IRC log of wai-wcag on 2003-12-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:57:43 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:57:48 [Yvette]
- ok :-)
- 20:58:00 [silvia]
- ops... no, I'm italian
- 20:58:04 [silvia]
- ;-)
- 20:58:19 [rscano]
- everyone waves to Wendy :)
- 20:58:26 [wendy]
- zakim, list conferences
- 20:58:26 [Zakim]
- I see Team_(sw-team)19:59Z, WS_ArchWG()3:30PM active
- 20:58:27 [Zakim]
- also scheduled at this time are SVG_WG()4:00PM, WAI_UAWG()2:00PM, WAI_WCAG()4:00PM
- 20:58:35 [wendy]
- zakim, this will be WAI_WCAG
- 20:58:35 [Zakim]
- ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
- 20:58:39 [silvia]
- Thanks Yvette for your "pyramid" of accessibility
- 20:58:51 [Yvette]
- You liked it?
- 20:58:58 [silvia]
- Yes!
- 20:59:04 [doyle]
- doyle has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:59:10 [ben]
- ben has joined #wai-wcag
- 20:59:11 [doyle]
- hello all
- 20:59:16 [silvia]
- I like it in italian translation
- 20:59:19 [silvia]
- hello doyle
- 20:59:30 [rscano]
- i've done it in italian :P
- 20:59:30 [Zakim]
- WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
- 20:59:37 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 20:59:59 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 21:00:13 [Zakim]
- +Ray_Whitmer
- 21:00:13 [silvia]
- thans Roberto also!
- 21:00:14 [wendy]
- who are the early bird callers? ;)
- 21:00:31 [rscano]
- i'm calling now :)
- 21:00:39 [Zakim]
- +??P13
- 21:00:42 [Zakim]
- +Wendy
- 21:00:57 [rscano]
- hum... it tell me invalid number :-/
- 21:01:01 [Yvette]
- Zakim, ??P13 is Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:01:01 [Zakim]
- +Yvette_Hoitink; got it
- 21:01:05 [wendy]
- matt mirabella, doyle, michael craddok
- 21:01:07 [Yvette]
- Zakim, I am Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:01:07 [Zakim]
- ok, Yvette, I now associate you with Yvette_Hoitink
- 21:01:15 [Zakim]
- +??P16
- 21:01:21 [wendy]
- zakim ??P2 is Matt_Mirabella
- 21:01:28 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P16 is Mike_Barta
- 21:01:28 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Barta; got it
- 21:01:36 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P10 is Michael_Craddock
- 21:01:36 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Craddock; got it
- 21:01:46 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:01:46 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ??P2, Michael_Craddock, Ray_Whitmer, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Mike_Barta
- 21:01:52 [Zakim]
- +??P17
- 21:02:02 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P2 is Matt_Mirabella
- 21:02:02 [Zakim]
- +Matt_Mirabella; got it
- 21:02:04 [Zakim]
- +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
- 21:02:13 [Zakim]
- +JasonWhite
- 21:02:23 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P17 is Ben_Caldwell
- 21:02:23 [Zakim]
- +Ben_Caldwell; got it
- 21:02:39 [ben]
- zakim, I am Ben_Caldwell
- 21:02:39 [Zakim]
- ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben_Caldwell
- 21:03:23 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:03:23 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Matt_Mirabella, Michael_Craddock, Ray_Whitmer, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Mike_Barta, Ben_Caldwell, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite
- 21:04:08 [Zakim]
- +Matt.a
- 21:04:09 [wendy]
- zakim, Ray_Whitmer is Doyle_Burnett
- 21:04:09 [Zakim]
- +Doyle_Burnett; got it
- 21:04:21 [wendy]
- zakim, Matt.a is Matt_May
- 21:04:21 [Zakim]
- +Matt_May; got it
- 21:04:34 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 21:05:04 [bengt]
- hmm, I get Invalid number
- 21:05:15 [wendy]
- bengt - weird.
