15:27:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
15:27:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/03/05-ag-irc
15:27:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:27:51 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
15:27:53 <Chuck> chair:  Chuck
15:28:08 <Chuck> meeting:  AGWG-2024-03-05
15:28:15 <Chuck> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:28:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/05-ag-minutes.html Chuck
15:28:38 <Chuck> agenda+ Announcements
15:29:19 <Chuck> agenda+ Card sort results
15:29:29 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 3 Requirement updates
15:29:53 <Chuck> agenda+ WCAG 2 items for review
15:39:12 <Chuck> regrets: Makoto Ueki, Roberto Scano
15:58:18 <dj> dj has joined #ag
15:58:37 <dj> present+
15:58:52 <scotto> scotto has joined #ag
15:59:19 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #ag
15:59:52 <JustineP> JustineP has joined #ag
16:00:03 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
16:00:10 <kirkwood> present+
16:00:13 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
16:00:17 <JakeAbma> present+
16:00:29 <Azlan> present+
16:00:38 <kevin> present+
16:00:38 <Rachael> present+
16:00:45 <Chuck> present+
16:01:14 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag
16:01:14 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:01:19 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
16:01:23 <alastairc> present+
16:01:39 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag
16:01:55 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
16:02:11 <alastairc> thanks DJ, I've added you to the list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2024_Scribe_Sign_Up_%26_History
16:02:17 <wendyreid> present+
16:02:25 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
16:02:32 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #ag
16:02:41 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:41 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose dj
16:02:45 <giacomo-petri> giacomo-petri has joined #ag
16:02:50 <mike_beganyi> present+
16:02:51 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:51 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose alastairc
16:02:56 <Francis_Storr> present+
16:02:58 <mike_beganyi> scribe+
16:03:14 <giacomo-petri> present+
16:03:43 <graham> graham has joined #ag
16:03:44 <JustineP> present+
16:03:46 <graham> present+
16:03:56 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 1
16:03:56 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:03:58 <Kimberly> Kimberly has joined #ag
16:04:22 <Gez_Lemon> Gez_Lemon has joined #AG
16:04:33 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: tomorrow I will host an onboarding class for AGWG. It is on this same link and same time. Duration is 1 hour.
16:04:46 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
16:04:47 <Azlan> Definitely interested in the recording
16:04:54 <Makoto> present+
16:05:03 <Kimberly> present+
16:05:05 <kevin> qq+
16:05:08 <alastairc> This puts the UK meetings an hour early for 3 weeks, probably for EU as well.
16:05:10 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: This coming weekend there is a daylight savings time change.
16:05:22 <Chuck> q?
16:05:26 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
16:05:31 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
16:05:31 <Chuck> ack kevin
16:05:31 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to a previous speaker
16:05:41 <sarahhorton> present+
16:05:54 <mike_beganyi> kevin: if you are subscribed to your W3C calendar, the time should be automatically updated
16:05:54 <Gez_Lemon> present+
16:06:16 <mike_beganyi> kevin: anchored to EST
16:06:24 <Detlev> Detlev has joined #ag
16:06:35 <Detlev> present+
16:06:47 <laura> laura has joined #ag
16:07:03 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: Another announcement: CSUN is during the week when we're hosting AGWG on the 19th. We don't want to compete with CSUN. Chairs will be hosting a call at the normal AGWG session time. it will be a working meeting.
16:07:14 <mike_beganyi> ...those not attending will not be missing anything majoer
16:07:19 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
16:07:47 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/53
16:07:54 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: introducing accessibility supported and Alastair has a link and will chat about this
16:07:55 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #ag
16:08:10 <jeanne> resent+
16:08:15 <jeanne> present+
16:08:21 <Jen_G> Jen_G has joined #ag
16:08:26 <Jen_G> Present+
16:08:31 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: concept from WCAG 2. There are some problems we need to solve for WCAG 3. There's an introduction. We go through the accessibility supported bit.
