14:42:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:42:28 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/11-wcag2ict-irc
14:42:28 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:42:59 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:43:31 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:43:31 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:43:38 <maryjom> chair: Mary Jo Mueller
14:43:38 <maryjom> meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:43:38 <maryjom> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:43:38 <Zakim> ok, maryjom
14:43:38 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:43:38 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of proposed responses to public comments
14:43:38 <maryjom> Agenda+ Agenda+ Survey results: Review of updated draft for 3.2.6 Consistent Help
14:43:38 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2
14:43:46 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Closed functionality: Intro and bullets for 1.4.5, 2.4.3, and 4.1.3
14:43:46 <maryjom> agenda?
14:43:55 <maryjom> s/Agenda+//
14:43:59 <maryjom> agenda?
14:44:29 <maryjom> s/Agenda+ Survey results:/Survey results:/
14:44:33 <maryjom> agenda?
14:44:41 <maryjom> zakim, clear agenda
14:44:41 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:44:51 <maryjom> Agenda+ Announcements
14:44:57 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of proposed responses to public comments
14:45:05 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Review of updated draft for 3.2.6 Consistent Help
14:45:13 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2
14:45:23 <maryjom> Agenda+ Survey results: Closed functionality: Intro and bullets for 1.4.5, 2.4.3, and 4.1.3
14:45:29 <maryjom> regrets: Shawn Thompson
14:45:33 <maryjom> agenda?
14:52:28 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:55:43 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:58:30 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:58:35 <PhilDay> present+
14:58:43 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:00:33 <ThorstenKatzmann> ThorstenKatzmann has joined #wcag2ict
15:00:36 <FernandaBonnin> FernandaBonnin has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:00:56 <loicmn> present+
15:01:13 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:21 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:31 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
15:01:43 <Mike_Pluke> present+
15:01:44 <FernandaBonnin> present+
15:02:01 <ThorstenKatzmann> present+
15:02:14 <Chuck> present+
15:02:26 <mitch11> mitch11 has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:29 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:33 <mitch11> present+
15:02:50 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:02:56 <maryjom> present+
15:03:07 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
15:03:16 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:03:29 <Sam> present+
15:03:31 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:03:31 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:03:42 <bruce_bailey> Updated agenda email:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag2ict-tf/2024Jan/0009.html
15:04:16 <PhilDay> maryjom: Announcement - now doing additional meetings on Fridays to try and develop any new proposals to SCs or answers to public comments
15:04:31 <Laura_B_Miller> Laura_B_Miller has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:04:34 <PhilDay> ... Then full task force can review output on a Thursday
15:04:38 <Laura_B_Miller> Present+
15:05:11 <PhilDay> ... Friday meeting starts @ 9am EST, apologies for it being so early for West Coast US
15:05:39 <PhilDay> Question from GreggVan on changing timing that surveys are due - unfortunately that is a W3C default, just choose the day
15:05:45 <Chuck> q+
15:06:26 <maryjom> ack Chuck
15:06:27 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:06:51 <bruce_bailey> Wiki agenda page for today is also up to date: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Agendas#11-january-agenda
15:07:03 <olivia> olivia has joined #wcag2ict
15:07:05 <PhilDay> Chuck: Adding to the survey timings - it has been a long standing issue, there was a request for enhancement to add timings, but not been actioned
15:07:28 <olivia> present+
15:07:31 <PhilDay> GreggVan: CHI & IEEE allow you to pick timezone.
15:07:53 <PhilDay> maryjom: Unfortunately we just have to live with the tool - and please complete surveys at least 1 day early (pref. more)
15:08:04 <bruce_bailey> At top of call, the few of us were expressing our appreciation for the work Mary Jo doing to synthesize survey feedback.
15:08:24 <PhilDay> ... Did talk at AG WG on 4.1.1 parsing. Still discussion on MathML parsing by screen readers
15:08:35 <Bryan_Trogdon> Bryan_Trogdon has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:08:43 <Bryan_Trogdon> present+
15:10:09 <PhilDay> ... Seems odd to require something that you cannot test (after initial development). Discussion is ongoing.