- 21:05:17 [rscano]
- me too
- 21:05:26 [Yvette]
- that's odd
- 21:05:33 [rscano]
- https://www.dialpad.com/dialpad/ecode.php?ec=V14
- 21:05:35 [rscano]
- this error
- 21:05:48 [rscano]
- i'm contacting online dialpad with chat system
- 21:06:38 [Zakim]
- +Avi_Arditti
- 21:06:48 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:06:48 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Matt_Mirabella, Michael_Craddock, Doyle_Burnett, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Mike_Barta, Ben_Caldwell, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Matt_May, [IBM], Avi_Arditti
- 21:07:36 [Zakim]
- -[IBM]
- 21:08:45 [ben]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/11/18-f2f-review-draft.html
- 21:09:34 [Zakim]
- +??P22
- 21:09:47 [bengt]
- it works again
- 21:09:47 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P22 is Bengt_Farre
- 21:09:47 [Zakim]
- +Bengt_Farre; got it
- 21:09:55 [bengt]
- done
- 21:10:05 [wendy]
- zakim, mute bengt
- 21:10:05 [Zakim]
- Bengt_Farre should now be muted
- 21:10:06 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 21:10:30 [Zakim]
- +??P28
- 21:10:51 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P28 is Roberto_Scano
- 21:10:51 [Zakim]
- +Roberto_Scano; got it
- 21:10:56 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 21:10:56 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Matt_Mirabella, Michael_Craddock, Doyle_Burnett, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Mike_Barta, Ben_Caldwell, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Matt_May, Avi_Arditti,
- 21:10:59 [rscano]
- zakim, I am Roberto_Scano
- 21:10:59 [Zakim]
- ... Bengt_Farre (muted), [IBM], Roberto_Scano
- 21:11:00 [Zakim]
- ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
- 21:11:03 [MattSEA]
- MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:11:05 [rscano]
- zakim, mute me
- 21:11:05 [Zakim]
- Roberto_Scano should now be muted
- 21:11:14 [wendy]
- 1.6: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/11/18-f2f-review-draft.html#visual-contrast
- 21:11:17 [bengt]
- zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
- 21:11:17 [Zakim]
- ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
- 21:13:01 [Zakim]
- +??P29
- 21:13:15 [wendy]
- zakim, ??P29 is Kerstin_Goldsmith
- 21:13:15 [Zakim]
- +Kerstin_Goldsmith; got it
- 21:13:31 [wendy]
- 1.6: in visual presentations, make it easy to distinguish words and images.
- 21:13:44 [rscano]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/11/18-f2f-review-draft.html#visual-contrast
- 21:14:00 [wendy]
- easy is subjective. but this is a guideline (not success criterion)
- 21:14:46 [wendy]
- level 2 sc (proposed wording): when displaying text against a background, provide a method to make the contrast between foreground and background greater than ____ as measured by ____.
- 21:14:59 [wendy]
- testable, if we can fill in the blanks.
- 21:15:08 [rscano]
- yep
- 21:15:35 [wendy]
- "provide a method" needed?
- 21:15:53 [Zakim]
- -Matt_May
- 21:15:55 [wendy]
- is it just, "...make the contrast between..." or "it must be possible for the viewer to obtain contrast..."
- 21:16:19 [wendy]
- acceptable if user selected with mouse and that give contrast.
- 21:16:22 [rscano]
- Pelli-Robson Contrast Test
- 21:16:39 [wendy]
- "when displaying text against background" talking about text or raster image of text.
- 21:17:05 [wendy]
- if text, can copy and paste or in some otherwise select.
- 21:17:28 [wendy]
- if you select text on a page, what happens to background image? browser-dependent.
- 21:17:58 [wendy]
- selecting the text is not the goal we're aiming for.
- 21:18:06 [wendy]
- turning off background image, another option.
- 21:18:21 [wendy]
- goal: want someone to read the document.
- 21:18:39 [wendy]
- at level 3 - be readable (by default). level 2 - user can make it readable.
- 21:18:48 [wendy]
- perhaps move level 3 up?
- 21:19:32 [wendy]
- can an author do anything that would prevent author from turning off background image.
- 21:19:40 [wendy]
- ?
- 21:19:55 [ben]
- q+
- 21:20:13 [wendy]
- do we assume UAAG is implemented? in which case those settings are available.
- 21:21:21 [wendy]
- WCAG 1.0 has "until user agents." in the past we've said, "user agents should do X, but they don't so authors have to do y." at some point, say "these are author responsibilities, these are user agent responsibilities" and constrain author responsibilities as much as possible.
- 21:21:45 [wendy]
- q+
- 21:22:22 [wendy]
- ack Ben
- 21:22:36 [wendy]
- other technologies such as svg or flash, won't be way to turn off background.
- 21:22:39 [Mat]
- Mat has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:22:45 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:23:48 [wendy]
- q+ to say "at techniques level, there will be specific user agent issues. ian jacobs mentions this in his comments."
- 21:24:18 [wendy]
- ack Loretta
- 21:24:55 [wendy]
- we tend to get lost in the relationships. even if explanatory, can help us reach decisions and help us show others how reached them.
- 21:25:40 [GVAN]
- GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
- 21:26:02 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:26:02 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "at techniques level, there will be specific user agent issues. ian jacobs mentions this in his comments."
