13:37:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:37:24 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-wcag2ict-irc
13:37:24 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:37:25 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:37:31 <ChrisLoiselle> zakim, clear agenda
13:37:31 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:37:40 <ChrisLoiselle> chair:  Mary Jo Mueller , Chris Loiselle
13:37:47 <ChrisLoiselle> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:37:54 <ChrisLoiselle> rrsagent, make minutes
13:37:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-wcag2ict-minutes.html ChrisLoiselle
13:38:04 <ChrisLoiselle> Zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:38:04 <Zakim> ok, ChrisLoiselle
13:38:43 <ChrisLoiselle> Agenda+ Announcements
13:39:05 <ChrisLoiselle> Agenda+ Survey results: Review proposed updates to 2.4.2 Page Titled
13:39:19 <ChrisLoiselle> Agenda+Analysis for SC language changes (if time permits)
13:39:23 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
13:40:25 <ChrisLoiselle> Regrets: Mitch
13:44:52 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
13:51:41 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
13:56:07 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
13:57:22 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #wcag2ict
13:57:53 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
13:58:30 <ChrisLoiselle> agenda?
13:59:13 <Mike_Pluke> present+
13:59:23 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:54 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
13:59:57 <PhilDay> PhilDay has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:39 <PhilDay> present+
14:00:42 <PhilDay> agenda?
14:01:13 <PhilDay> scribe:
14:01:17 <PhilDay> scribe+
14:01:23 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
14:01:47 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag2ict
14:02:01 <maryjom> present+
14:02:31 <PhilDay> zakim, take up item 1
14:02:31 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from ChrisLoiselle]
14:03:41 <loicmn> present+
14:03:49 <PhilDay> maryjom: Sent email regarding mobile TF work statement - as it doesn't appear to have been updated.
14:03:57 <PhilDay> ... Heard back that they will work on it.
14:04:12 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:04:12 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Survey results: Review proposed updates to 2.4.2 Page Titled -- taken up [from ChrisLoiselle]
14:04:33 <PhilDay> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/
14:04:41 <PhilDay> [Chris sharing on screen]
14:05:17 <maryjom> https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/#xq3
14:05:24 <PhilDay> Decided on general structure of including headings (instead of using paranthetical callouts). Editors will handle this
14:05:45 <PhilDay> Now focusing on 4. (Question 1 of 3) Non-web software - introductory info (before the SC language)
14:06:02 <bbailey> +1
14:06:56 <PhilDay> 1 prefers proposal 1 with edits, 4 prefer 2 as is
14:07:12 <bbailey> Proposal 1 does not provide a detailed explanation of why this is problematic - keeps it simple.
14:07:12 <bbailey> This should not be applied directly as written to non-web software. For software, direct application of 2.4.2 Page Titled is problematic. The following criterion is recommended as a substitute:
14:07:22 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 provides a more detailed explanation.
14:07:22 <PhilDay> This does not apply directly to non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software. However, where the platform supports a programmatic title or name for a software window or screen, when a software application utilizes that feature to provide a unique title or name for
14:07:22 <PhilDay> each window or screen, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2
14:08:53 <PhilDay> bbailey: Need to iterate on should not apply vs does not apply vs cannot be applied. This is my major concern - and could accept proposal 2 if this was addressed
14:09:29 <PhilDay> GreggVan: What did we use in WCAG2ICT v1?
14:09:45 <PhilDay> maryjom: Didn't need to - everything applied. This is a new issue.
14:10:16 <PhilDay> Daniel preferred using "Cannot" and then change "applies" to "Can apply" so they are all consistent.
14:10:32 <GreggVan> q+
14:10:34 <PhilDay> s/Cannot/Cannot be applied
14:10:45 <maryjom> Daniels PR to change "applies" to "can apply" https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/635
14:10:45 <PhilDay> Daniel created a PR on this
14:10:55 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:11:26 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Initially this sounded good, but could be interpreted as being rather vague.