15:10:41 <PhilDay> ... Hope is to not have to add content, but if we do, GreggVan has proposed content that we could use
15:11:16 <Sam> Sam has joined #wcag2ict
15:11:21 <PhilDay> GreggVan: It must be a real problem that is being reported
15:11:33 <PhilDay> maryjom: and also needs to be testable...
15:11:50 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:11:50 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: Review of proposed responses to public comments -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:12:36 <PhilDay> All content for proposals to public comments have been accepted in the survey
15:12:36 <bruce_bailey> Yes, DHS trusted tester never came up with a good tool for 4.1.1, and the Web ICT Testing Baseline is dropping it.
15:12:37 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-public-comment-responses/results
15:13:08 <maryjom> •	DRAFT RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed answers to public comments in Issues 5, 6, 77, 229, 261, and 268 as proposed in the survey, without changes.
15:13:15 <PhilDay> +1
15:13:17 <loicmn> +1
15:13:21 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:13:22 <olivia> +1
15:13:23 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:13:25 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:13:26 <GreggVan> +1
15:13:26 <mitch11> +1
15:13:30 <Sam> +1
15:13:34 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Accept the proposed answers to public comments in Issues 5, 6, 77, 229, 261, and 268 as proposed in the survey, without changes.
15:13:34 <Laura_B_Miller> +1
15:13:37 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:14:04 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Still seeing links in the source code to 2.1 of understanding, not 2.2
15:14:34 <PhilDay> dmontalvo: Will look to see which is coming from content, and which is coming from scripts
15:14:41 <GreggVan> present+
15:14:42 <PhilDay> maryjom: Will also check content
15:15:05 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey to open Editorial issue to check understanding links all link to 2.2 in all instances
15:15:37 <PhilDay> ... dmontalvo to be added to issue and maryjom
15:15:44 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:15:44 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, PhilDay
15:15:49 <PhilDay> q?
15:15:50 <maryjom> q?
15:15:54 <PhilDay> ack bruce_bailey
15:15:55 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:16:00 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:16:00 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Survey results: Review of updated draft for 3.2.6 Consistent Help -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:16:23 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-2nd-review-consistent-help/results
15:16:53 <PhilDay> q1, all answered to incorporate as is, so that is approved
15:17:04 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to Non-Web Documents and Software section as-is.
15:17:09 <PhilDay> +1
15:17:09 <loicmn> +1
15:17:11 <bruce_bailey> +1
15:17:12 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:17:16 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:17:20 <olivia> +1
15:17:20 <Laura_B_Miller> +1
15:17:26 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:17:28 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to Non-Web Documents and Software section as-is.
15:17:42 <PhilDay> q2: proposed note
15:17:59 <PhilDay> ... SC uses sets of web pages so propose an additional note
15:18:24 <PhilDay> 6 wanted as is, bruce_bailey had editorial to change terminology
15:18:47 <PhilDay> maryjom: if we do change here, we will have to do the change in all other places to keep consistent
15:19:09 <maryjom> Poll: Should we rephrase Note 3 to say •	DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate the proposal for Applying SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help to Non-Web Documents and Software section as-is.
15:19:14 <mitch11> q+
15:19:50 <PhilDay> Proposed change from bruce_bailey: Small editorial: I would rather "collection of software" rather than "pieces of software"
15:20:01 <bruce_bailey> yes, i do not think "pieces of software" is quite correct in context and suggested "collection of software" (similar to defined term)
15:20:05 <maryjom> Poll: Should we rephrase Note 3 to say "collection of software" rather than "pieces of software"
15:20:25 <PhilDay> mitch11: Not sure if I agree to make the change - helpful to distinguish between set and pieces of software
15:20:28 <maryjom> Yes or no...
15:20:29 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:20:35 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:20:37 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:21:05 <loicmn> q+
15:21:08 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Like that we are avoiding set or collection, but pieces sound like portions of code
15:21:12 <GreggVan> q+
15:21:15 <maryjom> ack loicmn
15:21:49 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:21:59 <PhilDay> loicmn: Sentence when a group of documents (or equivalent) ... then would have group of pieces of software which would not work. Prefer to keep as is
15:22:08 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Can we not say a group of software programs?
