W3C

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

24 May 2022

Attendees

Present
bruce_bailey, ben_tillyer, JakeAbma, JF, Peter_Bossley, Lauriat, shadi, Jennie_, Wilco, sarahhorton, Makoto, Rachael, janina, Azlan, Raf, MelanieP, SuzanneTaylor, kirkwood, Chuck, maryjom, myasonik, jeanne, Laura_Carlson, Detlev, jaunita_george, GreggVan, Francis_Storr, StefanS, Katie_Haritos-Shea, ToddL, alastairc, GN, OliverK, GN015
Regrets
Jennie Delisi
Chair
Chuck
Scribe
bruce_bailey, laura

Contents


<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2022-05-24

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

welcome

Chuck: no introductions from chairs, anyone else?
... New business for the list?

Chartering update (Rachael)

Rachael: chairs went through survey responses and tried to see pattern...
... not enough support for extensive work on 2.3+
... we do have input and feedback to charter
... so instead of trying for perfect charter, chairs have survey and will focus on draft charter
... this is a new option, and chairs feel this supports the group conversation

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/?login

<Rachael> draft charter: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html

We do have new survey to open, which we have incorporated into DRAFT charter

<Rachael> revised decision policy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18UL3rG_Vz_68sNSXtKvv55gwcyIgh_Iw7nnwBO8BYjE/edit#heading=h.2qlx34oycvzz

also draft decision policy

then next step to AC

some discussion now?

and then send survey results to AC

Proposal to update WCAG 3 editor's draft with test types https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_test_section/

no questions

Chuck: WCAG3 to add exploratory content for testing section
... survey asks: Approval to add testing section to editor's draft as exploratory
... will call on survey commentors.

Question 1 - Approval to add testing section to editor's draft as exploratory

JF: As I understand process, we mark something as Exploratory, then have in depth conversation.

So that is what I agreed to with this survey. Correct?

Chuck: Yes. That is the idea.

JF: I feel like that conversation is already starting with this survey, before exploratory phase starts.

<GreggVan> can the survey link be reposted?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to remind that we remove exploratory content if it has not been discussed within a set time period

Chuck: Andy Sommers in survey had concerns for terms used to name test types.

<maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_test_section

Rachael affirms that conversation about what terms to use is once content is in Exploratory.

scribe: The alternative is not to include the material at all.

Laura: Agree to have in exploratory, and valuable to have posted as-is

Suzanne: the plain language summaries are very valuable, would like those not to be hidden

Wilco: I had one phrase which I think should be changed before publishing as exploratory.

Chuck: AWK approved publishing

Chuck reads Bruce's comment.

<Chuck> bruce: +1 to editorial suggestion to expand plain language parts.

<GN015> giving the test types just numbers for exploratory to freely triggering ideas sounds like a good idea to me.

Chuck: There are a couple of editorial suggestion being made, so I am not sure if we should straw poll.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask when the exploratory session(s) will be scheduled?

Rachael: We do want to get material posted asap, but I would like to talk about Wilco's suggestion

<JF> +1 to Chuck

JF: Please clarify if we should have been making editorial suggestions?

Chuck: There were no objections to moving to Exploratory, so simplest approach would be to go ahead as-is

Wilco: Objective rule causes me significant concern. So I would like to try and have that corrected.

Chuck: So is that a formal objection do you think?

Wilco: I would not characterize concern as formal objection, but it really needs to change.

JF: I think my concerns for some of the tests are just as significant as Wilco's requested edit.

GF: Is process to add survey comments as Notes?

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve adding testing section to editor's draft as exploratory with suggested changes or concerns in a note.

Wilco: I am okay with moving to exploratory with survey comment as note.

<jaunita_george> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Jennie_> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<JF> +.5 - should they not be GitHub Issues instead?

<GreggVan> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Makoto> +1

<laura> +1 will john's concerns be noted?

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask how to add those notes

GV: What is process to adding notes?

<Raf> +1

GV: understand that we want to try new process

Rachael: There is a style and form for adding the survey comments as notes

GF: I just want to understand process, i did not have note for this initial publication
... How does new content get to survey?

Rachael: Please email the new ag-plan email address

JF: Why not use GitHub issues, PR, etc. ?

Chuck: We are looking through some of the detail of the mechanics
... Main idea for this survey was to get material into Exploratory state

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that GitHub should be one good path but another non-GitHub should also be available. Some are not great at GitHub

Alastair: I am going to recommend survey for the first round of notes, then discussion, then cut off, then GitHub after that.

