New members and topics

<Chuck> Rachael: new members?

<Chuck> ShawnT: Kim is an observer for this meeting.

<Chuck> Kim: I'm Shawn's co-worker, accessibility technician in Canada.

preset+

<scribe> scribe: Detlev

<Chuck> Welcome Danielle!

Announcements

Danielle Guzman introduces herself

Equity group report [30 minutes] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lMYbFlUVhWSKaEnrzUfpozdXybkL2U8jTgWUKq59zjc/edit?usp=sharing

Rachael: Jen Strickland reporting on Equity Group

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lMYbFlUVhWSKaEnrzUfpozdXybkL2U8jTgWUKq59zjc/edit?usp=sharing

Talking about slide "Background" (please refer to presentation)

Equity subgrob discussed at TPAC where it should be located - larger than AGWG

Jen: So new home was discussed
... : running across W3C groups
... PWE )positive work environment - plug, please join
... APA focuses on equitable applications
... Open community group for proposals, e.g. a review board - community group starts that
... should ensure diversity
... community group will work on these topics
... Equity experts need to be included
... next steps community group needs to identify chairs, drafting charter, documenting processes
... working towards horizontal review board

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to question maturity model and to say CG doesn´t need charter, just description

Jen: questions

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest CG mature and PWE determine Member

<bruce_bailey> Equity Framework on Github: https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Equity-Framework

MichaelC: community groups don't require a charter so take it easy

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lMYbFlUVhWSKaEnrzUfpozdXybkL2U8jTgWUKq59zjc/edit?usp=sharing

Sheri: Maturity model focuses on accessibility but is extensible may be extended to gender, race etc - nit undertaken right now

MichaelC: lets get community group running, then PWE

<ShawnT> Positive Work Environment Community Group: https://www.w3.org/community/pwe/

Jen: The PWE focuses only on the equity of working together, the equity community group has a wider scope
... CG important but unsure how to go best about recruiting etc

Tzvija: When the CG sets up horizontal review it may be well served with a charter even if its not required

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about leading next steps

Equity and PWE can work together - the latter focuses on code of conduct

Chuck: This started under the AGWG - who will lead this going forward - will this be led by CG? Will PWE run at the same time?

Jen: PWE already happens just need more people
... could the subgroup continue to organize, select chairs etc

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/654/files

Laura: Horizontal Review Board can take a long time to establish - how will we manage equity in the meantime?

Jen: Didn't know about MichaelC's PR
... to answer Laura: :We need to keep being local, think about who is impacted, who is served

Cybele: not just timeline for equity - it impacts on priorities, e.g. delay of WCAG 3 - there was a proposal of equity group to have distributed activities that are centrally funded - that opportunity might be lost - not having a subgroup in AGWG is a lost opportunity
... refering to slides, proposal 8 - if there was an equity task force that might prevent developments that unintentionally impact developments of WCAG
... so will there be a TF within AFWG?

Jen: defer to Tzvija - needs to be addressed in WCAG 3, chairs have a responsibility

Tzviya: My role was more the big picture across W3C, not just AGWG

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say an AG group would need to focus only on the layer of issues we can reasonably impact

Tzviya: MichaelC's PR goes in the right direction

MichaelC: History is equity group was established but the scope expanded that's why it went beyond AGWG - not opposed to have it inside AGWG but we cannot open
... we cannot spend much time on things we cannot control
... that would slow the group's work down, that will harm the group's goals

Rachael: The work is very valuable, needs to be welcomed
... would get together with leaders of equity team and then propose to the group how to include it in the future

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that this effort has helped identify the aspects that are larger than AGWG

Chuck: When AGWG took this on it helped define what is in and outside of our scope - no we can return to define what can be done inside AGWG

Cybele: the need to focus on things within scope: this is the equity aspect of the future conformance model

<MichaelC> +1 to paying attention within the WG to the issues mentioned

<Rachael> +1 to using subgroup work to inform proposals for AG

Cybele: slide No. 25 (proposal 8) begs the question how does it integrate to the group's work

