<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

New members and topics

<brucebailey> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/project

<GN015> I see time line for WCAg 2.2 still saying 12/2021 in https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Timeline

<Chuck> This isn't the schedule, but it does state "June": https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-22/#:~:text=WCAG%202.2%20is%20scheduled%20to%20be%20completed%20and%20published%20by%20June%202022.

Announcements and Reminders

<jon_avila> Might also be good to update this page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Timeline

WCAG 3 Requirements (30 minutes) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG3_requirements/results

Conflicting Goals #484

<Rachael> Thank you for taking the time to review and respond to our initial draft. We agree that the approach taken in the first draft does not sufficiently balance these two requirements. We received suggestions on how to better approach this balance and are exploring those. We will keep your concerns in mind while we continue to explore ways to meet both these goals and will reach out for feedback from regulators as we progress. We are closing this

<Rachael> issue but we welcome your input on the new approach when it is ready.

<AWK> +AWK

DmD: largely agree, like to leave it open if possible

<Rachael> Issues: Leave issue open, Detlev's addition

<Rachael> 484

GvdH: you can meet both at same time, if one is superset of the other, we just didn't do it till now
... may leave open so we can add comments

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to whether we should keep issues opened / closed for longer term issues.

AC: leave open is tricky one, with 2.x experience we don't want too much open issues
... need balance, especially with the 3.0 scope
... might label them

<Rachael> The requirements document is at https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I like Detlev's addition and I think Mary Jo's comments are more appropriate for the regulatory requirements.

RBM: comfortable with closing, we have it in the requirements

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say Maybe a "not fully addressed" label, along with a subject label, to ensure that a subgroup addressing the subject has an ability to review all relevant

Chuck: we address it, we can close it, is my oppinion

MG: agree we can label it if needed

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say Good point Alastair --- since we DO have an answer --"That you can meet both blah blah but we havent yet finished creating the next version.

GvdH: changed my mind, seems we can close it

<Rachael> "Thank you for taking the time to review and respond to our initial draft. We agree that the approach taken in the first draft does not sufficiently balance these two requirements. We do believe that we can create a document that balances both successfully. We have captured the need for both in the requirements document and welcome continued review and critique on this balance as we move foward."

GvdH: reason is we can meet both at same time, is done in lots of other standards

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think the concern is subjectivity

<GreggVan> yes that works

<alastairc> Gregg - wondering about harmonisation, for example, in contrast with a different algorythm you'd have some colours that passed one but not the other. Is that a problem, or is it harmonised in terms of saying you should have sufficient contrast, just with different details about what that is?

<mbgower> issue says "it has to be objective, and all of the tests and provisions need to be objective."

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) greggs draft (11:20), 2) Greggs plus detlev's language 3) something else

<Chuck> 2

<alastairc> 1 - keep it short!

<david-macdonald> 1

<GreggVan> 1

<mbgower> 2

<brucebailey> 1 -- shorter

1

<Jaunita_George> 1

<kirkwood> 1

<Detlev> 2 but I don' mind dropping it :)

<Jennie> 1

<laura_> 1

<MarcJohlic> 1

<alastairc> And Detlev is free to add a comment to the thread, for the record :-)

<MelanieP> 1

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/484

<Chuck> the 1's have it.

<mbgower> fine

<alastairc> We can have an official response, and members can add relevant comments, which seems like a good approach.

RESOLUTION: Change repsonse to language at 11:20, detlev to add his comment to github issue

<Chuck> no objections

Introduction: Explain how to solve Issue #41

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/589/files

<alastairc> rrsagemt, make minutes

<Chuck> Jake: I think that we might have a bigger issue that needs rewrite. Original text is simple.

<Chuck> Jake: There's too much weight on word "guideline" and also what Wilco suggesting, a guideline should not explain "how".

<Chuck> Jake: It should explain "what", "why" and for "who".

<Chuck> Jake: What's in original doc may be too short. But I don't think they meant "guideline".

<Chuck> Jake: In all those docs we explain what, why and who. It's never the guideline, it's the one sentence in both WCAG 2 and 3.