GF: The problem is that people cannot get their comments/feedback in a timely way after the previous rounds of edits...
... GitHub not a good mechanism for people with average TechQ
... we have low threshold for getting material/feedback in early to Exploratory but hard after that
... you need easy way for people to attach their concerns.

Chuck: We are not hearing objections to the content, just the process, and I think we can capture the subsequent feedback.

<Rachael> We do have a standard process where if you are not able to use Github you can email the chairs.

JF: I am struggling with idea that comments in survey are notes but after that, concern are only via GitHub

Alastair: By cut off, I only meant publish-then-come-back-to-it.
... we need trigger to initially publish Exploratory material.

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to link to github topic

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Approve adding testing section to editor's draft as exploratory with suggested changes or concerns in a note.

Chuck: Concerns for process are valid, but this is a shake down of process.

RESOLUTION: Approve adding testing section to editor's draft as exploratory with suggested changes or concerns in a note.

Question 2 - Approved: Agree with removing ratings, scorings, and critical errors

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_test_section/results#xq7

Do you agree with removing the content about ratings, scoring, critical errors and conformance related to these from the draft?

Chuck: All agreed, we did have one request for adjustment.

Availability for next week's (5/31/2022) AGWG meeting

<alastairc> The "historic" marker is a text non-question, so doesn't show up on the results page.

U.S. holiday on Monday (not Tuesday)

<Chuck> poll: +1 if you are available to participate in next week's AGWG call

<Jennie_> +1

<Peter_Bossley> +1

<laura> +1

<alastairc> Not in US, so I'm fine.

<janina> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Detlev> +1

<GN015> -1

<ben_tillyer> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Wilco> +1, although potentially late

<alastairc> AWK not around

<Makoto> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<jeanne> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<JF> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

Chuck: It is a popular holiday week.

<GreggVan> +1

Chuck: call is on as usual then.

WCAG2ICT Update

Chuck: no survey this week, but chairs are working through feedback and crafting work statement...
... progress is continuing, formation of group in progress
... Moving to WCAG2 material, so 3 only folks may leave if you like

GF: I want to strongly suggest we document the path and process for commenting...

<Rachael> +1 we will continue to add to the existing documentation

<Chuck> +1 to GV and documenting comments and reviewing process

GF: people might start getting concerned, and there were clarifications even today
... want to keep this Exploratory process going forward and non AGWG folks concerned
... process for attaching should be clear

Chuck: Chairs agree with keep subsequent process clear

<Chuck> bruce: did you mean exploratory and not experimental?

<Chuck> gv: confirmed.

Question 1 - Update Focus Appearance Enhanced and split Focus Not Obscured #2365

Chuck: moving on to WCAG2 surveys

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results

Update Focus Appearance Enhanced and split Focus Not Obscured #2365

See links to preview

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say what happened last week

Alastair: This is a discussion that rolled over from the end of the call last week

we agreed on most of the the SC

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/focus-appearance-enh-structure/understanding/22/focus-appearance-enhanced.html

scribe: since last week, GV made an update which restructured text
... basically similar, two options, primary bit and then something for focus area as option
... open question if we liked this newer structure
... previous comments addressed up to David MacDonalds feedback

David MacDonald (from survey): two-color indicator at 4.5:1 ratio more difficult than i was expecting

Chuck reads AWK comment from survey

AWK: My comment probably is more about next question.

Wilco: (wanted something else), the survey and my response is really too much for a single survey question...
... one of the values seems almost accidental, makes me think we need another read through?
... I do not understand the minimum version? Should that not be a separated survey question?

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on David's comment (4.5:1 was from before, and a 2 colour one can meet the exception text/option2)

Wilco: obscured or not seems like a very different concern, maybe separated SC

Chuck: To David's question, 4.5:1 previous survey supported higher contrast...
... don't think we need something special for two-color exception because implementation would meet Exception which allows focus area
... for AWK, suggest coming back to that, since it is about restructing.
... to Wilco: previous concern address by 2px concern and we did have survey, and responsive edits.

Wilco: I agree with summary of discussion, so now we can take out a bullet?

<alastairc> Logically we can now remove "has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent non-focus-indicator colors, or is no thinner than 2 CSS pixels."

Alastair: Agreed. That is where we got to with the conversation last week.
... to Wilco's question why not treble or quadruple? Why only double?
... I agree it is a continuum, but even at AAA doubling seems pretty significant.

Wilco: Can we get feedback on the value picked?

Alastair: This is an author ask, not AT ask. So doubling and higher contrast is well aligned to previous version...
... i would prefer to stick with this approach unless Wilco has strong feels.

Wilco: It still seems arbitrary. Why only double?