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> Slide 25 link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lMYbFlUVhWSKaEnrzUfpozdXybkL2U8jTgWUKq59zjc/edit#slide=id.g19ccfbb7295_17_21

An overview of the structure of equity activities, AGWG, community group etc

Issues should then get addressed by an equity task force within AGWG

A mechanism within AGWG to focus on equity issues in things like the conformance model is needed

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to clarify what PWE does and does not do

<bruce_bailey> Previous slide is textual description of Proposal 8 (combo): WG with HR + CG + Distributed TF

Tzviya: There has to be an incubation phase, what stays in CG what is in PWE - the latter has existed for many years

<Jem> PWE also provides diversity fund award.

Tzviya: how do people in W3C interact with each other in their work
... reach out if you need more info on PWE or other issues

Jen: What are next steps - we need a few more sessions to get the CG started

Rachael: At this point the subgroup has moved out of AGWG - but we can have planning that is fine, but it would be a planning group, not a WCAG subgroup

<JenStrickland_> Thank you, Rachael!

Rachael: Does not need approval from AGWG

<Chuck> +1 to Rachael's conclusions

Jen: Sounds good

<Chuck> HUGE effort, thank you so much!

Trying out new survey process

Rachael: Thans to equity group for presentation, will be taken up in AGWG in more focused form

<Cyborg_> looking forward to next steps to set up mechanism within AG to provide focused feedback and recommendations about end-user equity impacts of WCAG3 as it develops

Rachael: Trying to try out a new survey process

<Jem> +1 to quick editoral fix

Survey questions divided into 1/ editorial 2/ substantive - these meetings focused on the latter to make work more efficient

Rachael: That'S whhy survey time is extended, send out a second survey< for week after
... gives opportunity to answer questions about survey before it is tackled
... better to address issues raised in survey before the meeting to make communication more effiient, gives people more time to respond

<Jem> +100 what Rachael is suggesting

<Chuck> Detlev: I'm not sure that it's easier if 2 surveys are running at the same time. It's the deadline that inspires me to answer.

<Chuck> Detlev: Even if there isn't much time to address. Maybe it works. 2 surveys at the same time, lack of time, and pressure just before the meeting could mean people don't do it at all.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond

<alastairc> There will be a clear deadline on the survey notification, and in the survey itself

Rachael: Typically it will only one survey - but the "panic" day will be Thursday when the survey closes

Chuck with good cadence it will still be one survey which will be picked up with some delay to give chairs more time for responding

Rachael: Attempt to address challenges that were there

<Chuck> +1 to Devlev's concerns and keeping an eye on the results!

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/updated_editor_draft/

Rachael: The survey that will close on Thursday is about the testing section

This one is about assertions - focusing on the substantive questions

Rachael: Cleaned up subgroup work to create ne coherent text for testing

Just looking at section 4 - proposing to move t to developing, so we can work on sample content

Moving assertions to developmental https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/assertions-feb/results

Rachael: Now topic is moving assertions to 'developmental'

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if you can share the survey on zoom?

Rachael: Should we hav asserions at all? is the main question

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/assertions-feb/results

Does Assertions add value?

Jaunita: The idea of assertions does not seem to add a lot of value since it is similar to VPATs and has the same issues - many vacuous claims
... look at overlay vendors - have powerful statements PwD on board - but are they not only muddying waters?

If statements are no-refutable, they may do more harm than good - if we give organizations credit for assertions

asserions would not change the legal situations to hold organizations accountable

Jaunita: The value does not seem to outweigh the potentional harm

Chuck: chair hat hat off - aware of Jaunita's concerns - moving this to developmental helps to see how thes concerns manifest and can find answers, explore

?

Wilco: Jaunita - is it that because VPATs are abused, you feel that they are not a good ideaß

I...IDEA?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to case Jaunita George makes -- i wish i had read before answering survey myself

Jaunita: System needs to be reformed - there are too many inaccuracies now in VPATs
... orgs should validate a11y claims but the process should reviewed

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to make the argument against requiring proof

Rachael: Agree in principle that we need more proof than assertions - the tradeoff is that the more is required, the less likely that orgs will make the effort

<alastairc> +1, balance between proof and effort.