16:08:42 <sabidussi> sabidussi has joined #ag
16:08:45 <scotto> present+
16:09:15 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
16:09:15 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Pulled out suggestions from previous work. How do we talk about it within the guidelines.
16:09:23 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
16:09:23 <ShawnT> present+
16:09:41 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Tried to capture remaining questions. Do we need same voicing of concept in WCAG 3. Pros and cons list the subgroup created.
16:09:41 <tzviya> tzviya has joined #ag
16:09:49 <GreggVan> present+
16:09:56 <mike_beganyi> ...proposal for how to solve the problem for WCAG 3. Subgroup outlined options.
16:10:13 <sabidussi> present+
16:10:17 <mike_beganyi> ...if you get a chance, please look through the introduction and the materials a little bit. Think about what would solve this problem. Think about the international concept.
16:11:04 <mike_beganyi> ...think internationally. How do we deal with regions of the world where there may not be good assistive technology options/support/etc.
16:11:05 <Chuck> q?
16:11:14 <mike_beganyi> ...proposals wanted on the above
16:11:25 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 2
16:11:25 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Card sort results -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:12:17 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: had a lot of outcomes and categorization
16:12:30 <robu01> robu01 has joined #ag
16:13:38 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: 280 categories created. Two categorization approaches: 1) the interface (images, text, interactive component, layout, etc.), and 2) adaptive features (things you add to an interface)
16:14:30 <mike_beganyi> ...the latest exercise, 10 people completed each. A few completed both.
16:15:08 <mike_beganyi> ...It was a harsh test. There were no explanations for categories. Was a difficult task because the outcomes weren't very familiar to people yet. Difficult exercise without much context.
16:15:30 <mike_beganyi> ...Tool we used (Optimal Sort) produced minimal analysis
16:15:49 <mike_beganyi> ...highlights areas of strong agreement. Example, top ones had about 80% agreement, bottom end about 20-30% agreement.
16:16:08 <GreggVan> q+
16:16:37 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:16:52 <Detlev> q+
16:17:32 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: These numbers are less an evaluation of the categories than the experiment itself. Without context it's unknown as to what is relevant to what.
16:17:49 <mbgower_> mbgower_ has joined #ag
16:18:24 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Efi9OXdRpotDjbKYxUY424ZqTtgfu6YYcyDtYGFrmpQ/edit#slide=id.g2bf5b0e0211_0_13
16:19:00 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: Want to ensure we don't draw too much future decisions from this without the context of labels for the larger grouping.
16:19:37 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: It is generally an indication of agreement level between understanding of principles
16:19:38 <Chuck> ack Detlev
16:19:53 <ljoakley> present+
16:20:05 <mike_beganyi> Detlev: The value of the results is that some of the categories is that some of the categories are harder to understand.
16:20:39 <mike_beganyi> Detlev: it's good to know that some categories are harder to define and thus are an opportunity for refinement.
16:20:58 <mbgower> A great situation where "Discernible visual content" and "Undertandable visual layout" would really clarify
16:21:15 <Glenda> present+
16:21:15 <mike_beganyi> ...in any case, the result will help us split the categories and refine their definition further
16:21:20 <mbgower> present+
16:21:26 <Chuck> q?
16:21:56 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: average agreement favoured the interface approach. There are easier solutions to the interface approach
16:22:33 <mike_beganyi> ...I was favouring the interface approach as it seemed to have the fewest number of issues
16:24:05 <dj> q+
16:24:11 <mike_beganyi> ...adaptive features category was quite a general category. My main problem is should we separate features. Do we have "provide support for search" go into forms and inputs? Some lingering questions.
16:25:08 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Lots of overlap with images, as they were put into media alternatives as opposed to images. Contrast was fairly straightforward. Headings were mixed.