14:11:39 <PhilDay> ... Does this apply? Answer should be yes or no, not "it could"
14:12:04 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:12:07 <maryjom> Here's issue 639 Daniel opened regarding can/cannot apply: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/639
14:12:09 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: What we do in other SCs is more declarative. Can apply can be read different ways
14:12:19 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:12:23 <loicmn> present+
14:12:30 <Daniel> q+
14:12:34 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Maybe opposite of Applies is "Does not apply"
14:12:40 <bbailey> i like current phrasing for the SC which work, "This applies directly as written"
14:12:41 <Daniel> present+ Daniel
14:13:14 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:13:24 <GreggVan> I note in choice 2 we already have  "does not apply"
14:13:40 <GreggVan> q+
14:13:49 <PhilDay> Daniel: My problems are with "shouldn't" or "doesn't" apply - this goes beyond our remit. Can/Cannot was an attempt to make the negative/positive more consistent
14:14:27 <PhilDay> ... Could live with "This applies directly as written", and then have inconsistencies for negative (Cannot be applied)
14:14:57 <PhilDay> maryjom: Just use "is problematic to apply"
14:15:08 <PhilDay> Daniel: Bruce had a sentence using similar language
14:15:36 <PhilDay> ... Combination of these 2 approaches could be good; using softer language for when something should not be applied
14:15:57 <maryjom> q+
14:15:59 <ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/639
14:16:03 <maryjom> ack Daniel
14:16:15 <bbailey> q+ for excerpt from work statement
14:16:41 <ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/626
14:16:54 <PhilDay> 626 is Bruce's PR, which contains the sentence about "problematic"
14:17:09 <bbailey> Where known, give examples of some success criteria which may not be applicable to a particular non-web technology as needed.Where known, give examples of some success criteria which may not be applicable to a particular non-web technology as needed.
14:17:13 <PhilDay> bbailey: This "problematic" language came from one of the TF meetings
14:17:33 <PhilDay> GreggVan: If we say it applies, then the negative should just be "it does not apply".
14:17:55 <bbailey> Workstatement:  https://www.w3.org/WAI/about/groups/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement/#scope-of-work
14:17:58 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:18:20 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:18:28 <PhilDay> ack maryjom
14:18:43 <maryjom> Maybe instead of saying, "does not apply" or "should not apply" use "This is problematic to apply to non-web software through simple word substitution"
14:18:47 <PhilDay> maryjom: Proposing an alternative
14:19:00 <bbailey> s/Where known, give examples of some success criteria which may not be applicable to a particular non-web technology as needed.Where known, give examples of some success criteria which may not be applicable to a particular non-web technology as needed./Where known, give examples of some success criteria which may not be applicable to a particular
14:19:00 <bbailey> non-web technology as needed./
14:19:25 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:19:29 <Daniel> q+
14:19:34 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:19:34 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to discuss excerpt from work statement
14:19:47 <bbailey> Where known, give examples of some success criteria which may not be applicable to a particular non-web technology as needed.
14:19:48 <PhilDay> bbailey: Pasted in the bullet from the work statement
14:20:04 <PhilDay> ... This uses "may not be applicable"
14:20:43 <PhilDay> maryjom: When we do this for closed functionality we usually say why
14:20:44 <maryjom> q?
14:20:45 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:20:49 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Think we should say why here as well
14:21:06 <maryjom> ack daniel
14:21:38 <GreggVan> q+
14:21:49 <PhilDay> Daniel: In 633 it says "does not directly apply... because rarely apply". So we contradict ourselves - rarely, not always, so sometimes it may apply.
14:22:04 <PhilDay> q?
14:22:05 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:22:09 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:22:11 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:22:11 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:22:38 <maryjom> q+
14:23:00 <bbailey> "problematic to apply" seems like a fact-based statement to me
14:23:09 <PhilDay> GreggVan: If you are taking this for a regulation, if something cannot be applied, then you cannot use it in a regulation. Here we are saying it is rarely possible; thus you cannot make it a regulation as it is rarely possible to meet. Thus not contradition.
14:23:25 <PhilDay> s/contradition/a contradiction
14:23:38 <PhilDay> q?
14:23:41 <PhilDay> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:23:58 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:23:59 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Clarified why rarely was introduced in that SC
14:24:03 <PhilDay> ack maryjom
14:24:12 <bbailey> q+
14:24:17 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:24:21 <PhilDay> maryjom: Last time I proposed "problematic to apply". What do people think about it?