Rachael: the draft defines a base list of requirements what is needed for assertions

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that assertions are a way to add greater accessibility and I agree that there needs to be rules.

Rachael: so not the concept is bad, but needs more proof

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to scribe for detlev and ask for scribe change

Jeanne: W3C has no control over VPATs - that is a different organization - they just use the WCAG SCs - but we can provide a way to give more a11y guidance also via asserions - and assertions need rules to define what counts - the proposal is a good start for that

The advantages outweigh the dangers

<tzviya> +1 jeanne

<Chuck> detlev: Supporting Jaunita. I feel the same way

<Makoto> +1 to Jeanne

<Chuck> Thank you Detlev for your support by scribing!

<Wilco> scribe+

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about correlation between observable requirements and non-observable assertions.

<Wilco> alastair: On the topic of VPATs, those are based on WCAG 2

<Wilco> ... those are observable requirements. You can test it yourself, yet they're often not good

<bruce_bailey> In case VPAT is new term to anyone: https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat

<Wilco> ... Assertions are essentially things we want people to do. There are organisations who do go beyond WCAG, and have processes set up.

<Wilco> ... We want to enable good actors to push further. I don't think bad actors who already do bad things should be a reason not to do that.

<maryjom> +1 to Alastair

<Wilco> Wendy: This reminds me of how EPUB does accessibility metadata

<jeanne> +1 to Alastair

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/

<Wilco> ... One of the things we did recently is make the accessibility summary an optional field. We saw that the summary could have low value, as publisher may use the same text regardless of the content of the book.

<Wilco> ... You want to balance it with testable / quantitative stuff, as well as having some optional stuff.

<Wilco> ... The gamification is going to happen, but you can put guard rails up.

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Move assertions to developmental with a note to further explore expanding required documentation and get public feedback on it 2) Keep assertions as exploratory and continue exploring proof required 3) Remove assertions

<jeanne> 1

<Chuck> 1

<wendyreid> 1

<GN015> 1, can live with 2

<tzviya> 1

3

<alastairc> 1, I don't see harm in getting public feedback on this.

<ShawnT> 1

<jaunita_george> 2 or 3

<maryjom> 1

<Wilco> 2, I think we need to see this used in an outcome

<JenStrickland_> 2 or 3

<Rachael> 1

<bruce_bailey> 2 but okay with 1

<Makoto> 1 or 2

<laura> 2

<joweismantel> 2

<Chuck> 10 1's, 7 2's, 1 3

<Chuck> I can live with 2

<Wilco> Rachael: So lets bring this back next time, continue the conversation.

<Wilco> ... As soon as it gets into developmental, we can have an example outcome with it.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask which stimulates most conversation ?

<Wilco> Bruce: Swayed by the concern, but also by what's going to get more input from the public

<Wilco> Rachael: We could choose to put something exploratory out, but that's typically an exception

<Chuck> scribe+ Chuck

<Chuck> Wilco: My main concern to not wanting to see it go to public, it's difficult to put into context. We have a rough idea on what questions it answers. W/O an example outcome to show, we won't get good reviews.

<Chuck> Wilco: May cause confusion.

<Wilco> Jaunita: I think companies will really like this, it may give them a path to get extra points without extra work.

<alastairc> Might be worth an introduction blog post to provide context?

<Wilco> ... It might get overwhelmingly positive feedback, but not have the intended function.

<Wilco> Rachael: One thing to think about, in our process, developmental doesn't automatically go to the working draft.

<Wilco> ... Chair hat off, I agree we would want examples before we put it out into the public.

WCAG 2.2 issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc3/results

<jeanne> +1 to good discussion, Thanks Juanita!

<Wilco> Rachael: We'll bring this back in 2 weeks

Success Criterion 2.5.7 Dragging Movements (Level AA) #2705

<Wilco> Alastair: This was in response to feedback from Google. There were a few comments in one thread.