<Chuck> Jake: Underneath we have how to's, methods and outcomes.

<Chuck> Jake: What wilco is trying to do here is fixing that short sentence on what we are trying to achieve.

<Chuck> Jake: What you have done with a new proposal doesn't cover what the... not what is in the document. We are trying to say there are barriers, we create guidelines...

<Chuck> Jake: I don't think your fix is a fix for the current wording. It still doesn't cover what we are trying to do. We need to explain why we create the guidelines.

<Chuck> Jake: I hope that solves it a bit more.

<Chuck> Jake: We don't create guidelines for barriers or what causes them. There is much more why we create the guidelines. It's not reflected in the suggested text.

<Chuck> Jake: It's hard to explain... the comments from wilco is correct, but the fix is not a tweak of a sentence or word.

<Rachael> We need guidelines to: identify the barriers encountered by people with disabilities, explain what causes these barriers and who they impact, and suggest how the problems they pose can be solved.

<Rachael> We need guidance to: identify the barriers encountered by people with disabilities, explain what causes these barriers and who they impact, and suggest how the problems they pose can be solved.

WF: wanted to not be too prescriptive on the 'how'

<Wilco> +1 to guidance

<brucebailey> +1 to guidance v guidelines

<mbgower> +1

<david-macdonald> yes guidance vs guideline

<Chuck> Jake: Indeed guidance will do the trick.

<alastairc> Would that be "We need guidance that:" or which?

<Chuck> Rachael: Can Jake put in a separate issue, as this seems larger?

<Chuck> Jake: Yes

<Rachael> We need guidance that: identify the barriers encountered by people with disabilities, explain what causes these barriers and who they impact, and suggest how the problems they pose can be solved.

<brucebailey> that is stronger than which

<MelanieP> That is required while which is not

<Rachael> We need guidance that: identifies the barriers encountered by people with disabilities, explains what causes these barriers and who they impact, and suggests how the problems they pose can be solved.

<alastairc> Updated: https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/589/files

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: accept ammedned PR and revisit larger issue after Jake has propsed wording

<laura_> +1

+1

<Chuck> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Jennie> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say "Conformance MUST be a pass or fail statement" is a very similar concern as expressed in ITI

<david-macdonald> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Raf> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<brucebailey> the other editorial rule i know for that versus which: taking out which clause should not change meaning

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG3_requirements/results

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/589/files

<Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/589/files

<brucebailey> also see MelanieP at 11:36

RESOLUTION: accept amended PR and revisit larger issue after Jake has proposed wording

MC: we need new chartering, will probably take couple of months

SL: new chartering period will be 2 years
... need to know what we will charter for those 2 years

<Rachael> Note that today is about discussion not decisions

SL: we have 3 suggestions to work out
... it's not a definitive list, it's a possible illustration for the work

<Rachael> 6 possible modules though they will almost certainly change: 1. WCAG 3: Views (Does not build on other modules), 2. WCAG 3: Processes , 3. WCAG 3: Protocols & Assertions, 4. WCAG 3: Third-party content, 5. WCAG: Media & XR, 6. WCAG 3: Website & Apps

SL: we have some prioritization in the document

<Zakim> MelanieP, you wanted to ask What it means to move functional needs and maturity model outside of AG

SL: they are not fixed, but a first attempt to get the conversation started
... Prioritization Idea 1: Content First
... Must be enough that we get some feedback on the approach to show the public
... more of a horizontal approach
... target is milestone of guidance with minimal conformance
... a Pro is that there is something to show how it may look like, the guidelines, a Con is that it may lead to a lot of rework

<Zakim> brucebailey, you wanted to discuss "useable form" vs MVP

SL: Prioritization Idea 2: Conformance first approach, Transition Plan for WCAG 2.2
... This one is more focussed on COnformance
... Prioritization Idea 3: Minimum Conformance and Guidelines, from Silver conversation
... This one is more of a balance between 1 and 2

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

SL: I'm going to bring it back to the concept of multiple documents. Without looking at multiple document specifics, does the concept resonate?