14:24:27 <Daniel> I would +1 "is problematic to apply"
14:24:41 <GreggVan> q?
14:24:46 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:24:46 <GreggVan> q+
14:24:49 <PhilDay> bbailey: Agree - use problematic as we have used it elsewhere in the document. It is true - it is problematic
14:24:50 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:24:53 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:25:54 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Thinking back to our purpose. If it is problematic, it is still not clear. Still leaves me wondering. Still need reasons why it is problematic.
14:26:39 <ChrisLoiselle> q+
14:26:44 <PhilDay> q?
14:26:45 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:26:51 <PhilDay> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:26:51 <maryjom> ack ChrisLoiselle
14:27:07 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:27:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:27:22 <GreggVan> q+
14:27:34 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: Listening to where we are, We do already have an index of SCs that are problematic for closed functionality. Would it be useful to have another index of SCs that are problematic for X other reasons
14:27:45 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:27:51 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:28:24 <maryjom> Suggested first sentence: This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software and few applications could satisfy the criterion.
14:28:29 <PhilDay> GreggVan: "There would be problems applying this to almost every software on the market". This is different to the closed functionality case - so defeats the purpose.
14:28:38 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Just do this for individual SCs
14:28:46 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:28:59 <GreggVan> Q+ to say  There would be problems applying this as a requirement for the following reasons
14:29:06 <PhilDay> Heading towards proposal 2 with edits.
14:29:26 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:29:31 <GreggVan> [07:28:59]  <GreggVan> Q+ to say  There would be problems applying this as a requirement for software for the following reasons   OR  becauwse
14:30:34 <PhilDay> GreggVan: There would be problems applying this as a requirement for software for the following reasons; or, problems applying to software because.... Then we are not saying it does not apply, but just mentioning the reasons without making a categorical "not apply" statement.
14:30:39 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:30:43 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:30:43 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  There would be problems applying this as a requirement for the following reasons
14:31:21 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:31:21 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Going to try and come up with a suitable phrase.
14:31:59 <PhilDay> Consensus is to take proposal 2 with edits, with edits to be decided later
14:32:40 <Daniel> s/proposal 2/proposal 2, PR 633/
14:32:48 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 is PR 633
14:33:13 <GreggVan> present+
14:33:29 <ChrisLoiselle> Poll: Prefer Proposal 2, PR 633 , with edits, enter the number 1. Prefer Proposal 2, as is, (survey result answer that had 4 votes) , enter the number 2
14:33:32 <bbailey> present+
14:33:34 <bbailey> https://deploy-preview-633--wcag2ict.netlify.app/#page-titled
14:33:55 <PhilDay> 1, but would also accept 2
14:34:16 <loicmn> 1
14:34:49 <ChrisLoiselle> Gregg, https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/633 would be the place to edit.
14:34:52 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Questioned where to put proposed edit. maryjom: It is being done in a PR. 633
14:35:19 <bbailey> Verbage is in survey
14:35:56 <PhilDay> GreggVan will put proposed language in IRC
14:36:16 <bbailey> Proposal 2 provides a more detailed explanation.
14:36:16 <bbailey> This does not apply directly to non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software. However, where the platform supports a programmatic title or name for a software window or screen, when a software application utilizes that feature to provide a unique title or name for
14:36:16 <bbailey> each window or screen, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2
14:36:16 <bbailey> Which approach do you prefer?
14:36:18 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/#xq3
14:36:51 <GreggVan>  There would be problems applying this as a requirement for non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software. However, where the platform supports a programmatic title or name for a software window or screen, when a software application utilizes that feature to provide a unique title or name for each window or screen, the user can more easily find it or
14:36:51 <GreggVan>  understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2. The following criterion is recommended as a substitute for the WCAG language:
14:38:05 <GreggVan> change  only    to    There would be problems applying this as a requirement for non-web software
14:38:49 <GreggVan> change  only    This does not apply directly to non-web software   to    There would be problems applying this as a requirement for non-web software
14:38:58 <bbailey> q+ to suggest survey
14:39:05 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:39:14 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:39:14 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to suggest survey
14:39:37 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 (original)
14:39:37 <PhilDay> This does not apply directly to non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software. However, where the platform supports a programmatic title or name for a software window or screen, when a software application utilizes that feature to provide a unique title or name for
14:39:37 <PhilDay> each window or screen, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2
14:39:37 <PhilDay> Gregg's edit to proposal 2:
14:39:39 <PhilDay> There would be problems applying this as a requirement for non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software. However, where the platform supports a programmatic title or name for a software window or screen, when a software application utilizes that feature to provide
14:39:39 <PhilDay> a unique title or name for
14:39:39 <PhilDay> each window or screen, the user can more easily find it or understand its purpose. This would address the user needs identified in the Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2
14:39:55 <PhilDay> bbailey: Would prefer to put this in a survey.