16:26:14 <Chuck> ack dj
16:26:16 <mike_beganyi> ...uncategorized outcomes were site-level, and placed into the "I don't know" category
16:27:26 <mike_beganyi> dj: I think that this is a helpful exercise considering that we don't know what the categories or outcomes are entirely just yet. In sum, I value the exercise for its perceived benefits.
16:29:02 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: combining some categories could be helpful
16:29:16 <Rachael> q+
16:29:18 <mike_beganyi> ...putting "Adaptive features" into a concrete category
16:29:44 <mike_beganyi> Rachael: are we going to back and consult the other sorts or are we doing the others after this one?
16:29:45 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:30:12 <Detlev> I would prefer slightly amor but narrower, better defined categories
16:30:17 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: We will need to refine outcome names and titles. Once it's refined, where will it belong, perhaps a better category
16:30:41 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: a "Policy" category may also be helpful for site-wide outcomes
16:31:00 <mike_beganyi> ...could do with a better name for the "Organisation across views" category
16:31:08 <GN015> GN015 has joined #ag
16:31:19 <Chuck> q+
16:31:19 <mike_beganyi> ...useful to agree that this is a reasonable general approach. Will share link shortly.
16:31:37 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Continuing to refine outcome and category names.
16:31:43 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShgYkDz1zIQRrRNR3H0A7wRL_naC7A5qoyZF4VZEuM/edit#gid=621588253
16:31:46 <mbgower> I think this is really valuable
16:31:50 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:32:14 <jtoles> jtoles has joined #ag
16:32:41 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: Maybe worthwhile to explicitly call out the reviewing of the categories as well so as to address concerns above.
16:32:41 <Chuck> q?
16:32:49 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 3
16:32:49 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 3 Requirement updates -- taken up [from Chuck]
16:33:05 <Detlev> AFK
16:33:52 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Review of the issues in the Requirements subgroup. Going through all issues raised for WCAG 3 requirements.
16:34:17 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/730/files
16:34:27 <mike_beganyi> ...PR to add backwards compatibility section.
16:35:01 <mike_beganyi> ...WCAG 3 doesn't need to be backwards compatible with WCAG 2.
16:35:11 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #ag
16:35:18 <Chuck> q+
16:35:19 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:35:26 <GreggVan> q+
16:35:30 <mike_beganyi> ...After a first publication, the guidelines could be made backwards compatible
16:35:47 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: did not get a lot of active participation in this particular review. Are we looking to give more time for this?
16:35:59 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:36:07 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: At the end of this we'll be on the 5 day clock. if objecting, please post in github
16:36:10 <gpellegrino> present+
16:37:12 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: If you ever add a provision, then the guidelines are not backwards compatible since you added provisions. If it's less strenuous, what passed before will continue to pass. If progressing, we will make it easier or make it harder.
16:37:16 <alastairc> q+
16:37:37 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: Having a strict backwards compatibility is probably not good. It's confusing if you change the metrics on particular provisions.
16:37:40 <Chuck> ack ala
16:38:36 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Not committing to the backwards compatibility but any change would be very cautious.
16:38:46 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/729
16:38:52 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/224
16:39:02 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/734/files
16:39:14 <Chuck> Scope requirement updates from issues issue 729 and issue 224, resulting in PR 734.
16:40:58 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Not much discussion on this but if you have anything to add please post in response on Github.
16:41:04 <Chuck> q?
16:41:08 <Rachael> q+
16:41:21 <Chuck> Update the "Multiple ways to display" requirement from issue 726 with PR 733
16:41:32 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/726
16:41:38 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/733/files
16:41:40 <Chuck> ack Rach
16:42:00 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
16:42:07 <jaunita_george> Present+
16:42:15 <jaunita_george> +1 for having a conformance model
16:42:33 <Chuck> q?
16:42:48 <jaunita_george> It's something we need to have in the US
16:42:51 <mike_beganyi> Rachael: If anyone feels strongly that we shouldn't write a conformance model, the presence and agreement of this means that there will be a conformance model.
16:43:20 <Chuck> q?