<Wilco> +1 to modules

+1 to the approach

<brucebailey> +1 concept of multiple documents resonates for me

Alastairc: Chair hat off, my only concern is where things integrate vertically.
... If the protocols and assertions were separated, it might make it difficult to achieve certain outcomes. I'm thinking of qualitative and quantitative aspects where both might go into one outcome.

SL: I agree about caution around this kind of consideration.

<Rachael> +1 to that activity for the content

Detlev: I think everyone evaluating knows there's complexity. I suggest to have a high-level design exercise where we put the requirements and needs on the table and see if we can arrive at a new structure.

<MelanieP> +1 to Detlev

Detlev: A superstructure would help if we were going to split things into modules

SL: Definitely agreed.

<Lauriat> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/600a2fda8a624489f2d63840abdddbd6af0f7b05/guidelines/index.html

SL: This is a rendering of a pull request that has a rendering of the guidelines. It's not a real editor's draft.
... It's just a flat list. They're not sorted in any way

GN: The idea of separating resonates with me.
... The results follow principles and are applicable in a wide range of processes (views, etc).

SL: Can you clarify which doesn't resonate?

GN: Having multiple documents.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/silver/milestone/64

Rachael: Here is a first cut of it. We are looking for someone to lead this work. We're looking for a team.

<Jaunita_George> I'd like to join the team

Rachael: Chair hat off. I think the idea of multiple documents is good. I don't think it can be many, but maybe a few.

Shadi: I am quite concerned... I cannot imagine having a conformance model that is in pieces and changes every few years as we evolve it.
... The conformance model is a tough nut to crack.
... Our policy adoption for web site owners... Changing the conformance model is a whole different story. We can't do that regularly.
... I'm concerned about the CSS example. CSS is a very complex structure that hardly anyone knows.
... It would be a nightmare to adopt in any policies.
... We need the simplicity. CSS is not something known for simplicity

<alastairc> Shadi - I think that you could have multiple conformance models that build on each other, starting with the most granular (components and/or pages), then have a level for processes, then possibly sites, then possibly organisations (combining with maturity model). The aspect I'd worry about is outcomes that require more qualitative measures.

Wilco: I want to emphasize why this is being proposed.
... The problem we're facing is a WCAG 3 that we will be working on until 2028. Nothing new until the end of the decade.
... One of the things we're trying to solve is delivering pieces sooner than that. With modules, you have the benefit of reducing risk.

<shadi> Alastairc - would love to learn more, I just have difficulty understanding that.

Wilco: If any piece of one document gets us stuck, the whole document gets stuck. Breaking it up is a way of managing that risk.
... regarding Shadi's concern, updating a conformance model is not the goal. The goal is to not put 3rd party requirements on top of the conformance model.

<brucebailey> +1 to Wilco's concern for possibility of not having something stable enough for regulators until 2028

Wilco: A page conformance model abides, regardless of what you're doing to judge the whole website

Juan: I was wondering if it makes to hold off on the whole scoring model until things are more fleshed out.

Rachael: were you arguing in favour?

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Multiple documents in some form or 2) single document.

Juan: In favour, but keeping scoring as another module to be done later.

<ShawnT> 1

1 but defining a superstructure

<JakeAbma> 1

<Jaunita_George> 1

<janina> +multiple

<Lauriat> 1

<Wilco> 1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to Wilco's model of granular conformance model documents

<alastairc> 1 - will be necessary to make faster progress.

<GN015> 22

<SuzanneTaylor> 1

<MelanieP> 1

<MarcJohlic> 1

<brucebailey> 1 for multiple docs

<Chuck> 0, Gundula's argument persuades me

<GN015> sorry: 2

<Raf> 1

<AWK> 1, with reservations

<kirkwood> 1

<laura> 1

<Detlev> not sure - without an overall view of organization of req. it is hard to tell what's better

<jon_avila> 1

<MelanieP> 1

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Content First 2) Conformance first 3) Minimum Conformance and Content

<janina> +option 3

<Jaunita_George> 1

<SuzanneTaylor> 1

2 or 3

<JakeAbma> 4

<Detlev> 1

<jon_avila> 1

<AWK> 2 or 3

<Rachael> 3

<alastairc> 1, although 3 is interesting.