Alastair: This came from discussion with LVTF and we added the new AAA to get at when something was good enough or not.

GF: The research for 4.5 used thin plain text, so not larger thicker text...
... does not really argue for thick borders or similar UI.

Wilco: Did numbers come from LVTF or just because it was an earlier proposal?

Chuck clarifies with Wilco that his is not a strong objection.

<Wilco> That makes sense to me

Gundalla: Measures are only for one dimension, so might we have higher value if thickness is only in one dimension

Chuck: To LVTF question, we did some experimenting with 1 2 3 pixel thickness, and used their feedback.

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended updates to Focus appearance, Focus nob obscured (minimum) and Focus not obscured (enhanced)

Chuck: Focus visibility is size and how much it stands out. Adding 7:1 to thin line might not be comparable to 4.5:1 for rectangle border

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: Remove the last bullet of the exception because the 2px thickness makes it redundant

<Wilco> +1

Alastair: I think what we have so far is to remove now redundant bullet
... there was a question about Obscured bullet, but I am not clear on feedback

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Remove the last bullet of the exception because the 2px thickness makes it redundant

<Chuck> +1

<GN015> +1

<alastairc> "has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent non-focus-indicator colors, or is no thinner than 2 CSS pixels."

<laura> +1

<Azlan> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

Alastair: for people struggling, first two bullets address
... we have two more question on survey

RESOLUTION: Remove the last bullet of the exception because the 2px thickness makes it redundant

<Wilco> 1+

Alastair: to Wilco, we separated off obscured part, then have similar adjustment to AAA SC
... so AAA version is about completely unobscured.

Wilco: Okay, i think resolution was typo. Last bullet from default case should have been removed?

Alastair: No, third bullet in exception not needed.

<alastairc> "Is at least as large as double the area of a 1 CSS pixel thick perimeter of the unfocused component"

Alastair: In first part, we have have requirement for area, even though no minimum thicknesss

<laura> scribe: laura

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/Focus-appearance-enhanced-updates/understanding/22/focus-appearance-enhanced.html

chuck: discussing removing nbullet from exception

ac: think it is worth removing last bullet.
... does anyone mind?

chuck: any objection from wilco?

wilco: if we adjust default scenario I don't mind.

<alastairc> draft RESOLUTION: Remove the 3rd bullet from the default, "Has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent colors."

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

+1

<jaunita_george> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ToddL> +1

<GN015> +1

ja: no contrast requirement?

ac: still need double the size and 4.5:1

ja: seem like big change. Is it final decision?

ac: can look at it after and have a think.

gregg: if hav 4:1 contrast but matched the background could ne problem.

ac: it wii be a change of contrast.

<GN015> +1 to Gregg

gregg: if button gets fatter someone with low vision won't know about it.

bruce: this is AAA.
... AA has 3:1 against adjacent color.

<alastairc> The bullet at AA is "Adjacent contrast: The contrasting area also has a contrast ratio of least 3:1 against adjacent colors in the focused component, or the contrasting area has a thickness of at least 2 CSS pixels."

bruce: interplay between the 2 SCs may meet Gregg's concerns.

wilco: different ways we could do this. This seem abitary.

gregg: could provide a little gap.

<Peter_Bossley> Agree with Greg re" sizing of the button not being a good indicator for magnification users.

gregg: looking at this technically not logically.
... no one will be aware of button larger

ac: reason for AAA is the AA version was too complicated.
... need simple, clear version.
... is AA is clearer now and exceptions. Could get rid of AAA version.

<Peter_Bossley> Personally I feel that 2.4.11 which is the AA version as proposed is very complicated and could stand to be revised to be closer to the original of AAA.

ac: could have a false positive now.

<Wilco> +1 to not having a AAA. I'd rather we get to rec, instead of spend another month hammering this out.

awk: if needing to tell if button is focused or not could be setting too high a bar.

<Chuck> +1 AWK

awk: may not be able to solve for that.

gregg: not a reason to through though.
... not a reason to though our the rule.
... should be a fail.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask what happened to AAA being AA version without exception?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we have a proposal on the table to remove the AAA?

bruce: Why not have a AAA version that merely drops the exception from AA version?

<Zakim> MelanieP, you wanted to ask Does the viewport of a screen magnifier follow the focus?

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to ask if AAA could be a consistent two-tone outline focus indicator that self contrasts at at least 3:1

mp: does the viewport follow the focus on maginfieres?

<alastairc> MelanieP - Yes (by default), but you might not be able to see other buttons nearby. Also, you might not see all the indicator.

st: it could if set that way. issue still exists.
... could AAA be a 2 tone indicator

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to the exceptions

AC: we could have 2 tone.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Suzzanne comment that AAA could specify gap

AC: if drop exception wouldn't work.
... we could drop AAA.