<Wilco> ... The proposed response outlines some general things. One of the substantive point was around missing an exception for keyboard interface.

<Wilco> ... Its a misunderstanding of the criterion. It's about people using a pointer device.

<Wilco> ... We had comments from Gregg, Wilco, and Gunula.

<Wilco> ... Gregg's point was on when people benefit from the SC.

<Wilco> ... Lots of people on touch screen, including people who he thought should have specialist equipment. That's not the scenario. If Gregg wishes to continue that it should be off the call.

<Wilco> ... Wilco had a point around whether it was around having a physical keyboard.

<Wilco> ... There's an update to the PR which I think addresses that.

<alastairc> "This requirement is separate from keyboard accessibility because people using a touch screen device may not use a physical keyboard."

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Wilco> Alastair: That seems reasonable.

<Wilco> ... Then Gundula had a comment around the second new paragraph.

<Wilco> ... One of the things we don't want to stop people from doing is having a text input as an alternative.

<mbgower> Think of a slider, where you want precise value

<Wilco> ... For example if you were dragging an item in a long list, or pick an item from a long list, sometimes keyboard input, even via a touch screen is a good way of doing that.

<Wilco> ... Typing, even on touch screen can be a reasonable option. We don't want to prevent that.

<mbgower> I just pasted that in.

<Wilco> Gundula: Suggest putting into word what you just said, because I didn't get that from the text.

<Wilco> Bruce: I'm concerned with that phrasing. It might imply more than what it is.

<Wilco> Alastair: Can we get approval for the response, and later get back to the PR?

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2705 with edits to address Wilco and Gundala’s comments

<bruce_bailey> i suggest something like text input alternative provided by the platform

<Wilco> +1, happy with whatever you end up doing for Gundula's comment

<Chuck> +1

+1

<mbgower> +1

<ToddL> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Makoto> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<GN015> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<JenStrickland_> +1

<Rachael> +1

<maryjom> +1

<alastairc> +1, and will notify the list of the exact wording updated.

<jaunita_george> +1

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2705 with edits to address Wilco and Gundala’s comments

Add "entirely" to Example 2.4.12: Focus Not obscured #2423

<Wilco> Alastair: Jake pointed out that it has to be the entire item that has to be obscured.

<Wilco> ... I put in a response that we can clarify it, but that we don't necessarily need to say that in every instance. Techniques can go beyond the minimum of the criterion.

<Wilco> ... I added "entirely" to the first instance.

<alastairc> "does not know" vs "cannot determine", is that better?

<GN015> I like the change to "cannot determine"

<Wilco> ... The other aspect, Gregg mentioned changing "does not know" to "cannot determine". I was a bit hesitant. Does that make a difference to anyone?

<alastairc> Where other content can overlap with a focused item, entirely hiding the focused item means the user cannot determine where the focus is located.

know is more common, therefore better

<Wilco> Mike: It changes the meaning somewhat. The user can determine where the focus is if they move stuff.

<Wilco> +1, I spotted that too. Prefer leaving as is

<Wilco> Alastair: What about "user cannot see"? That's the point of the criterion.

<Rachael> Where other content can overlap with a focused item, entirely hiding the focused item means the user cannot see where the focus is located.

+1

<mbgower> 0 either existing or that seems okay

<bruce_bailey> +1

<laura> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> Where other content can overlap with a focused item, entirely hiding the focused item means the user will not see where the focus is located.

<GN015> +0.1, what about 'might not know' ?

<mbgower> +1

<Chuck> +.1

<ToddL> 0

<Wilco> Mike: It's fine

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2802 with edits discussed in meeting

<Wilco> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Chuck> +1

<mbgower> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Makoto> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<Rachael> +1

+1

<ToddL> +1

<JenStrickland_> +1

<alastairc> +1

<maryjom> +1

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2802 with edits discussed in meeting

<GN015> +1

Accessibility vs Security again #2702

<Wilco> Alastair: I put a response together, most people were happy with that.

<Wilco> ... I thought the thrust of it, regardless of the exceptions its not going to get by security teams.

<Wilco> Mike: There is no "essential" exception. If they do that they'll fail to meet WCAG 2.2. There's no parallel to timing adjustable.

<Wilco> ... I think the user made that assumption. It would be good to clarify.

<Wilco> Alastair: So clarify it's not an exact parallel.

<Wilco> Rachael: Chair hat off. Can you add a sentence that says "unlike this criterion"?

<Wilco> Mike: I assume we made a decision not to support, and that there are techniques.

<Wilco> Alastair: I have had the experience on input purpose where a client decided not to follow because of security.

<bruce_bailey> that line that "we believe there are techniques which are secure" might be nice to add

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2702 with a clarification that this SC does not include an essential security exception.

<mbgower> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Wilco> Alastair: It might raise more questions than answers

<maryjom> +1

<Rachael> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Makoto> +1

<JenStrickland_> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2702 with a clarification that this SC does not include an essential security exception.

Privacy considerations for redundant entry #2615

<ToddL> +1

<Wilco> Alastair: Wendy raised there was no privacy equivalent. We had looked at that and not agreed to add it.

<Wilco> ... Bruce created an alternative, an extra paragraph to say it's not included, but when implemented authors should ensure data protection.

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2615

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> +1

<JenStrickland_> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Makoto> +1

<ShawnT> +1

+1

<maryjom> +1

<ToddL> +1

<laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2615

Accessible Authentication needs better techniques #1916

<Wilco> Alastair: Shawn created a technique, to include properly marked up e-mail and passwords

<Wilco> ... In the results, we had a couple of comments.

<alastairc> Check that each input for authentication allows pasting.

<Wilco> ... There was a point about not preventing pasting

<Wilco> ... There could be a step two for this.

<Wilco> ... Then Detlev suggested a step for autocomplete. I don't think it should be in the step, it's required by input purpose.

good point, drop it then!

<Wilco> ... Autocomplete also doesn't seem to be used by password managers. From an accessibility support view, the main thing seems to be the name rather than the value.

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2920 with the addition of step 2 about pasting

+1

<ToddL> +1

<Wilco> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Makoto> +1

<JenStrickland_> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Raf> +1

<alastairc> +1

<ShawnT> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2920 with the addition of step 2 about pasting

Last Benefit 3.2.6: Consistent Help not for this SC #2413

<Wilco> Alastair: Jake spotted that the last bullet didn't line up with the intent. Bruce created a PR to update the paragraph.

<Wilco> ... We had a few comments on this one. The first was from Gregg. It's not on the question. I'll ask Gregg to open a separate issue.

<mbgower> +1

<Wilco> ... Then Gundula mentioned the bot might not be realistic. We could change it to be an online chat with customer services.

<Wilco> ... We can get a text for that.

<Wilco> Rachael: I'd like to circle back with COGA about that. I think we included this example specifically for them.

<Wilco> Alastair: Feel free to. In context, we had some examples. "Use in their own words" was the key thing.

<Wilco> Rachael: I agree, I think COGA would also agree, but the key is the ability to use their own words, instead of using words the computer expects.

<Wilco> Bruce: The chatbot is more common then a customer service rep. It's finding the interaction, not the interaction itself.

<Wilco> Alastair: Yes

<Wilco> ... Gundula and Detlev had some comments on the first paragraph that may have gotten over writen.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2919/files

<Wilco> ... It's been updated. Does the first paragraph of the PR still make sense?

<alastairc> "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure users can find help for completing tasks on a Web site, when it is available. This is distinct from interface-level help, such as contextual help, features like spell checkers, and instructional text in a form. When the placement of the help mechanism is kept consistent across a set of pages, users looking for help will find it easier to identify."

<Wilco> Alastair: If people are happy with this paragraph?

<Chuck> +1

<laura> +1

<Wilco> ... Can we merge this one while we're getting back to COGA?