16:43:29 <Chuck> Will it be possible to tell whether a site fully or partially conforms? Response to issue 425
16:43:35 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/425#issuecomment-1928130189
16:44:54 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Jeanne drafted a response which acknowledges that this is an area of WCAG 3 that needs a lot investigation.
16:45:04 <Chuck> q?
16:45:11 <Chuck> Will WCAG 3 provide guidelines for non-web technologies? Response to issue 611
16:45:25 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/611
16:46:56 <GreggVan> q+
16:46:59 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: [provides update on discussion occurring at the previous link]
16:47:08 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:48:23 <Chuck> q?
16:48:42 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: Talking about guidance on non-web technology seems like we're sticking only within the web. Not sure that Rachael's response considers that web technologies are everywhere. Not sure if that's out of scope. Our charter indicates otherwise.
16:49:15 <kirkwood> q+
16:49:21 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: if we are going outside of web, then all fundamentals in WCAG 2 fall through. In WCAGICT, it's all the places we depend on a user agent. If no user agent, then all provisions need to be rethought.
16:49:21 <Chuck> ack kirk
16:49:23 <alastairc> q+
16:50:34 <mike_beganyi> kirkwood: I've had to deal with kiosks which are essentially using an operating system of a tablet that is using the browser engine to connect to the larger network of the business. That's a web technology. Does that fit into the scope or not?
16:50:36 <Chuck> ack ala
16:51:20 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: to Gregg and John, part of the intent of WCAG 3 is to decouple the assumption that there is a user agent. What does the user get and how does it work from the user's point of view. Underneath that we'll have a web layer that can start making assumptions about users.
16:51:36 <GreggVan> q+ to say    That will make our job much harder but WCAG2ICT job MUCH easier.
16:51:49 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Moving to web technologies is that web interfaces are popping up everywhere. It seemed like a WCAG 3 compatible consideration.
16:51:55 <Chuck> q+
16:52:03 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:52:03 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    That will make our job much harder but WCAG2ICT job MUCH easier.
16:52:07 <mike_beganyi> ...WCAG 2 requires a URL to some form of web content. WCAG 3 we're trying to decouple that
16:52:15 <alastairc> Yep.
16:52:24 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:52:30 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
16:52:35 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: If we do that, it will make some things a lot harder while some other things will be easier
16:52:43 <Chuck> q?
16:52:48 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: This doesn't alter our current scope for WCAG2ICT
16:53:12 <Chuck> POLL:  Is Rachael's response satisfactory?  +1 to support, -1 to object
16:53:21 <jeanne> +1
16:53:23 <alastairc> +1
16:53:23 <Chuck> +1
16:53:25 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:53:25 <mike_beganyi> +1
16:53:25 <kirkwood> +1
16:53:27 <Azlan> +1
16:53:27 <wendyreid> +1
16:53:28 <maryjom> +1
16:53:29 <ShawnT> +1
16:53:29 <sarahhorton> +1
16:53:31 <giacomo-petri> +1
16:53:33 <Jennie_Delisi> +1
16:53:34 <laura> +1
16:53:34 <Detlev> not sure.. sorry
16:53:34 <dj> +1
16:53:35 <ljoakley> +1
16:53:35 <Francis_Storr> +1
16:54:06 <scotto> +1
16:54:08 <Chuck> Do research across all the proposed guidelines. Response to issue 587
16:54:16 <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/587#issuecomment-1917318728
16:54:25 <jaunita_george> +1
16:54:44 <GreggVan> q+
16:55:09 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: [summarizes updates to discussion at above link]
16:55:13 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:56:25 <Chuck> q+
16:56:27 <Chuck> ack Ch
16:56:33 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
16:56:33 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: I do worry that sometimes someone may say that some people will not have a problem without having seen it in the field. We should talk about research and cumulative knowledge of consumers. We should turn to consumers to determine needs and not just researchers.