<Chuck> option 1: drop the AAA version, option 2: drop exceptions of AA in AAA and add 2 tone requirement

ac: or allow for 2 tone indicator.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for simplifying AAA exception to be about two-tone

<bruce_bailey> +1 to AAA being easy to read !

<Chuck> option 1: drop AAA version, option 2: Simplify AAA version

detlev: advocate against mandating only one way.

chuck: 2 options.
... option 1: drop the AAA version, option 2: drop exceptions of AA in AAA and add 2 tone requirement

bruce: do we want an AAA version? If so, what should that look like?

<alastairc> Simplified version:

<alastairc> When a user interface component has keyboard focus, an area of the focus indicator meets all the following:

<alastairc> - Encloses the visual presentation of the user interface component and is no thinner than 2 CSS pixels;

<alastairc> - Has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 between its pixels in the focused and unfocused states;

<alastairc> - Has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent colors, or uses two tones to ensure adjacent contrast.

<Chuck> option 1: work on a AAA version of this SC, option 2: Not have an AAA version for this SC

<Wilco> 2

<Chuck> 2

Chuck: option 1: work on a AAA version of this SC, option 2: Not have an AAA version for this SC

<alastairc> 2, can live with 1 so long as it's quick

<GN015> 2

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to detlev's point about a specific two-tone requirement being too restrictive (though I still really like those)

<StefanS> 2

<SuzanneTaylor> 2

<bruce_bailey> option 1, keep working on AAA version

<OliverK> 1

laura: 2

<Peter_Bossley> 2

<MelanieP> 2

<JakeAbma> 2

<jaunita_george> 2

<ToddL> 2

<GreggVan> 2

<Detlev> ok with both

<Rachael> also ok with both

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Do not have an AAA version for this SC

<Chuck> 1

<GreggVan> +1

<GN015> 1

<alastairc> +1

<jaunita_george> +1, but we should revisit it

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<StefanS> 1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Wilco> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<MelanieP> +1

+1

<ToddL> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<bruce_bailey> +0

<Peter_Bossley> +1

<GreggVan> +1 but AA version needs fixing

<jaunita_george> :)

RESOLUTION: Do not have an AAA version for this SC

<Chuck> poll: do we keep the AAA version of not obscured

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say that we should not create new versions / provisions just to add a note

gregg: having AAA version of not obscured is okay
... could add it as a note
... that would be better.

wilco: issues with AAA.
... we a proposing to add it not remove it.

AC: AAA version is a difficult requirement.
... don't want anyone to get sued over it.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i have gotten utility from the AAA sc

<jon_avila> The not obscured part was in the working draft from last year https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

bruce: happy with the AA version.

<GreggVan> +1 to bruces comment

<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce re AAA

bruce: AAA version is better than having a best practice.

<alastairc> Chuck - for the focus-appearance. The not-obscured was split off.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about our most recent resolution, didn't we resolve to not have an AAA?

ja: we did have a unobsured version.

ac: we split it off.

<Chuck> poll: Do we update understanding doc of not obscured AA, or do we keep AAA of not obscured?

ac: Do we update understanding doc of not obscured AA, or do we keep AAA of not obscured?

<alastairc> 1, ok with 2

<Chuck> option 1) Do we update understanding doc of not obscured AA, or option 2) do we keep AAA of not obscured?

<kirkwood> 2

<Chuck> 1

<alastairc> 1, ok with 2

<bruce_bailey> 2 okay with 1

<GreggVan> 2

<Rachael> 1, ok with 1

<OliverK> 2

<kirkwood> revise to 1 sorry!

<jaunita_george> 0

<JakeAbma> 2

<Rachael> 1, ok with 2

<StefanS> 2

laura: 1, ok with 2

<Detlev> not sure

<jaunita_george> Changing mine to 1

<MelanieP> 1

<Wilco> 1

<jon_avila> +2

<ToddL> 1

<Francis_Storr> 1

<GN015> 2

<alastairc> When a user interface component receives keyboard focus, the component is not entirely hidden due to author-created content.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to John Kirkwood's observation

<alastairc> AAA When a user interface component receives keyboard focus, no part of the focus indicator is hidden by author-created content.

jk: talking about AAA or puting it in understanding doc right?

ac: AAA When a user interface component receives keyboard focus, no part of the focus indicator is hidden by author-created content.

<Detlev> q#

<Detlev> +

wilco: we are already a year late with this. We don't have the time.

detlev: has any one tested this? Is it achievable?

ac: not in detail.

