16:48:25 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:48:25 <ShawnT> +1
16:48:26 <jweismantel> +1
16:48:28 <alastairc> +1
16:48:29 <joeyang> +1
16:48:30 <laura> 1
16:48:32 <Detlev> +1
16:48:32 <Wilco> 0, I agree with GN, but don't see a solve
16:48:50 <sarahhorton_> RESOLUTION:  Update the normative change to the SC, do not accept the changes to definition
16:49:02 <Chuck> zakim, take up next item
16:49:02 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Chartering Conversation https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:49:09 <Chuck> agenda?
16:49:17 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 4
16:49:17 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- WCAG 2.2 Page break locators https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/ -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:49:32 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 1 - SC2.4.13 Page break locators technique #1226
16:49:36 <Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-page-break-nav/results
16:49:39 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 1 - SC2.4.13 Page break locators technique #1226
16:49:48 <sarahhorton_> Chuck: [reads survey]
16:50:22 <sarahhorton_> ... 10 agreed, 1 something else
16:50:23 <Jem> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/afba356fd624c0d0ba3e1c3d8739a36e91c0e01a/techniques/html/H99.html
16:50:44 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Change added footnotes, make them into links instead
16:51:02 <ShawnT> +1 to alastairc
16:51:05 <laura> +1
16:51:08 <ShawnT> +1
16:51:08 <Chuck> +1
16:51:11 <alastairc> alastairc: Just want to change the footnotes into links (TODO)
16:51:14 <jweismantel> +1
16:51:15 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:51:20 <alastairc> +1
16:51:24 <mbgower> +1
16:51:25 <sarahhorton_> RESOLUTION:  Accept amended PR 2130 to address issue 1226.
16:51:27 <Detlev> +1
16:51:28 <Chuck> TOPIC:  Question 2 - Are CSS break-before/after indicators page break locators? #2259
16:51:36 <Chuck> Chuck has changed the topic to: Question 2 - Are CSS break-before/after indicators page break locators? #2259
16:51:49 <sarahhorton_> Chuck: [reads survey]
16:52:25 <alastairc> Link to issue raised: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2259
16:53:34 <sarahhorton_> ... [reads responses]
16:54:28 <sarahhorton_> michael: Conversation show why still problematic SC
16:54:55 <Chuck> q?
16:55:09 <alastairc> q+
16:55:12 <bruce_bailey> q+ to mention alternate formats
16:55:18 <alastairc> q-
16:55:20 <alastairc> q+
16:55:24 <Chuck> ack Bru
16:55:24 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention alternate formats
16:55:28 <Jem> I also have the same question regarding "alternative version" as Wilco, David, and Michale mentioned
16:55:46 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:56:00 <Chuck> ack ala
16:56:10 <sarahhorton_> bruce_bailey: Dancing around print, 504, 508, alternative formats, e.g.,braille, language is encroaching, not careful, if ePub are okay then okay
16:56:25 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Ran by ePub
16:56:44 <mbgower> q+ to say that this exceeds WCAG IMO
16:56:44 <sarahhorton_> ... hinted at it and point to technique
16:56:52 <Jem> I think "programmatically determinable destination markers that represent page breaks may NOT be the same as in an alternative version of the document
16:56:55 <Chuck> ack mb
16:56:55 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that this exceeds WCAG IMO
16:56:58 <sarahhorton_> Chuck: Outside of scope of question
16:57:21 <alastairc> q+ to say what I was trying to say...
16:57:27 <sarahhorton_> michael: Concern, exceeds WCAG scope, deal with web content, non-web alternative not within purview
16:57:29 <Jem> +1 to mbgower
16:57:48 <bruce_bailey> i agree that if Matt Garrish is happy, i am happy
16:57:48 <Chuck> ack ala
16:57:48 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say what I was trying to say...
16:57:50 <sarahhorton_> ... scoped down to page break locators, okay with existing langauge
16:57:54 <Jem> Epub may have something to cover alternative format.
16:58:11 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Have something in webpage/thing that represents page break if version different from what evaluating
16:58:27 <sarahhorton_> ... CSS page breaks aren't related
16:58:35 <Chuck> proposed:  programmatically determinable destination markers that represent page breaks in an alternative web version of the document.
16:58:43 <Jem> definition form epub "Page break locators are also commonly used to provide static markers in purely digital publications (i.e., where no statically paginated equivalent exists). These markers provide consistent navigation regardless of differences in font and screen size that can otherwise affect the dynamic pagination of the content."
16:58:44 <sarahhorton_> ... things within page trying to evaluate that are pointer to something else, can do in understanding
16:59:17 <sarahhorton_> Wilco: Can tolerate if clear understanding document with current
16:59:33 <Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION:  reject the proposed definition change
16:59:38 <sarahhorton_> Chuck: Updated understanding later?
16:59:45 <Chuck> +1
16:59:46 <sarahhorton_> alastairc: Yes
16:59:46 <Jem> +1  am still confused about alternative format context
16:59:50 <Wilco> +1
16:59:50 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:59:52 <mbgower> +1
16:59:52 <jweismantel> +1
16:59:54 <joeyang> +1
16:59:54 <ShawnT> +1
16:59:55 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:59:55 <alastairc> +0.5
16:59:56 <laura> +1
17:00:02 <sarahhorton_> RESOLUTION:  reject the proposed definition change
17:00:02 <Rachael> +1
17:00:03 <Detlev> 0 can't tell
17:00:21 <GN015> present+
17:00:21 <laura> bye
17:00:42 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/03-ag-minutes.html alastairc
17:02:43 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #ag
17:12:42 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
17:13:54 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
17:57:16 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #ag
18:30:38 <Joshue108> Joshue108 has joined #ag