16:56:40 <shadi> present+
16:56:49 <mbgower> q+ to say can you give an example of a user need that is not backed up by user research?
16:56:59 <Chuck> ack mb
16:56:59 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say can you give an example of a user need that is not backed up by user research?
16:57:01 <mike_beganyi> Chuck: got a sense about how it might be altered but not a direct suggestion
16:57:13 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: [makes suggestion]
16:57:21 <alastairc> q+
16:57:39 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #ag
16:57:42 <julierawe> present+
16:58:04 <GreggVan> q+
16:58:07 <Chuck> ala
16:58:11 <Chuck> ack ala
16:58:17 <mike_beganyi> mbgower: Without research, how do we know what the outcome is without quantifiable identification of outcomes
16:58:55 <mike_beganyi> alastairc: Some outcomes don't have much research, like landmarks and assistive technology use. We've given those a pass without needing research since there's so much user experience with such things
16:58:57 <Chuck> q+ to change scribes
16:58:59 <mbgower> Re: screen readers: we've got data for that
16:58:59 <Chuck> ack Gregg
16:59:34 <mbgower> The proposed wording sounds fine.
16:59:38 <alastairc> mbgower - it's hard to find research that isn't based on "this is what WCAG2 says..."
17:00:16 <mike_beganyi> GreggVan: We know the need but no idea how to capture it. For some, sound causes seizures but it's hard to find solid research on this.
17:00:52 <mbgower> the Webaim surveys are an obvious piece of data for headings/landmarks.
17:01:02 <Chuck> zakim, pick a scribe
17:01:02 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Francis_Storr
17:01:09 <kirkwood> does this capture the concept of industry-accepted “best practices” ? or should we?
17:01:49 <Francis_Storr> scribe: Francis_Storr
17:02:18 <Chuck> q?
17:02:21 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:02:21 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to change scribes
17:02:38 <Chuck> POLL:  Is Alastair's modified response satisfactory?  +1 to support, -1 to object
17:02:51 <Chuck> +1
17:02:55 <alastairc> +1
17:02:56 <Francis_Storr> alastairc I modified the comments with a minor update
17:02:57 <GreggVan> +1
17:02:58 <bruce_bailey> +1
17:03:03 <maryjom> +1
17:03:05 <Jennie_Delisi> +1
17:03:06 <dj> +1
17:03:07 <sarahhorton> +1
17:03:07 <mike_beganyi> +1
17:03:10 <giacomo-petri> +1
17:03:12 <laura> +1
17:03:16 <Detlev> +1
17:03:17 <Gez_Lemon> +1
17:03:27 <Francis_Storr> Chuck that's all the WCAG 3 issues to review today
17:03:29 <ShawnT> +1
17:03:32 <kirkwood> +1
17:03:34 <Azlan> +1
17:03:41 <jeanne> +1
17:04:01 <Francis_Storr> alastairc we're getting towards the end of the requirements updates. We have one more left. We'll need one more week to do that before we can get that to the main group
17:04:03 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 4
17:04:03 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- WCAG 2 items for review -- taken up [from Chuck]
17:04:25 <Chuck> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2024JanMar/0052.html
17:04:32 <Francis_Storr> Chuck we're moving onto WCAG 2 issues now
17:04:38 <maryjom> present+
17:05:12 <Francis_Storr> mbgower we're in a midpoint in a two-week review cycle. Only 4 changes sent to review from the WG.
17:06:04 <GreggVan> q+
17:06:05 <Francis_Storr> mbgower the first issue is trying to remove references to a version of WCAG 2.x. This is a normative change so need to bring this to the group.
17:08:25 <Francis_Storr> ... there's been a fairly thorough and careful review of this.
17:08:27 <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-used-in-an-unusual-or-restricted-way
17:08:57 <Francis_Storr> GreggVan some of these aren't normative, they're informative.
17:09:05 <Chuck> q?