- 21:26:08 [GVAN]
- who is on queuq
- 21:26:19 [wendy]
- q?
- 21:27:29 [wendy]
- ack jason
- 21:27:55 [Zakim]
- +Matt_May
- 21:28:01 [wendy]
- appropriate to move to level 2. for svg, user agent accessibility guideline conformant user agent would be able to meet the requirement as easily as html agent.
- 21:28:17 [ben]
- q+
- 21:28:17 [wendy]
- [wac would like to check with dean, chris, and ian on that point.]
- 21:28:31 [wendy]
- they are vector graphics, you can separate text from image.
- 21:28:38 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 21:28:49 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_Caldwell (9%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (19%)
- 21:29:24 [Mat]
- Mat has left #wai-wcag
- 21:30:01 [wendy]
- w/svg should be able to separate text from image, how would person get the text out? isn't it buried in data description of the picture?
- 21:31:07 [wendy]
- ack michael
- 21:31:24 [wendy]
- are we talking about all mediums or just flash and svg and html? they are all treated differently.
- 21:31:38 [wendy]
- how content should behave, without knowing what generated the content.
- 21:31:57 [wendy]
- at this level, trying to say, "how content should behave."
- 21:32:33 [wendy]
- level 2: material should either have contrast or have a way to create that condition.
- 21:32:53 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "A UA-independant solutions might involve other inaccessible techniques such as client side scripts"
- 21:32:55 [wendy]
- what is to keep an html author from creating white on white and saying, "just select it." thus, author responsibility to make it that way.
- 21:33:18 [wendy]
- have contrast or make it selectable.
- 21:33:20 [wendy]
- ack ben
- 21:33:43 [rscano]
- 12http://www.lighthouse.org/color_contrast.12htm01: this could be useful?
- 21:33:44 [wendy]
- w/svg you don't have the same structure as html. unstructured xml - any object can be background.
- 21:33:52 [wendy]
- don't think will have smart enough UA
- 21:34:00 [silvia]
- http://www.lighthouse.org/color_contrast.htm suggest easy rules for problem of contrast!
- 21:34:14 [wendy]
- ack matt
- 21:35:26 [wendy]
- default that text is selected
- 21:35:28 [wendy]
- ack mike
- 21:35:43 [wendy]
- what about dropcaps? frillwork makes it unreadable to person with low vision.
- 21:35:59 [wendy]
- just talking about background images or text embedded into images?
- 21:36:41 [wendy]
- roberto - the lighthouse work is useful here. i summarized it for the group a while ago: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0446.html
- 21:37:13 [wendy]
- haven't said that fonts ought to be recognizable. i.e., i can use wingdings and that's a font.
- 21:37:35 [wendy]
- q?
- 21:38:33 [wendy]
- in svg i can have a word, change first letter into something that is not easily recognizable as a character. it can have background and other features.
- 21:38:42 [wendy]
- ornate
- 21:39:21 [wendy]
- illuminate it and can create a font that is embedded (in svg)
- 21:39:38 [wendy]
- screen reader could read plain text, but if look at it...change to readable font by user preference.
- 21:39:42 [wendy]
- so, at core it is a letter.
- 21:39:58 [wendy]
- similar to embedded fonts in css. can apply to just the first letter. it's still overwritable.
- 21:40:26 [wendy]
- is the success criterion mean make it easy to distinguish words (easy to read fonts) or ...
- 21:40:31 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 21:40:31 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "A UA-independant solutions might involve other inaccessible techniques such as client side scripts"
- 21:40:56 [wendy]
- unack yvette
- 21:40:59 [wendy]
- ;)
- 21:41:12 [wendy]
- ack loretta
- 21:41:27 [wendy]
- trying to address issue of background obscuring what is there vs how readable in the first place.
- 21:41:44 [wendy]
- previous discussion of characters and font (illumination) is an issue for pdf.
- 21:42:12 [wendy]
- fonts are drawings of characters. in pdf, critical to know what character a glyph represents.
- 21:42:25 [wendy]
- fonts tell which character by position in font? don't have to.
- 21:42:42 [wendy]
- two issues being discussed and they need to be separate.
- 21:43:45 [wendy]
- covered under mention of symbols (map back to unicode). if not readable, still map back to unicode.
- 21:43:56 [wendy]
- sc that talksa bout symbols and diacritic marks.
- 21:44:16 [wendy]
- those cause it to not be mappable, but these characters (although heavily illuminated) would be mappable.
- 21:44:32 [wendy]
- partly, user agent issue. perhaps draw attn to fact that depend on ua guidelines.
- 21:44:51 [wendy]
- once represented in unicode and assuming it is valid, then css could handle it.