14:40:17 <PhilDay> q+
14:41:01 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:41:04 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:41:29 <maryjom> q+
14:41:30 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Concern with problematic. We used it for closed, which meant we weren't dealing with it at all.
14:41:58 <PhilDay> Daniel: In this case we would add the explanation - so we are providing the rationale
14:42:17 <bbailey> q+ to note survey had 4/5 votes
14:42:38 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:42:58 <bbailey> survey had 4/5 votes for proposal 2, and I was not one of them -- and greg was
14:43:27 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:43:47 <PhilDay> ack maryjom
14:43:47 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/#xq3
14:43:48 <maryjom> ack maryjom
14:44:26 <PhilDay> maryjom: Using the word problematic is not code for anything. All we say is that there is a problem. In this case we also give a solution, so am happy with the phrase problematic.
14:44:27 <maryjom> ack bbailey
14:44:27 <Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to note survey had 4/5 votes
14:44:27 <GreggVan> q+  to say    IF we want to go with problemmatic -- that is fine with me
14:44:29 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:44:51 <PhilDay> bbailey: We 4/5 that said proposal 2 was fine as is. Gregg was one of those who were happy with proposal 4. We seem to have stalled.
14:44:57 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:44:57 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say    IF we want to go with problemmatic -- that is fine with me
14:44:58 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:45:24 <PhilDay> GreggVan: We can change opinion after discussions.
14:45:50 <PhilDay> ... It is fine if others think that "problematic" works - I thought it was better to word it "there is a problem with". Either way is fine with me.
14:46:43 <GreggVan> q+
14:47:13 <PhilDay> ChrisLoiselle: We will resurvey  with 3 options: as was, with Gregg's edits, with Mary Jo & Daniel's edits, and option 4 will be other option (to be specified).
14:47:27 <PhilDay> GreggVan: To move us forward let's just decide now
14:47:55 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Happy to accept Mary Jo's edit to proposal if all others agree. Then we have consensus
14:48:08 <PhilDay> bbailey: Also happy with it
14:49:03 <PhilDay> Suggested first sentence: This success criterion is problematic to apply directly to non-web software through simple word substitution because application titles rarely describe the topic or purpose of the software and few applications could satisfy the criterion.
14:49:22 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Use proposal 2 introductory verbiage replacing "This should not be applied" with "This success criterion is problematic to apply".
14:49:33 <PhilDay> +1
14:49:34 <ChrisLoiselle> Poll: Accept Mary Jo's phrasing on introduction of problematic to apply phrasing
14:49:37 <bbailey> +1
14:49:38 <loicmn> +1
14:49:46 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
14:49:53 <Mike_Pluke> +1
14:49:54 <Daniel> +1
14:50:00 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Use proposal 2 introductory verbiage replacing "This should not be applied" with "This success criterion is problematic to apply".
14:50:05 <GreggVan> +1
14:50:14 <PhilDay> Moving on to next question.
14:50:39 <PhilDay> TOPIC: (Question 2 of 3) Non-web Software - SC language
14:51:03 <PhilDay> 1 preferred proposal 1 as is, 3 preferred proposal 2 as is, 1 something else
14:51:06 <bbailey> https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/WCAG2ICTMay8/results/#xq4
14:51:15 <PhilDay> Proposal 1 language:
14:51:15 <PhilDay> 2.4.2 [Software Named]: [Non-web software] have names that provide description identification.
14:51:15 <PhilDay> Proposal 2 language:
14:51:15 <PhilDay> 2.4.2 Non-web Software Named: In non-web software implemented on a platform that supports title attributes for windows or screens, titles are provided that are unique or differentiable within the software.