17:09:13 <Chuck> ack Gregg
17:09:23 <Francis_Storr> mbgower I'd love to get a citation on what's normative and what isn't
17:09:41 <Francis_Storr> ... we can take this offline
17:09:49 <alastairc> I think Gregg's correct https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#interpreting-normative-requirements
17:09:57 <Francis_Storr> GreggVan I haven't seen an example be normative.
17:10:33 <kirkwood> Gregg is correct
17:10:37 <kevin> q+
17:11:17 <Francis_Storr> mbgower PR 3680 relates to removing non-gendered language from documents.
17:11:32 <Chuck> ack Kevin
17:11:46 <bruce_bailey> from link above:  "...Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as "non-normative", diagrams, **examples,** and notes are informative (non-normative).
17:12:25 <Francis_Storr> kevin on the normative / non-normative issue: there are 5 classes of changes. Depending on the type of change, that dictates the amount and location of the consensus.
17:13:11 <alastairc> I suggest we gather a few of these up and then republish later this year.
17:13:12 <Francis_Storr> ... these changes will require re-publishing the documents.
17:13:30 <bruce_bailey> thank you @kevin
17:13:49 <ShawnT> kevin is that documented any where?
17:14:08 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Shawn's question
17:14:08 <Francis_Storr> mbgower the last PR is to update the xslt file to correct a typo in the display text of a mailto link
17:14:13 <Chuck> q?
17:14:41 <kevin> -> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#correction-classes Process: Classes of Changes
17:14:57 <Rachael> q+
17:15:00 <Chuck> ack Rach
17:15:08 <Francis_Storr> Chuck I think that's it for content.
17:15:54 <Francis_Storr> Rachael I want to point out that we're not getting many reviews on content on GitHub. We need at least 5 responses from people. If you have questions, need help with GitHub, etc., please get in touch.
17:16:20 <alastairc> s/Rachael I want/Rachael: I want
17:16:31 <dj> q+
17:16:36 <Chuck> rrsagent, make minutes
17:16:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/03/05-ag-minutes.html Chuck
17:16:44 <Francis_Storr> alastairc there's ~40 minutes left of the meeting, so you could use that time to review agenda items from this meeting and give feedback.
17:16:44 <jtoles> present+
17:16:44 <Chuck> ack dj
17:16:47 <bruce_bailey> present+
17:16:50 <alastairc> Francis_Storr - good to include commas, works with the minutes. (Type the first couple of letters and press tab to complete...)
17:17:33 <mike_beganyi> q+
17:18:02 <alastairc> q+ giacomo-petri
17:18:05 <Chuck> ack mike
17:19:01 <alastairc> That's the Royal "we", I think Laura generally keeps it up to date...
17:19:21 <Chuck> ack gia
17:20:28 <kimberly> kimberly has joined #ag
17:20:53 <kevin> qq+
17:21:20 <kevin> https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref
17:21:27 <alastairc> Hmm, not sure where the tagging is done?
17:21:28 <Chuck> ack Kevin
17:21:29 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to giacomo-petri
17:22:23 <dj> q+
17:22:47 <Chuck> ack dj
17:22:48 <ShawnT> q+
17:23:20 <Chuck> ack Shawn
17:29:19 <Chuck> q?
17:30:08 <kevin> qq+
17:30:15 <Chuck> ack kevin
17:30:15 <Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to ShawnT
17:32:13 <laura> Scribe Exempt List: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#Exempt_List
17:40:07 <dj> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch05s01.html
17:40:26 <Chuck> by kevin
17:40:28 <dj> (^ tangentially related but interesting)
17:51:13 <alastairc> Gregg's comment: https://jakobnielsenphd.substack.com/p/accessibility-generative-ui/comment/50863228
17:51:55 <dj> thanks Alastair
18:00:08 <laura> Bye.
18:02:02 <Francis_Storr> yeah, that was an abrupt ending!
19:46:23 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
19:58:18 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
21:22:50 <Glenda> Glenda has joined #ag