<Chuck> does anybody object to dropping AAA of "not obscured", and updating understanding doc of not obscured AA

<bruce_bailey> no objection, i am just not seeing harm of including

gregg: it already exists right?

ac: if there are no changes.

gregg: would leave it in place if it is already there.

wilco: I raised issues in the survey

ac: it is for authored created content. But not saying it is easy.

gregg: I won't object.

<alastairc> If there's no objections, then status-quo and leave it in

<Chuck> No

<Wilco> 0, as long as we update the understanding doc

Question 2 - Tackling wrapped text-links using "border" CSS

wilco: can end up with a perimeter that's much larger.

<jon_avila> Regarding the question - don't screen magnifiers track focus for situations where there is a single button on the screen - some users with limited field of vision can only see a limited area and use the keyboard - so the viewport won't automatically be moved for those folks.

gn: I'm fine if I understand it correctly

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say this is part of the perimeter, not bounding box

ac: you wanted to say this is part of the Perimeter, not bounding box
... calulation make more sense for perimeter

wilco: not clear to me.

<alastairc> For text links, the perimeter can be established based on how the link would appear on a single line (contiguously). Links that break across multiple lines are not considered to have a larger perimeter.

<GN015> wording suggestion: can alternatively be established

ac: current text proposed - For text links, the perimeter can be established based on how the link would appear on a single line (contiguously). Links that break across multiple lines are not considered to have a larger perimeter.

<Wilco> Maybe add "if this perimeter is smaller"?

<alastairc> For text links, the perimeter can be established based on how the link would appear on a single line (contiguously). Links that break across multiple lines are not considered to have a larger perimeter if this perimeter is smaller.

(word smithing)

<alastairc> For text links, the perimeter can be established based on how the link would appear on a single line (contiguously) if this perimeter is smaller. Links that break across multiple lines are not considered to have a larger perimeter.

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/focus-appearance-minimum.html

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/focus-appearance-minimum.html#focus-indicator-inline-link

wilco: other issue is use of "text links"

<kirkwood> I’d rather use shorter & longer rather than larger, or smaller for perimeter (math usage)

ac: need to be careful about non text

wilco: could get us into trouble.

ac: will post something to the list.

<bruce_bailey> Editorial: hyper text links or link text ?

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Approve adding testing section to editor's draft as exploratory with suggested changes or concerns in a note.
  2. Remove the last bullet of the exception because the 2px thickness makes it redundant
  3. Do not have an AAA version for this SC
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2022/05/24 17:08:18 $

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/should then/should they/
Succeeded: s/bruce: have a AAA version that drops the AA version./bruce: Why not have a AAA version that merely drops the exception from AA version?/
Succeeded: s/if  drop exception wouldn't wor/if  drop exception wouldn't work/
Succeeded: s/bruce: do we want  an AA? and what should that look line?/bruce: do we want an AAA version?  If so, what should that look like?/
Succeeded: s/anny/any/
Succeeded: s/it it is/if it is/
Succeeded: s/contiguously/contiguously/
Succeeded: s/conserns /concerns /
Succeeded: s/all ready /already /
Succeeded: s/perimiter /perimeter /
Succeeded: s/perimiter/perimeter/
Succeeded: s/continguosly/contiguously/
Succeeded: s/continguosly/contiguously/
Succeeded: s/continguosly/contiguously/
Default Present: bruce_bailey, ben_tillyer, JakeAbma, JF, Peter_Bossley, Lauriat, shadi, Jennie_, Wilco, sarahhorton, Makoto, Rachael, janina, Azlan, Raf, MelanieP, SuzanneTaylor, kirkwood, Chuck, maryjom, myasonik, jeanne, Laura_Carlson, Detlev, jaunita_george, GreggVan, Francis_Storr, StefanS, Katie_Haritos-Shea, ToddL, alastairc, GN, OliverK
Present: bruce_bailey, ben_tillyer, JakeAbma, JF, Peter_Bossley, Lauriat, shadi, Jennie_, Wilco, sarahhorton, Makoto, Rachael, janina, Azlan, Raf, MelanieP, SuzanneTaylor, kirkwood, Chuck, maryjom, myasonik, jeanne, Laura_Carlson, Detlev, jaunita_george, GreggVan, Francis_Storr, StefanS, Katie_Haritos-Shea, ToddL, alastairc, GN, OliverK, GN015
Regrets: Jennie Delisi
Found Scribe: bruce_bailey
Inferring ScribeNick: bruce_bailey
Found Scribe: laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Scribes: bruce_bailey, laura
ScribeNicks: bruce_bailey, laura

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]