14:51:33 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:51:42 <bbailey> Now consider the proposed language for the success criterion in Proposals 1 and 2.
14:51:42 <bbailey> Proposal 1 language:
14:51:42 <bbailey> 2.4.2 [Software Named]: [Non-web software] have names that provide description identification.
14:52:00 <bbailey> Proposal 2 language:
14:52:00 <bbailey> 2.4.2 Non-web Software Named: In non-web software implemented on a platform that supports title attributes for windows or screens, titles are provided that are unique or differentiable within the software.
14:52:00 <bbailey> Which approach do you prefer?
14:52:05 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:52:12 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:52:41 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Think I'm the other one, but agree with proposal 2, just adding comments
14:52:54 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:53:34 <PhilDay> GreggVan: We cannot use proposal 1.
14:53:54 <maryjom> q?
14:54:02 <bbailey> q+ just to repeat my comments in survey
14:54:15 <ChrisLoiselle> Q?
14:54:20 <PhilDay> q+ to say happy to go with consensus
14:54:24 <maryjom> ack just
14:54:24 <Zakim> just, you wanted to repeat my comments in survey
14:54:32 <PhilDay> bbailey: We could have both - as per my comments in the survey.
14:54:46 <maryjom> ack PhilDay
14:54:46 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say happy to go with consensus
14:55:04 <maryjom> +1 The short name should say "Titled" rather than "Named"
14:55:05 <PhilDay> bbailey: Has a typo in it - short name is incorrect
14:55:28 <maryjom> Short name should be "2.4.2 Non-web Software Titled"
14:55:30 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
14:55:33 <PhilDay> ... short name should be "Titled" rather than change to "Named"
14:55:40 <Daniel> q+
14:55:55 <PhilDay> q?
14:56:11 <maryjom> ack Mike_Pluke
14:56:38 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:57:04 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: don't like "provides descriptive information". Not sure what this really means
14:57:24 <GreggVan> q+
14:57:45 <PhilDay> bbailey: description identification. Is used in WCAG 2
14:58:00 <PhilDay> Mike_Pluke: Easier to understand in web. Software names makes it tricky
14:58:01 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:58:02 <maryjom> ack Daniel
14:58:13 <PhilDay> Daniel: Differentiable?
14:58:23 <PhilDay> ... Distinguishable? Is that better to use?
14:58:50 <ChrisLoiselle> q?
14:58:58 <maryjom> ack GreggVan
14:58:59 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Distinguishable - you can perceive it. Differentiable means you can perceive the difference between them
14:59:12 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Though we all agreed to number 2 - just need to work out short title
14:59:28 <PhilDay> q+ to say happy to go with proposal 2
14:59:55 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Non web software titled.
15:00:06 <PhilDay> bbailey: Would accept proposal 2
15:00:12 <PhilDay> q?
15:00:16 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
15:00:16 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to say happy to go with proposal 2
15:00:28 <maryjom> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Use proposal 2 substituting "Named" with "Titled" in the short name.
15:00:31 <loicmn> +1
15:00:44 <PhilDay> +1
15:00:44 <GreggVan> +1
15:00:44 <ChrisLoiselle> +1
15:00:51 <bbailey> +1
15:00:55 <maryjom> RESOLUTION: Use proposal 2 substituting "Named" with "Titled" in the short name.
15:00:56 <Mike_Pluke> +1
15:01:07 <Daniel> rrsgent, draft miutes
15:01:10 <PhilDay> maryjom: Going to check the resolution on the previous issue
15:01:15 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:01:31 <Daniel> s/rrsgent, draft miutes//
15:01:46 <PhilDay> 2 more questions to go over next week. (5, i.e. 3 of 3, then question 2 which we accidentally skipped)
15:02:03 <PhilDay> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:02:11 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:03:02 <maryjom> zakim, end meeting
15:03:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Mike_Pluke, PhilDay, maryjom, loicmn, Daniel, GreggVan, bbailey
15:03:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:03:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/05/22-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:03:09 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, maryjom; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:03:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:03:14 <maryjom> rrsagent, bye
15:03:14 <RRSAgent> I see no action items