15:22:10 <bruce_bailey> i happy to defer and keep pieces of software
15:22:16 <maryjom> Here's the statement we're talking about...
15:22:17 <maryjom> See set of documents and set of software programs in the Key Terms section of the Introduction to determine when a group of documents or pieces of software is considered a set for this success criterion. (Sets of software that meet this definition appear to be extremely rare.)
15:22:35 <mitch11> I like "software programs" in this context
15:22:44 <loicmn> +1 to "software programs"
15:22:51 <bruce_bailey> s/i happy to defer and keep pieces of software/i am content to defer. and keep "pieces of software"
15:22:53 <PhilDay> +1 to software programs
15:23:19 <maryjom> Poll: Should we rephrase Note 3 to say "collection of software" rather than "pieces of software"? Yes or no...
15:23:47 <Chuck> q+ to speak after the vote
15:23:59 <mitch11> no
15:24:02 <FernandaBonnin> no
15:24:08 <loicmn> no
15:24:12 <Mike_Pluke> no
15:24:16 <ThorstenKatzmann> no
15:24:32 <Laura_B_Miller> No
15:25:04 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed Note 3 for SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help as-is.
15:25:08 <mitch11> +1
15:25:09 <FernandaBonnin> +1
15:25:12 <loicmn> +1
15:25:12 <olivia> +1
15:25:13 <PhilDay> +1
15:25:15 <ThorstenKatzmann> +1
15:25:16 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:25:26 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate proposed Note 3 for SC 3.2.6 Consistent Help as-is.
15:25:28 <Sam> +1
15:25:49 <Chuck> ack ch
15:25:49 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to speak after the vote
15:26:51 <PhilDay> Chuck: Using term "can live with" causes concern for some, so please use "can accept" or "can tolerate"
15:27:08 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
15:27:08 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Survey results: Closed functionality bullets for SCs 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3 and 4.1.2 -- taken up [from maryjom]
15:27:56 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq4
15:28:05 <PhilDay> Starting with consistent navigation, as we did part of the survey last week. Starting at question 4
15:28:23 <PhilDay> Group on Friday looked at this survey and suggested alternate proposals
15:28:52 <PhilDay> 2 proposals for consistent navigation & consistent identification
15:29:10 <PhilDay> Either edit the bullet, or remove
15:29:55 <PhilDay> We had previously agreed to include bullets like this for consistency. https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/WCAG2ICT-Task-Force-Decisions
15:31:31 <maryjom> POLL: Which do you prefer? 1) Remove bullets for SC 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 or 2) Incorporate edited bullets as proposed in the survey.
15:31:39 <PhilDay> 2
15:31:41 <mitch11> 1
15:31:46 <bruce_bailey> 2
15:31:49 <Sam> 2
15:31:50 <loicmn> 1 (can accept 2)
15:31:55 <olivia> 2
15:32:01 <ThorstenKatzmann> 2
15:32:01 <Mike_Pluke> 2
15:32:31 <PhilDay> mith
15:33:17 <PhilDay> mitch11: Not sure I see the precedent to include, but happy to concede with majority. Not seeing in the link, but will concede
15:33:31 <PhilDay> s/mith/
15:34:16 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Incorporate bullets for SC 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 into the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality, as-is.
15:34:47 <PhilDay> Now onto 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value
15:35:10 <PhilDay> 5 accept option 2 as is, 2 wanted something else
15:35:34 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICT-SC-problematic-last-5/results#xq5
15:35:47 <PhilDay> mitch11: Doesn't have an alternative proposal on this one
15:36:13 <loicmn> q+ to propose "the intent of the SC would be met"
15:36:39 <PhilDay> maryjom: Looking at last Friday's meeting minutes. Don't want to say "does not apply", think we settled on "the intent of this SC would be met" or something similar
15:36:54 <maryjom> 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Where another mechanism provides equivalent information as built-in assistive technology functionality, this intent of this success criterion would be met.
15:37:10 <maryjom> s/this/the/
15:37:11 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
15:37:11 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to propose "the intent of the SC would be met"
15:37:31 <PhilDay> loicmn: Happy with what has been proposed - intent of this SC would be met
15:37:31 <mitch11> q+
15:37:37 <bruce_bailey> q+
15:37:38 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:38:14 <PhilDay> mitch11: Now remembering a conversation offline with Mary Jo - on drawing bright lines - we do not need to draw bright lines.
