<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2024-09-10

<alastairc> chair:Chuck

<ChrisLoiselle> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

Chuck: Opens with introductions.
... any announcements?

Nina: I work at SAP. I joined a few times before. I wanted to introduce myself.

Rachael: I will walk you through IRC if you need to.

Chuck: Future topics?

WCAG2ICT Review Intro

MaryJo: We are really close to publishing a final note. We need to make sure AGWG reviews changes from July 2nd publication.
... 38 issues , cleaning up document, consistency and addressing horizontal review comments were covered.

we are approaching AG's review of our work. Very editorial in nature.

Email will go out later today to list all issues and a diff file.

Chuck: We will be looking to take CfC for publication. The email will be the opportunity to review prior. CfC is looking like next week. Please take opportunity to review.

Subgroup check-in

MaryJo: There is a new issue as of yesterday on security and we have that in our queue to review and take action.

Chuck: Section labels is first subgroup

Giacomo: In our last meeting, I walked through the assertion topics. I can provide a summary of group's activities.

We tried to dive into the outcomes. If a label or heading makes sense, we need to understand context first. Shifted focus to outcome of order of content.

<Detlev> can't find the link for the Zoom call in the calendar (one have this problem)....

Giacomo: Connections of various elements on page. Relationships of elements being correct and hierarchy of headings need to be addressed.
... programmatic and semantic association need to be in place. The outcome is a building block. Visual appearance and programmatic.
... testers or other people without technical expertise should be able to understand this. Our subgroup is small, we welcome new members.

Chuck: any other comments?
... Non text contrast is next.

AlastairC: we are still starting to asynchronously work. We have a list of methods and a starting of decision tree.

Chuck: Is there anything we can do to help?

AlastairC: I don't think so. Time calendars and location .

Chuck: Haptic stimulation is up next.

<mbgower> q

MikeG: I am on committee, DJ is leading. I wasn't able to meet yesterday.

We completed decision tree and identified that we need research.

We added a new outcome, that haptic feedback is clearly described.

We wanted to research on haptic feedback and what research is out there. We are quite close to a formal review.

Chuck: Keyboard only is next.

<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uE2WCxPmvNopdCbuZQm_-cGyEdxEouRmZ8UUIlyutoU/edit#heading=h.32s6jns6ic2d

Bruce: Notes were captured on the above link. We have met a number of times to date. Talks to outcomes. Keyboard only is a superset of other keyboard outcomes.

touches on 22 of 25 outcomes we were exploring.

decision tree vs. keyboard commands - the approach is that the app or vendor needs to declare the keyboard commands.

It is hard to separate from keyboard and keyboard trap.

we talked to assertions entire last call, assertions very specific to outcomes that assertions would be global.

<alastairc> If everything can be objectively tested, that's ok!

VPAT template and set of assertions topic was covered. Tool x, meets x, y, z . Testing tool such as andi for testing focus for example.

Chuck: If everything can be objectively tested, that is ok. Chuck, reading Alastair's comments.
... Broad scoping parameters , are you doing ok not to boil the ocean?

Bruce: there are some outcomes we aren't going to be able to touch on.

Chuck: Implied meaning.
... is next.

JulieR: We have drafted two methods , we need to build out our tests. We aligned on a decision tree. Topic was around literal language vs. implied meaning.

We are working on examples of literal language. We want this a quick list and then linking to more details.

We are looking to include in English, but then add other languages in wiki.

If you have non literal language , then "X." We recognize why some may want to keep non literal language. If so, is there an explanation for that/

Talks to example with works of art, is that an exception vs. it being an educational project and needing that as an explanation by default.

GN: On interest , do you have distinction of text of applicable text, i.e. travel blog talking about their adventures. vs. ticket for a train vs. educational website.

needs may be different.

JulieR: We want to build outcome out so local author in local language can use literal or non literal meaning. We don't want people to have to figure out what is meant by the author. Figurative language...goal is not to make people confused by what is written on word play. We want to avoid barrier to understanding.

GN: Compliant or not is also a key aspect , so strictness of this is something we need to review.

JulieR: What counts for non literal vs. jargon , general vs. expertise . Example for car website , technical terms . Fuel injection carbonator may be understood terms but piece of cake may be confused by the reader.

Kevin: A list of examples and a wiki - a concern on exhaustive list. What would the list purpose be if we can't capture all languages and idioms. Are we looking to add this in to the how to documents? How many idioms are necessary to get point across without using too much time and resources otherwise?

JulieR: The details of identifying phrasing in French vs. English is difficult. We talked to the internationalization group with W3C and we could pressure test it with different languages.
... On the examples on other language, that is what Wiki was going to be for. Wasn't to list all idioms, but be an example off of description of outcome.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I encourage folks to think about the process being described here, and how we could have a different potential approach with a LLM, synonym ring, etc

MikeG: This problem is similar to personalization. Same concern is that instead of outcomes there is a tendency to go toward solutions. Author roles in isolation.

<mbgower> https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03518

MikeG: If you flip that , you have a controlled vocabulary that you can then review from there.
... Rather than have authors will do this, you could get to an outcome that could sync in with AT with LLM that would allow preference for final terms. Prescriptive solutions may be dating our technology approaches.

<Rachael> +1 to focusing on documenting outcomes at this point in the process

<alastairc> We should have both, with the author aspects not needed when the user-agent side is there.

<Laura_Carlson> Method decision tree: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P7fOyEPVlqf1aXuJY0SO9LeC-E7EZllg/edit#heading=h.ns9t84syqcfv

JulieR: If you are using English and using Grammarly you may get this feature, however in other languages, they may not be as robust.
... wanted to make sure we differentiate tools vs. humans ability to do this if we didn't have access to LLM tools.

Rachael: We should be concentrated on the outcomes for sure.

Chuck: On any other subgroup update?

Subgroup PR https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112 and https://deploy-preview-112--wcag3.netlify.app/

Chuck: Shares screen on GitHub.
... On screen, shows WCAG 3 Outcomes, focus appearance with button to see more. Same for text alternatives.
... Moves to focus appearance link, provides get started, goal, what to do. Brief phrasing is key on both of these areas.

Text alternatives is also showcased on screen. Goal is not defined as of yet, but what to do and definitions are present.

<Chuck> Zakim> agendum 3 -- Subgroup PR https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112 and https://deploy-preview-112--wcag3.netlify.app/ -- taken up [from Chuck]

AlastairC: Is this taken from Google Doc and is now a more dynamic linked up website?
... Put yourself in the frame of mind of I'm testing this, does the top structure work.

Chuck: Top structure for navigation is get started, methods, user needs, research.

Rachael: This is comparable to the understanding documents. We will collect feedback .

Chuck: To peer chairs, on resolution, are we looking to review in full for next week?

<alastairc> Please review at: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/pull/112

AlastairC: Please do review and place comments there.

Terminology conversation https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/113#discussion-7138461

Chuck: Terminology conversation is next topic. Shares GitHub link and shares screen .

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1drV0lGDIURh9Uq2UrOyJAos9GgzYJjkj51YnHkaTdBg/edit#heading=h.5mlxz1j23hnb

Chuck: Also mentioned Google doc for terminology.

We are trying to get terminology for scope, test types and accessibility supported.

Chuck: opens to Detlev

Detlev: Nothing to add outside of my comments.

Chuck: talks through scope and current vs. proposals for scope term.

Rachael: talks through scope terms. Also mentions aggregate , i.e. website, product, etc.

Chuck: I will attend to put out a poll on proposals

Bruce: might be confusion on terminology of scope.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on element/component and task-flow.

AlastairC: on chicken and egg type of scenario. Could be aggregate or could be at item level.
... so they can note that on a conformance claim.

<Detlev> MAYBE JUST CALL IT LEVEL RATHER THAN SCOPE?

<Detlev> sorry for caps

AlastairC: Component vs. atomic component and same for element , as it relates to HTML.

?

Rachael: As we start writing , we want to agree on what we are referencing.

<kirkwood> “Current 1” seems cleanest / clearest to me

Kevin: For point of clarity, is it on what proposal to take ? Different points to each but not a totality vote? Would that be proposal 5?

<Chuck> Chris: Before getting to the voting for a proposal, I appreciate this, but more on the definition of scope. Looking at WCAG EM and WAI...

<Chuck> Chris: Is the "scope" to be in line with those, or more unit based? For me it relates to these proposals and how we would reference the term "scope". Just wondering if I'm missing something. Is this just on testing?

Detlev: premature to have a poll.

<kirkwood> suggested by JK Proposal 5: Item, View, user process, product

<Chuck> qq+ to ask for scribe change

<Zakim> ChrisLoiselle, you wanted to comment on proposal too.

<bruce_bailey> I read question as having *4* things to be scoped, not changing definition of scope.

<Detlev> I can scribe

<Zakim> ChrisLoiselle, you wanted to comment on proposal too.

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

<Chuck> qq-

AC: goal is agreed set of terms for publication

<kevin> +1 for note that this is just for next publication and can be revisited

AC: gets difficult if we keep changing - need agreement before publication otherwise messy

<GN015> What about polling each level separately how we would like to call it?

<kirkwood> Rachael, sorry, yes.

Chris: item seems ok better than element - does it also include elements and components?

Rachael: going for item is that it can be different things in testing - any thing that can be examined by itself

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on what an item is

Rachael: components within player may also be an item

AC: what is an item would be defined per outcome
... we need something for "a unit within a view"

Chuck: reportinng Bonn Gundulas suggestion to go for line by linne
... any objections?

AC: no alterntives for second (view)

<Chuck> strawpoll: item, element or component

<Azlan> component

<Chuck> item

<Avon> item

<Laura_Carlson> Item

<alastairc> item, the others have too much baggage from other areas.

Chuck: please vote on them

<dan_bjorge> item

<GN015> element

<Frankie> item

<jtoles7> item

<kirkwood> I meant: Item, Component, View, Product

<rscano> item

<Rachael> item

not sure

<Francis_Storr> item

<ashleyfirth> item

<julierawe> not sure

<dan_bjorge> "testable unit"? but ok with item

<bruce_bailey> element or component, item is too generic

<filippo-zorzi> item

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on kirkwood's proposal

<tburtin> not sure

<giacomo-petri> item

<scott> element or item. though the use of 'item' isn't really commonly used in my experience of working with web or native apps

AC: explaining the levels

<ChrisLoiselle> item per what is proposed, seems to early to talk to this though. If items could have sub items per what you are contextually phrasing here, that may be worthwhile

JohnK: an item can be an element within a component components are standardized within an org

<ChrisLoiselle> an item (media player) may have multiple "items" (controls) so the media player is the item, what are the buttons and other things called within the media player?

<ChrisLoiselle> components or items within the larger item?

AC: we have to be flexible - components can be big or very small - it is more of a placeholder now, gives us flexibility to be used in different outcomes

Chuck: items won
... View needs no pollinng

<Chuck> strawpoll: user process, series of views, or task flow

<Avon> task flow

<Chuck> user process

not sure - group of views?

<kevin> process but can live with user process

<Laura_Carlson> user process

<alastairc> user process, but a "task" or "task flow" may be reasonable if we create outcomes which need that.

<GN015> task flow

<kirkwood> task flow

<Frankie> user flow or task flow

<Azlan> user process, task flow

<Rachael> task flow

<robu01> task flow

<ChrisLoiselle> task flow

<dan_bjorge> can't answer without seeing usage

<dan_bjorge> "series of views" vs "user process" imply different things

<Makoto> task flow

<Azlan> Edit - user flow as suggested by Frankie

<bruce_bailey> process but user process okay

<Francis_Storr> task flow

<scott> agree with dan. it's a strange poll between two similar terms, and one very different

<Chuck> Detlev: Risky to call it user flow, the test needs to be defined on the test object. Sequence or group of pages. Users can do all sorts of things.

<Chuck> Detlev: Unless a flow is constrained, such as slides in a particular order. The "user" is not a very useful term.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on when process would be used

<scott> "flow" alone might be better?

Rachael: user flow has the advantage ongoing both across views but also within views

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say "task flow" has the consensus

AC: Laying out the general idea of"grouping within product"

Chuck: task flow won

<scott> not every flow is a 'task' flow?

<Chuck> strawpoll: product, aggregate, scope of test, app level

Chuck: sorry Chuck said task flow won!
... fourth poll

<Chuck> product

<kevin> product

<Avon> product

<Laura_Carlson> product

<Makoto> product

<Frankie> product

<Rachael> product

<alastairc> product

<Azlan> product

<jtoles7> product

<scott> product or scope of test

<bruce_bailey> scope of test

<ChrisLoiselle> product

<GN015> product

conformance target

<giacomo-petri> product > scope of test

<robu01> product

Gregorio: railing the q whether a publication can be a product

AC: yes

<Kimberly> scope of test

AC: will be self-defined making a conformance claim

<Chuck> Detlev: I can imagine there are situations where people will make conformance claims for just a part of the product. Another issue if that's possible in light of complete processes. In practical purposes, people will test conformance for the "checkout" process or in a library the "catalog" process. Prefer below "product" because we need

<Chuck> something below that.

<kirkwood> product

AC: agree with practicalities - needs info on product level conformance claims - where people need to define that - needs to be seen if we want to allow that
... for "more than a view" product seems a good term

Azlan: We have features / items within a product - can that not be treated as a task flow and thereby as subset of product

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on products / services

Gregorio: European Commission uses products for physical things

AC: product teams oft think product-orientated

Chuck: Product had most consensus
... any objections?

<Chuck> strawpoll: product, aggregate, scope of test, app level

<Azlan> product

<kevin> product

<Chuck> product

<jaunita_george> product

<filippo-zorzi> product

<Frankie> product

<bruce_bailey> product

<Rachael> scope of test or product

happy with product then

<jtoles7> product

<alastairc> product, could live with 'scope of test', it's just not as pithy

<kirkwood> product

<GN015> "product or service"

<ChrisLoiselle> product and/or service

Chuck: product still leads

<Laura_Carlson> product

<ChrisLoiselle> I like offering both

<kevin> GN015++

<Avon> product...but I wonder if the word feature could be in the list either as #3 or as a fifth term less than Product

Chuck: thanks to Gundula for idea for pollinng

<kirkwood> btw: in the old days this was the ‘publication’

Rachael: Include service?

<Chuck> strawpoll: product, aggregate, scope of test, app level, service

Chuck: adding service

<Chuck> product, service

<Laura_Carlson> product

<Avon> product

<Azlan> product

<kirkwood> product

<jtoles7> product

<kevin> product (strong -1 to service)

<bruce_bailey> product

<GN015> I like the joint term 'product or service', can live with 'product'

<Frankie> product, service

Product/service (depending o case)

<Makoto> product

<filippo-zorzi> product

<robu01> Product/Service

<Rachael> scope of test, product, service

<alastairc> "Product" still. We need a short term for these scopes. "Product or Service" is too long, "Service" on it's own is misleading.

<scott> product

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Scope terminology 1. Item, 2. View, 3. Task Flow, 4. Product

<Rachael> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Chuck> +1

<kevin> +1

<Frankie> +1

<Azlan> +1

<Makoto> +1

<jtoles7> +1

<Regina> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

0 tendingn +1

<scott> +1 but would still rather it just be "flow" rather than task flow

<kirkwood> +1

<filippo-zorzi> +1

<GN015> +1

Kevin: Explained page for this?

<Avon> +1, although wondering about the word "feature"

<jaunita_george> +1

RESOLUTION: Scope terminology 1. Item, 2. View, 3. Task Flow, 4. Product

Rachael: yes we will have that

Chuck: now test types

<alastairc> Avon - that could be quite wide, some features are multiple views, some are the same as components...

Chuck: four options, but we may use line-by-line approach
... laying out proposals for test types....
... the first one is characterized by being repeatable / uniform, the second more variable

<GN015> What about calling it 'repeatable' and 'variable' (or something similar)

<kirkwood> objective, Poll ?

Dan: why does it need a binary terminology?

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/113#discussioncomment-10603806

<ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/113

Chris: in GitHub discussion there were some questions what test types could be considered...

<kirkwood> is an ai test a subjective test?

Chris: arethese the only test types that we would be able to include in the subgroups?

Rachael: when we went from WCAG 2, all these test types needed to fit in - in each SC we had different types of tests, from strict Onnes to somewhat subjective ones
... at the time it wasimportannt to pull that apart, leading to a continuum of measurability
... nice to have these terms when the issue is how measurable these tests are, so it is a fallback to assess test types

JohnK: is an AI test an objective test? Could seem to be objective or subjective

Chuck: your were using objective / subjective

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to note a scenario about how these could be used.

JohnK: : and measurable

<dan_bjorge> Gregg isn't on the call today but added his thoughts in a comment 25m ago. I agree with most of what he wrote. https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/113#discussioncomment-10604874

AC: they are helpful term for us - when working on decision trees, say language set: objective, other things different where nothing may be wrong, anymore subjective Onnes like the output of an LLM was the same as the text before

Chuck: Could be a spectrum - but Rachael has good point that we need those terms to assessing the continuum
... gregg mad a comment

made!

<kirkwood> objective, human (poll)

AC: the thrust of Greggs comment is "reliably testable" / "not reliably testable"

<kirkwood> 8 out of t0: poll

Rachael: not sure about that - WCAG 2 has 100% repeatable or 8/10 agree
... and good things to do but not objectively testable

<alastairc> objective & contextual?

Chris: looking at alt attribute and whether is applied correctly whether it is appropriate would alway be subjective - or is it objective in that it has alt text

JohnK: Thinking about real world scenarios / court room - it is about human fault

<kirkwood> aren’t we talking about a poll? (this precedent ha held in court)

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if it could be to do with flexibility? I.e. there is a range of possible answers

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say moving target of when human judgement is needed.

<alastairc> scribe+

<alastairc> Rachael: Previously we looked at human judgement vs automatable, but that's a moving target.

<alastairc> ... perhaps we should step back from this? Allow for several types of test rather than these two terms.

<kirkwood> ai makes this murky

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say my recollection is we talked about 'arbitary' guides which let us make a subjective test more objective

<alastairc> Chuck: Agree, this could keep going, let's go ansync

<ChrisLoiselle> Perhaps https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/ and the result of what they would be via objective vs. subjective

<scribe> scribe: Detlev

<GN015> What about measurable & judgement ?

<alastairc> mbgower: I think we'd previously discussed this, and with non-text content it's objective whether there is an alt-text.

<kirkwood> equivalent alt text though?

<alastairc> ... we could also have a subjective guideline with arbitary lines.

<alastairc> ... e.g. alt-text must be at least two words.

MikeG: non text content: it is pretty objective you can set your own limits and measure against that objectively
... as a way of pushing over more stuff into the objective field

<alastairc> ... we're pushing more and more into objective, there will always be some that are subjective.

<alastairc> mbgower: I think subjective/objective are the best terms for this, if we need them.

JohnK: the question whether alt is equivalent is subjective

Gundula: : one problem is the similarity of the opposing terms, may cause a cognitive problem for some - different terms would be better

Chuck: usign alt text only as a example to get on the same page

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to move this out to github

MikeG: equivalent is hard to judge - accuracy id easier to assess (image of cat labelled dog) >- more predictable - what are we trying to achieve is the important thing

<kirkwood> agreed

Chuck: thanks to all for points
... now accessibility supported

AC: term is familiar; has issues / misunderstandinngs
... AT supported or full term

<mbgower> That's why I think we want to have measures like 'equivalent' at a Gold (or whatever) level, while something like "accurate" is more likely to be successful at a Bronze/Silver leverl

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on API supported

Rachael: Instead of having one overarching category one about general AT, the other for things that have actually been tested

AC: API Supported seems confusing - which. API?

<dan_bjorge> Have to run early, but +1 to alastair here, I vote AT supported if you get to a straw poll today

Chuck: :as a member - you need more before voting?

<scott> platform api supported?

<Francis_Storr> +1 to alastair's comment

AC: : needs more justification, perhaps different terminologx
... suggest a quick poll

<kirkwood> Proposal 2

<Chuck> Poll: Do you prefer option 1, 2, or 3

<kirkwood> 2

<scott> 1 or 3 (though this one is not perfect either)

<Azlan> 2

<Rachael> 2

<Avon> 2

<Makoto> 2

<Laura_Carlson> 2

1 = accessibility supported 2 = A>T supported 3: API supported

<alastairc> 2

<Rachael> also 2 for Dan

<kevin> 2

<Chuck> 2

<ChrisLoiselle> 2

2

<GN015> 3

<Kimberly> 2

<jtoles7> 1, 2

<mbgower> 1

<bruce_bailey> 2

<Jon_avila> 1

<jaunita_george> 2

<giacomo-petri> +1 to scott

Scott: what does AT mean when different technology can expose things differently? Always needs to explain that to customers

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/53#discussioncomment-9353131

+1 to Scott (form <detlev)

<Jon_avila> I +1 to Scott - AT is too limiting.

<kirkwood> fair point, scott do you have a suggestion?

Scott: :stronngly opposes option 2

<Jon_avila> Support may not be through AT but accessibility features of browsers, platforms, or other technology that is not assistive technology.

<giacomo-petri> 1

AC: telling about earlier proposal - there would be responsibility on authors to test it or regulators to set some baseline to ensure it works
... just renaming

<kirkwood> Technology Supported ?

<alastairc> Jon_avila - agree, but is user-agent a better term?

<Chuck> Poll: Do you prefer option 1, 2, or 3

Chuck: Given the stated concerns I am comfortable with current terminology

<giacomo-petri> 1

<Chuck> 1

Scott: string worry that this terminology leads to fix content out of misunderstanding the way the particular AT works

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the framing

AC: recognize Scott's scenario - we need a concept for authors to know if a particular tech will work for AT users - need a flexible answer at higher levels of conformance - in the region they are

<kirkwood> proposal 5: technology accommodation?’

Scott: suggestion 3 is more to the point - or stick with the ambiguous one (option 1) where you have to define where it works or where gaps are
... leads to blaming content when bugs in AT may be the issue

<alastairc> I don't really follow the "there's a bug in the AT so it's the website's fault".

Chuck: will be continued on nGitHub

<scott> thank you for listening to my feedback

<Jon_avila> I don't think we can limit to API as some technology uses DOM such as browser based extensions.

can someone create the minutes

should I send hem out?

<alastairc> yes please

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/we ned something fe/we need something for/
Succeeded: s/Laying out the general ida of /Laying out the general idea of/
Succeeded: s/AC: task flow/Chuck: task flow/
Default Present: Chuck, Laura_Carlson, ChrisLoiselle, filippo-zorzi, Francis_Storr, graham, bruce_bailey, hdv, wendyreid, alastairc, Rachael, Jennie_Delisi, giacomo-petri, tburtin, Ben_Tillyer, Makoto, shadi, kevin, Frankie, ShawnT, MJ, ljoakley, jeanne, gpellegrino, dan_bjorge, kirkwood, mbgower, jtoles, scotto, jaunita_george, julierawe, GN, elguerrero, Avon, sarahhorton, Kimberly, AlinaV, maryjom, rscano, scott, ashleyfirth, Detlev, Jen_G, Glenda, jon_avila, Azlan
Present: Chuck, Laura_Carlson, ChrisLoiselle, filippo-zorzi, Francis_Storr, graham, bruce_bailey, hdv, wendyreid, alastairc, Rachael, Jennie_Delisi, giacomo-petri, tburtin, sarahhorton, kevin, Kimberly, AlinaV, maryjom, rscano, kirkwood, jtoles7, scott, julierawe, ashleyfirth, Detlev, Jen_G, Glenda, jon_avila, dan_bjorge, Azlan, gpellegrino, mbgower, GN015
Regrets: Todd Libby, Poornima
Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Scribes: ChrisLoiselle, Detlev
ScribeNicks: ChrisLoiselle, Detlev

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)