<Wilco> Rachael: Yes

<Wilco> +1

<ToddL> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

+1

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> 2919

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2919 and circle back about chatbot

<JenStrickland_> +1

<maryjom> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 2919 and circle back about chatbot

Adding an "in brief" at the start of SCs

<Wilco> GN: There was a paragraph I'd like to clarify, about the linear ordering.

<Wilco> Alastair: That sentence has been updated.

<Wilco> Alastair: We had a few suggestions around what's in scope / out of scope. Shawn wanted persona quotes, Mike Gower had some ideas about this too.

<Wilco> ... Mike was first and created sample PRs.

<Wilco> ... Gregg said good to add. Didn't specify adjustments.

<Wilco> ... Jenn suggested styling. We'll get that in and give it a class so we can style it better.

<Wilco> ... GN had a comment on focus not obscured. We can do that.

<Wilco> ... This is 4 out of 80+ criteria. We want to make sure we're getting the format right.

<Wilco> ... Shawn had a suggestion about using the persona quotes.

<Wilco> ... The persona quotes has a format. Introduction, a problem, and when it works well.

<Wilco> ... Chair hat off, I wasn't as keen on having those at the top of the understanding document.

<Chuck> +1 to Alastair's observations and opinions on placement

<Wilco> ... what is and isn't included is more important at the top, and I'd suggest we add them under the benefits section.

<mbgower> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 for adding persona quotes , and under benefits section

<Wilco> Rachael: Chair hat off. I support adding the quotes. I've seen positive reaction to them. The benefits section is an appropriate place.

<laura> +1 to under benefits

<Wilco> Alastair: Some pick a specific type or instance within the criterion.

<Wilco> Detlev: I'd prefer them in a separate document to keep the understanding document shorter.

<Wilco> ... Linking to it would be better than having it in the document.

<Wilco> ... I don't mind having them there.

<Wilco> Mike: I think the benefit section is great. It tends to be under populated

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask how easy to link to EOWG materials ?

<Wilco> Bruce: I'm wondering how easy it would be to link to EOWG stuff, instead of taking from them.

<Wilco> Alastair: I think we can include, and then link through

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Add “in brief” section at the start of SC with specific content will be reviewed in the future. Style to stand out in the future. Add quotes under benefits section and link to WAI resource

<maryjom> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Makoto> +1

<laura> +1

<Wilco> Alastair: We'll come back to the content of these, we're working on the structure / format

<ToddL> +1

<Wilco> Mike: I have things drafted for all of WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 stuff

<Rachael> +1

<alastairc> +1

RESOLUTION: Add “in brief” section at the start of SC with specific content will be reviewed in the future. Style to stand out in the future. Add quotes under benefits section and link to WAI resource

<ShawnT> Thanks!

<laura> Thanks!

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/Tzvija/Tzviya/
Succeeded: s/do provide/provides/
Succeeded: s/are aboused/are abused/
Succeeded: s/concert/concept/
Succeeded: s/they just use the PCs/they just use the WCAG SCs/
Succeeded: s/more questions then answers/more questions than answers/
Default Present: alastairc, bruce_bailey, ShawnT, KimViens, Rachael, MichaelC, JustineP, ToddL, Lauriat, jaunita_george, joweismantel, Francis_Storr, Makoto, Laura_Carlson, Caryn, JenStrickland_, jeanne, Sheri_B-H_, cwilso, Danielle, maryjom, mbgower, tzviya, Wilco, kirkwood, Raf, StefanS, Cyborg_, Jem, .1, GN
Present: alastairc, bruce_bailey, ShawnT, KimViens, Rachael, MichaelC, JustineP, ToddL, Lauriat, jaunita_george, joweismantel, Francis_Storr, Makoto, Laura_Carlson, Caryn, JenStrickland_, jeanne, Sheri_B-H_, cwilso, Danielle, maryjom, mbgower, tzviya, Wilco, kirkwood, Raf, StefanS, Cyborg_, Jem, .1, GN, GN015
Regrets: Chris L, Poornima, SarahH
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


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.)