15:38:29 <PhilDay> ... However, option 2 does seem to be a bright line
15:39:20 <maryjom> q?
15:39:24 <PhilDay> mitch11: Would prefer to leave it somewhat ambiguous, but if we do want to, then more supportive of the version with intent ... is met
15:39:24 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:40:06 <mitch11> q+
15:40:11 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:40:13 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Want to note, this is in a different category to 4.1.1 - accessibility need behind 4.1.2 is different. +1 to mitch11
15:40:42 <PhilDay> mitch11: Intent of 4.1.2 is to support assistive tech in all its forms. Providing built in AT helps, but may not fully meet the intent
15:41:02 <GreggVan> q+
15:41:03 <PhilDay> q+
15:41:34 <PhilDay> mitch11: Would prefer option 1 over the other 2 options
15:41:45 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:42:02 <PhilDay> GreggVan: If you don't meet 4.1.2, then it is a closed product as it does not use AT
15:42:16 <PhilDay> All built in AT is only a subset of the AT that is needed
15:42:21 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:42:25 <Sam> q+
15:43:01 <bruce_bailey> i voted for 2 in survey, but from this discussion, option 1 is better
15:43:02 <GreggVan> q+
15:43:17 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:43:42 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Would prefer option 3 - it is useful for those designing closed systems to know what is required
15:44:07 <Laura_B_Miller> +1 Sam
15:44:15 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:44:21 <PhilDay> Sam: There are other standards - this one is particularly web based, and therefore it may not be possible to meet for some systems. Feel like it might be an over expansion - agree with Phil on option 3
15:45:04 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Falls into a category that comes up often - technical impossibility doesn't always mean that it is automatically accessible
15:45:07 <maryjom> q+
15:45:25 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say 4.1.2 *is* applicable to non web software -- and software with closed functionality should not get a free pass on the intent behind the SC
15:45:28 <Sam> q+
15:46:17 <PhilDay> q+ to say that we are discussing closed products
15:46:23 <Sam> this is a SC not a requirement that states if the  product is "accessible"
15:46:23 <maryjom> ack maryjom
15:47:12 <GreggVan> q+
15:47:23 <PhilDay> maryjom: This is limited to SC problematic for closed functionality. There are a lot of ICT that may not be able to use bolt on AT, but can still meet the intent (e.g. self voice); there is an alternate way of meeting the need
15:47:26 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
15:47:26 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say 4.1.2 *is* applicable to non web software -- and software with closed functionality should not get a free pass on the intent behind the SC
15:47:40 <Sam> q-
15:48:11 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: We have 2 categories of SC problematic for closed functionality. This one is the functionality is extremely important - so should be handled differently from some of the others
15:48:42 <PhilDay> q?
15:48:53 <mitch11> q+
15:48:57 <Laura_B_Miller> Q+
15:49:23 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
15:49:23 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say that we are discussing closed products
15:49:45 <Chuck> +1 on agreement, I think we are...
15:50:20 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
15:50:21 <Sam> +1 to what Phil is saying
15:51:02 <PhilDay> PhilDay: Think we agree on the fundamentals - if you can't bolt on AT, then giving guidance on how to provide alternatives to meet the intent
15:51:26 <PhilDay> GreggVan: This is just one of many examples of programmatically determined
15:51:31 <maryjom> q?
15:51:36 <maryjom> ack mitch
15:52:19 <GreggVan> +1 to that
15:52:35 <PhilDay> mitch11: In strong agreement that built in AT are better than no AT. But, option 2 still needs rework - "this criterion does not apply" doesn't sound right
15:52:36 <Sam> +1
15:52:42 <Sam> q+
15:53:02 <maryjom> Option 1: Option 1: Original proposal  4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Some other mechanism would be needed to contextually reveal needed information to the user.
15:53:06 <PhilDay> mitch11: Not sure which options people are actually wanting. It's not clear what is meant by option 3
15:53:10 <maryjom> Option 2: Incorporate suggested edits  4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Where another mechanism provides this information for built-in assistive technology functions, this criterion does not apply.