<brucebailey> 2 (soft)

<laura> 1

<Lauriat> 1 or 3

<Wilco> 2, but would like a better plan for it

<shadi> 2

<ShawnT> 3

Rachael: Jake, what is option 4

Jake: I am still wondering -- related to Wilco and Shadi's comments -- isn't it a possibility to just look at what we have and see if we can just embed wcag 3 principles.

<Jaunita_George> +1!!!

Jake: iterative change for the better

<laura> +1 to Jake

Jake: wcag 2 isn't completely broken.
... Do something with that. Have a solid core. Open up the conformance model a bit.
... Add some COGA in there and see if we can't iterate.
... It seems like a really good possibility, and you can deliver on a shorter time.

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to Jake

<Wilco> +1, no PM hat though

<kirkwood> +1 to Jake

Rachael: I would like to wrap this up. It's an initial conversation. Does anyone need to add anything?

<alastairc> For me, the fundamental difference from 2 to 3 that enables better coverage is not being stuck on yes/no metrics.

GN: So is suggestion 4 to create a wcag 2.3?

Rachael: More to build on wcag 2.

Wilco: Option 2 way proposed by Jeanne as kind of a Wcag 2.9.

<brucebailey> fwiw i like wcag 2.9 option

Rachael: That ends our WCAG 3 discussion. Moving to WCAG 2.2

WCAG 2.2 Misc Issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc/results

Recommended viewport size for testing? #1829

Alastairc: We discussed this before but didn't quite get to agreement on the response.
... GN and Stefan's responses are from previous.

<alastairc> Sorry, Bruce's is new

Rachael: We have 9 who agree. 3 with adjustment, 1 something else. But we've gone through changes since then.
... Have suggestions been addressed?
... Reads Bruce's response verbatim

<Rachael> The intent of the SC is that conformance is met across page variations. The new focus-appearance and target-size SCs do not create specific scenarios where a particular viewport size is required.

<alastairc> +1

works for me

<Chuck> +1 to Bruce's suggestion

<Wilco> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<alastairc> rssagent, make minutes

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Approve revised wording from 23 after.

<GN015> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<brucebailey> +1 my editorial took out "should"

<JakeAbma> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve revised wording from 23 after the hour.

"changes of context" definition #737

<Rachael> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1765/files

<brucebailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/737

Alastair: The PR is a minor change in the definition.
... In the thread there are various issues raised.
... We had a bigger change proposed, discussed late 2020. This smaller modification is in this PR.
... I think all these comments are new.

AWK: I think that we should not change things that are in normative text. We have yet to do that in anything except things that are errata.
... Are we saying this is the original intent?

<Wilco> +100

AWK: If not, we should avoid.

Rachael: Reads Laura's response verbatim.
... Reads Detlev's response verbatim.

Detlev: I fully agree to postpone.

<jon_avila> I agree we should not be changing normative wording.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say perceive instead of view?

Rachael: The key question is whether we make a change.

<Rachael> key issues: Change the definition, add examples, or leave entirely to WCAG 3

Chuck: Personally I'm not as change averse as others

mbgower: I'd like to hear Jake's response.

<alastairc> Jake - a reminder https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/737#issuecomment-493512108

Jake: I never saw it. Not prepared to answer.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask, if we can't change the definition, how do we address the issue?

<Chuck> mbgower: If people think meaning is being changed, it's not errata, I'm not certain it has anything changed. This is virtually identical.

<Rachael> straw poll: Does the new wording change meaning?

<alastairc> Yes, but in a way that aligns with the examples, e.g. content of web page != change of user agent.

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-change-of-context

<AWK> Yes, I think it will be interpreted as changing the meaning

<Wilco> Clearly removing the word "major" changes the meaning.

Detlev: I think t adds in "without user awareness"

<Chuck> mbgower: W/o user awareness, pre-exists, this is not a change. In response to Detlev's comments. I pasted link 36 past, direct link to existing definition.

Jake: I've been trying to reread my comments. The core problem was really easy.
... it was about whether the change was on the page
... it's not talking about opening another user agent.
... the bullets contradict each other

<Detlev_> I think I have to retract my input - I failed to realize that there were examples underneath the definition

<kirkwood> +1 to Jake

<Chuck> +1 to Detlev's, I didn't have "context" of the context.

Jake: The PR covers the intent more than the existing definition. You can leave it, but I still think it is not correct as is.

Gregg: I have trouble creating definitions that don't agree with the words

<alastairc> The difficult aspect is: "changes in the content of the Web page ... including changes of: user agent; viewport; focus; content that changes the meaning of the Web page"

Gregg: If we want to talk about unexpected changes of context, then we should define "unexpected"
... If you are blind, if the cursor suddenly moves to another part of the page, that is disorienting.

<kirkwood> also a very big cognitive issue

Gregg: We should define whether it is "unexpected" or not.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to provide expected change of context.

Alastair: On Gregg's point, you can have changes of context that are made with user's awareness.
... The problem is that the definition starts 'in the content of the web page'. Focus doesn't really fit in the definition. User agent doesn't fit.

<GreggVan> +1 agree with Alastair --- COC does not mean change of web page change

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say Gregg's concerns exist in old and proposed

Alastair: this is to remove the "web page" to make the bullets not contradict.

<GreggVan> +1 to Chuck -- agree that it was true for old and new

Chuck: Gregg's concerns apply to both the old and new versions. I'm not saying it isn't a concern, it's just not THE concern.
... Having digested, I think the change is an improvement.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if this can be an errata

<Wilco> yes

Alasair: Can we make this an errata? It is quite a small change. The examples stay the same. I'm not sure that many people will notice, other than us.

<AWK> yes

<JakeAbma> no

Gregg: I think that we should not imply the change of content is the only COC.
... It is true that they both have the problem.

Rachael: We've identified there is a problem in the definition. The question is whether we need to address, and how.

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Fix definition 2) Add more clarification/examples to notes 3) No change

<JakeAbma> 1

<GN015> 1

<Detlev_> Agree now that change makes it better and don't mind errata

<AWK> 3, then 2

<alastairc> "major changes in the <a>Web page</a> that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view the entire page simultaneously"

<Wilco> major changes in the <a>Web page</a> that, if made without user awareness, can disorient users who are not able to view

<GreggVan> what is the final language we are voting

<Chuck> mbgower: If major is the stumbling point, major can stay in. The main issue is "in the content of the web page".

<Chuck> mbgower: I think it's ok that we fix something that is clearly contradictory.

<Detlev_> +1 to mike

<JakeAbma> +1 to Mike too

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask are we talking about Change of Content or context

<Wilco> prefer 3

<Detlev_> 1, to be clear...

Gregg: I was confused by the comment about changing "content" and "context"

<Rachael> straw poll: 1) Fix definition 2) Add more clarification/examples to notes 3) No change

<JakeAbma> 1

<alastairc> 1

<Chuck> 1

<JakeAbma> 1

<GreggVan> 1

<AWK> 3, then 2

<ShawnT> 2

<SuzanneTaylor> 1

<GN015> 1

<JakeAbma> 1 and 1

<Wilco> 3, then 2

1

<kirkwood> 1

<MelanieP> 2

<Jaunita_George> 1

<brucebailey> 0

<AWK> Gregg, didn't you just say we couldn't change the normative definition?

<Wilco> Yes

<AWK> Yes

<ShawnT> no

<JakeAbma> no

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say it is both

<GreggVan> if you change it -- it is a normative change

<GreggVan> Then that is wrong

<GreggVan> if it is the only thing

<AWK> Right, you seem to have suggested that we should make that normative change

Alastair: We are talking about a change in context, but that definition begins by stating it is a change in content.
... this is a farily obvious contradtion in the definition.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-change-of-context

Gregg: If you are changing "context" to "content" that is a massive change.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1765/files

Alastair: The current definition stats a change of context IS a change in content.

<SuzanneTaylor> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#context-changedef

Alastair: the proposal is to remove the wording so it doesn't contradict

Wilco: I think updating a definition is an intended fix

Alastair: How do you square that with a change of user agent?

Rachael: If we clarify the definition without changing the current wording but fixes the probelm would you still object?
... So there is a path forward to change it?

Wilco: Yes, but I don't prefer it.

Jake: I think it fixes the definition for those success criteria

AWK: Alastair, can you repeat with what you said, in response to Wilco?

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-change-of-context

Alastair: The current definition used in On Focus and Input, and then include 2 examples that aren't changes in the web page.

AWK: I think that... I guess my feeling is that like Wilco is saying people will ask 'why is this changed?'
... I'd want to look very carefully to make sure it's not causing any problems.
... My concern with removing "of the web page" is that people begin to think that the conformance model isn't based on the page.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say -- change in new version and issue errata on old version to indicate that it was poorly worded before. ALSO change view to perceive

AWK: I wonder if this is a major problem.

<alastairc> Used in 3 SCs, on-focus, on-input, Change on Request (AAA)

Gregg: I think we change in the new version. We should issue an erratum on the old version. To show that this is not a change from the old, and it wasn't worded properly.
... Clearly the intent was that anything would throw the person off -- including throwing them around on the page.
... If you add javascript that throws people somewhere else on the page, then it is the page that's doing it.

Detlev: I think the impression was to exclude things that go to another page

<AWK> No, that isn't a violation

Detlev: is it already a violation of a On Input if something opens in another page?

<AWK> You click on a link and expect something will happen

<alastairc> How about "major changes triggered by the content..."

<Wilco> It shouldn't be, I think this change suggests it to be

Gregg: A link is supposed to go somewhere else, so that's not a violation.

Rachael: I think we have a desire to fix this definition, to make a change that is not quite so extreme.
... I think that is the path.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/737

Alastair: I will put a comment in the issue I just pasted to summarize today's discussion.

<Rachael> Summary: We have a general desire to fix the definition but concerns about how and about current wording. Possible way forward is to make a change that does not change the meaning and use errata to fix previous versions.

Gregg: it's an important discussion.

<brucebailey> i made edits to wiki https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Timelines

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/captued/captured/
Succeeded: s/languag/language/
Succeeded: s/MelanonP/MelanieP/
Succeeded: s/I'm thinking of qualitative and quantitative aspects/I'm thinking of qualitative and quantitative aspects where both might go into one outcome/
Succeeded: s/Jean/Jeanne/
Succeeded: s/definiton/definition/
Succeeded: s/nad/and/
Default Present: Chuck, Rachael, JakeAbma, alastairc, david-macdonald, MichaelC, Laura_Carlson, Jennie, janina, shadi, StefanS, jon_avila, Lauriat, Jaunita_George, ShawnT, brucebailey, Detlev, GreggVan, Wilco, Jen_G, JustineP, Raf, MarcJohlic, MelanieP, mbgower, SuzanneTaylor, KimD, kirkwood, AWK, Nicaise, multiple, Detlev_, Francis_Storr
Present: Chuck, Rachael, JakeAbma, alastairc, david-macdonald, MichaelC, Laura_Carlson, Jennie, janina, shadi, StefanS, jon_avila, Lauriat, Jaunita_George, ShawnT, brucebailey, Detlev, GreggVan, Wilco, Jen_G, JustineP, Raf, MarcJohlic, MelanieP, mbgower, SuzanneTaylor, KimD, kirkwood, AWK, Nicaise, multiple, Detlev_, Francis_Storr
Regrets: Alistair G
Found Scribe: JakeAbma
Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Scribes: JakeAbma, mbgower
ScribeNicks: JakeAbma, mbgower

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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)