- 21:45:16 [wendy]
- action: editors add an example to the unicode guideline, hard to read font, due to UAAG could swap font.
- 21:45:23 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 21:45:35 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_Caldwell (73%)
- 21:46:36 [wendy]
- as a designer, would think i have to write a script to increase the contrast if it isn't enough.
- 21:46:47 [wendy]
- look at the formulation of criteria to determine if that is an acceptable solution.
- 21:47:34 [wendy]
- javascript dependent on user agents
- 21:48:01 [doyle]
- raises hand
- 21:50:02 [wendy]
- several issues with "content must work when technologies not supported." what are the base technologies?
- 21:50:53 [wendy]
- if you use an inaccessible technology, then not a valid option (my opinion). but it would conform to this guideline.
- 21:51:29 [wendy]
- if provide mechanism, pass this. but if it is not accessible, then fail that part of the guidelines.
- 21:51:30 [wendy]
- q?
- 21:52:03 [wendy]
- want to make sure that people can manipulate borwser to increase contrast or that authors must provide mechaniisms?
- 21:52:28 [wendy]
- do we want to write this in a way that it looks like authors have to provide a mechanism?
- 21:52:32 [wendy]
- ack doyle
- 21:53:11 [wendy]
- specifically, we're talking about text, think of writing with symbols instead of text and wasn't it just distinguishing factors in foreground and background.
- 21:53:23 [wendy]
- informaiton that would otherwise be print, can be displayed in other formats.
- 21:53:50 [wendy]
- or visual representations of shorthand.
- 21:54:09 [wendy]
- original guideline: foreground content is distinguishable from background...for visual default presentation.
- 21:54:55 [wendy]
- distinguish them from what? background.
- 21:55:45 [wendy]
- should we change this back to "make foreground content easily differentiable from background."
- 21:56:04 [wendy]
- q+ to say "not sure that solves anything. we still have the issues we've discussed..."
- 21:56:37 [rscano]
- http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp
- 21:57:10 [silvia]
- the formula is good idea!
- 21:57:28 [silvia]
- (in www.juicystudio.com)
- 21:57:31 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 21:57:31 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "not sure that solves anything. we still have the issues we've discussed..."
- 21:57:37 [wendy]
- ack loretta
- 21:57:54 [wendy]
- make it possible use ua to distinguish foreground/background.
- 21:58:26 [wendy]
- q+ to say "how about me and loretta take action item (and anyone else interested) to develop guideline/sc based on this discussion? figure out if need more than 1 guideline or do it all in one."
- 21:59:05 [wendy]
- originally, w/out asst. tech and w/out ua it is easy to tell the difference (started at level 2). today, talking about ua and non-ua.
- 21:59:24 [wendy]
- guideline said default but sc said "mechanism"
- 22:00:09 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "what about text presented over full color image, where contrast is lacking for just 1 pixel?"
- 22:00:14 [wendy]
- ack wendy
- 22:00:14 [Zakim]
- wendy, you wanted to say "how about me and loretta take action item (and anyone else interested) to develop guideline/sc based on this discussion? figure out if need more than 1
- 22:00:17 [Zakim]
- ... guideline or do it all in one."
- 22:01:16 [wendy]
- action: wendy, loretta, mat, gregg work on color contrast guideline(s)
- 22:01:19 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 22:01:19 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "what about text presented over full color image, where contrast is lacking for just 1 pixel?"
- 22:01:58 [wendy]
- if you have a formula to determine contrast, difficult to say if enough contrast or not.
- 22:02:07 [wendy]
- how many pixels does it take for something to not be readable?
- 22:02:12 [wendy]
- don't think we can find a formula.
- 22:02:43 [wendy]
- think we can create a tool that can look at letters and proximity of color/objects to determine contrast.
- 22:03:10 [doyle]
- Wendy, I'd actually like to help with the last action item, if okay.
- 22:03:24 [wendy]
- doyle - absolutely, thanks.
- 22:03:31 [wendy]
- RRSAgent drop action 2
- 22:03:36 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, drop action 2
- 22:03:49 [wendy]
- action: wendy, loretta, mat, gregg, doyle work on color contrast guideline(s)
- 22:04:42 [wendy]
- ===
- 22:04:54 [wendy]
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/11/18-f2f-review-draft.html#audio-contrast
- 22:05:00 [wendy]
- same issue as previous?
- 22:05:28 [wendy]
- measure speech and determine if dB above/below background.
- 22:05:34 [wendy]
- why separated?
- 22:05:39 [wendy]
- (had been one guideline)
- 22:06:04 [wendy]
- easier to think about the different levels of success criteria if keep audio and visual separate.
- 22:08:35 [wendy]
- zakim, who's making noise?
- 22:08:45 [Zakim]
- wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_Caldwell (80%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (15%)
- 22:09:04 [Yvette]
- q+ to say "20 db difference between loudest background and softest foreground or just at any one time?"
- 22:09:20 [wendy]
- consensus to keep separate?
- 22:09:36 [wendy]
- is 20 dB of difference between loudest background nosie and softest foreground noise or at any given time?
- 22:09:46 [wendy]
- could be made more clearly.
- 22:10:01 [doyle]
- Wendy did you not have different db numbers re (recent posts via articles)?
- 22:10:12 [wendy]
- proposal: "does not have background sounds that are at least 20 dB...x% of the time"
- 22:10:44 [wendy]
- thus, could be a cymbal crash (that would conflict with part of foreground) but could still be ok.
- 22:11:05 [wendy]
- ack yvette
- 22:11:05 [Zakim]
- Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to say "20 db difference between loudest background and softest foreground or just at any one time?"
- 22:11:20 [wendy]
- zakim, mute Loretta
- 22:11:20 [Zakim]
- Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted
- 22:12:01 [wendy]
- ack Matt
- 22:12:24 [wendy]
- most auditroy content is a single track, thus no way to control foreground vs background noise.
- 22:12:28 [silvia]
- silvia has joined #wai-wcag
- 22:12:30 [wendy]
- this is why this is level 2.
- 22:12:40 [wendy]
- if you want to go beyond level 1, you have to save this as multiple tracks>
- 22:12:41 [wendy]
- ?
- 22:12:58 [wendy]
- no, you just can't have level 2 if have content that has lots of noise.
- 22:13:14 [wendy]
- what about a text transcript as alternative?
- 22:13:22 [wendy]
- that is a level 1 requirement. wouldn't solve this as level 2.
- 22:14:04 [wendy]
- was dB a level 3 at one time? what if audio is always captioned?
- 22:17:34 [wendy]
- this gets us back to a conformance discussion.
- 22:18:03 [wendy]
- discussion about moving this to level 3, since if have a movie or other audio content, make it impossible to conform to level 2?
- 22:18:20 [wendy]
- if there is a transcript or captions and you have difficulty understanding what is said, why is that not accessible?
- 22:19:00 [wendy]
- thus, it is nice to do this one (thus level 3), if have captions or transcript then accessible.
- 22:19:17 [wendy]
- it's only the fact that there are captions, that make it possible to move this to level 3.
- 22:19:26 [wendy]
- (couple other people chime in that they agree it is level 3)
- 22:19:45 [wendy]
- zakim, who's on the phone?
- 22:19:45 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Matt_Mirabella, Michael_Craddock, Doyle_Burnett, Yvette_Hoitink, Wendy, Mike_Barta, Ben_Caldwell, Loretta_Guarino_Reid (muted), JasonWhite, Avi_Arditti,
- 22:19:48 [Zakim]
- ... Bengt_Farre (muted), [IBM], Roberto_Scano (muted), Kerstin_Goldsmith, Matt_May
- 22:19:55 [rscano]
- transcript means to take the text spoken... and if the person don't speak in plain language, the page cannot be accessibile :)
- 22:20:01 [wendy]
- +3 (to move it to level 3)
- 22:20:16 [wendy]
- put a note on it explaining why it is a level 3 (and not level 2)
- 22:21:19 [wendy]
- for wording: audio content does not contain audio sounds or are at least 20 dB... except for occasional sound bursts...
- 22:21:21 [wendy]
- short sounds.
- 22:21:37 [wendy]
- have to clarify "short" "background" and "short"
- 22:22:33 [wendy]
- background and foreground may switch, depending on content. e.g., person entering parliament. when person talking, trumpets are background. when trumpets move to foreground, get turned up.
- 22:23:02 [Zakim]
- -Avi_Arditti
- 22:27:37 [wendy]
- use the plain lang rewrite
- 22:32:48 [doyle]
- Wendy can you get me Matt's, Gregs and Loretta's e-mail addressses for our action item (I hav eyours).
- 22:33:25 [Zakim]
- -[IBM]
- 22:34:11 [wendy]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 22:34:11 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items:
- 22:34:11 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: editors add an example to the unicode guideline, hard to read font, due to UAAG could swap font. [1]
- 22:34:11 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/04-wai-wcag-irc#T21-45-16
- 22:34:11 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: wendy, loretta, mat, gregg, doyle work on color contrast guideline(s) [3]
- 22:34:11 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/12/04-wai-wcag-irc#T22-03-49