15:53:13 <PhilDay> maryjom: Copying all options in
15:53:26 <bruce_bailey> yes, i agree with @mitch
15:53:27 <maryjom> Option 3: 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. Where another mechanism provides equivalent information as built-in assistive technology functionality, this intent of this success criterion would be met.
15:53:44 <maryjom> s/this intent/the intent/
15:53:46 <maryjom> q?
15:54:00 <PhilDay> mitch11: See option 3 in chat, and would still vote for option 1
15:54:02 <GreggVan> Option  4   +1 to say      4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. That makes the product closed and this provision would be handled in the same fashion as all other provisions that refer programmatically determinable information
15:54:03 <maryjom> ack Laura_B_Miller
15:54:24 <bruce_bailey> yes, even with option 3 -- i prefer option 1
15:54:32 <PhilDay> Laura_B_Miller: Take a step back. Lot of ways we see this implemented in ICT is as a mention in other regulations.
15:54:42 <GreggVan>  q+ to say      Option  4     4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. That makes the product closed and this provision would be handled in the same fashion as all other provisions that refer programmatically determinable information
15:54:50 <PhilDay> Laura_B_Miller: Are we providing enough of a window for those regs to know what they need to address
15:55:23 <GreggVan> q+ to say      Option  4     4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. That makes the product closed and this provision would be handled in the same fashion as all other provisions that refer to programmatically determinable information
15:55:28 <PhilDay> ... And it feels like that is what we are trying to do.
15:55:39 <PhilDay> maryjom: OK, but what do you suggest the bullet should be
15:55:40 <maryjom> q?
15:56:05 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say i don't agree "these are the same"
15:56:35 <maryjom> q?
15:56:37 <PhilDay> ... we should be more explicit - look at other regs to know how to test it.
15:57:12 <maryjom> ack Sam
15:57:14 <PhilDay> Sam: Understand that we want accessibility in there, but having a requirement that causes more work, and may not overall improve the net accessibility of the product
15:57:37 <PhilDay> ... Liked option 2, but if that is triggering for some, then prefer option 3. Prefer to not have a requirement that does not work in a closed system.
15:58:00 <maryjom> ak GreggVan
15:58:08 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:58:08 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say      Option  4     4.1.2 Name, Role, Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. That makes the product closed and this
15:58:11 <Zakim> ... provision would be handled in the same fashion as all other provisions that refer programmatically determinable information and to say      Option  4     4.1.2 Name, Role,
15:58:11 <Zakim> ... Value—Requires information in a programmatically determinable form. That makes the product closed and this provision would be handled in the same fashion as all other
15:58:11 <Zakim> ... provisions that refer to programmatically determinable information
15:58:45 <PhilDay> GreggVan: I was not saying that you still need to attach AT. Just saying this is the same as the other programmatically determined - so handle in the same way as the other SCs that are similar
15:59:40 <Laura_B_Miller> Laura_B_Miller has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:59:55 <PhilDay> q?
16:00:11 <maryjom> ack bruce_bailey
16:00:11 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i don't agree "these are the same"
16:00:45 <GreggVan> +1  to that
16:00:56 <PhilDay> bruce_bailey: Think we have multiple categories. Not just programmatically determinable - we have some SCs that also scope to markup language - these would not be applicable. But that's different to programmatically determinable that actually provide accessibility benefit
16:00:59 <Chuck> I must go.
16:01:31 <mitch11> I'd like to see Gregg's (#4) combined with Laura's (See other standards)
16:01:35 <PhilDay> maryjom: Will pick this up tomorrow. If you have any input please get in touch
16:01:55 <PhilDay> Sam: was invite information sent through email?
16:02:14 <PhilDay> maryjom: Was sent from Daniel @ W3C. If you didn't get it, be in touch with maryjom
16:02:20 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
16:04:19 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
16:04:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, bruce_bailey, loicmn, Daniel, Mike_Pluke, FernandaBonnin, ThorstenKatzmann, Chuck, mitch, maryjom, Sam, Laura_B_Miller, olivia,
16:04:22 <Zakim> ... Bryan_Trogdon, GreggVan
16:04:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:04:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/11-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:04:29 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:04:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict