14:39:55 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:39:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/16-ag-irc 14:39:59 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:40:00 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:40:01 chair: Chuck 14:40:10 meeting: AGWG-2024-04-16 14:40:16 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:40:17 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/16-ag-minutes.html chuck 14:40:29 agenda+ Subgroup updates 14:40:41 agenda+ Exploratory Guidelines and Outcomes https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/60#discussioncomment-9072721 14:40:53 agenda+ Text Alternatives Conversation Continued https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit#heading=h.cu8l0ohk9n2q 14:41:41 regrets: Poornima Subramanian 14:42:15 present+ 14:47:37 shiestyle has joined #ag 14:50:07 present+ 14:58:40 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 14:58:55 present+ 14:58:58 present+ 14:59:03 wendyreid has joined #ag 14:59:17 present+ 14:59:22 present+ Jeanne 14:59:31 dj has joined #ag 14:59:35 present+ 14:59:42 JakeAbma has joined #ag 14:59:48 present+ 15:00:49 agenda? 15:00:59 present+ 15:01:14 Jennie_Delisi has joined #ag 15:01:16 Azlan has joined #ag 15:01:22 present+ 15:01:27 present+ 15:01:55 bruce_bailey has joined #AG 15:01:57 ljoakley has joined #ag 15:02:04 Graham has joined #ag 15:02:04 present+ 15:02:05 present+ 15:02:08 present+ 15:02:23 present+ 15:02:34 zakim, pick a scribe 15:02:34 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Azlan 15:02:45 jtoles has joined #ag 15:02:48 zakim, pick a scribe 15:02:48 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose dj 15:02:51 shadi has joined #ag 15:02:57 present+ 15:03:00 zakim, pick a scribe 15:03:00 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Jeanne 15:03:18 zakim, pick a scribe 15:03:18 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Graham 15:03:32 maryjom has joined #ag 15:03:44 present+ 15:03:48 sarahhorton has joined #ag 15:03:53 scribe + LoriO 15:03:56 scribe+ ljoakley 15:04:12 announcements, not seeing WCAG2.x on agenda 15:04:39 TOPIC: announcements 15:05:02 every other week we go on WCAG 2,x, to review and offer to group, we cycle every two weeks. Meeting of the 23rd will have WCAG 2.x 15:05:07 giacomo-petri has joined #ag 15:05:10 present+ 15:05:16 We ahve not sent them to AG yet to early to review, look at them next week 15:05:27 any other announcements? nope 15:05:33 Justine has joined #ag 15:05:36 anyone new on the call or in a new role? 15:05:49 Makoto has joined #ag 15:06:01 present+ 15:06:05 This is Nat Tarnoff first meeting of the group, joined after CSUN opportunities came up 15:06:10 mbgower has joined #ag 15:06:15 present+ 15:06:21 thanks! 15:06:23 zakim, take up first item 15:06:23 I don't understand 'take up first item', chuck 15:06:29 zakim, take up item 1 15:06:29 agendum 1 -- Subgroup updates -- taken up [from chuck] 15:06:34 Cuck" other individuals that want to introduce themselves 15:06:34 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:06:38 s/We ahve not sent them/chuck: We have not sent them/ 15:06:41 present+ 15:06:53 s/Cuck" other /Chuck: other 15:07:16 Filippo" 2nd time here, part of the useablenet team, new to a11y, not much to give for now 15:07:23 ToddL has joined #ag 15:07:27 s/This is Nat Tarnoff/Nat_Tarnoff: This is Nat Tarnoff/ 15:07:54 chuck: thank you for joiining, your audio is a bit off 15:07:55 Frankie has joined #ag 15:08:03 present+ 15:08:19 s/Filippo" 2nd/Filippo: 2nd/ 15:08:22 NatTarnoff has joined #ag 15:08:26 present+ 15:08:27 chuck: anita or wendy can you give us a brief update 15:08:37 @kevin warned you I wasn't any good at this 15:08:43 present+ 15:08:53 Wendy Reid: no movement so far will be restarting 15:09:10 AlinaV has joined #ag 15:09:21 chuck: focus appearance, I was not there, Alistair can you give an update? 15:09:24 s/@kevin warned you I wasn't any good at// 15:09:30 laura has joined #ag 15:09:34 present+ 15:09:51 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:10:04 chuck: are we trying to ramp up any new groups 15:10:12 On call last week, 2nd half of meeting, Mike Gower covered "Ready for Review" column from WCAG 2.x project board 15:10:13 https://www.w3.org/2024/04/09-ag-minutes.html#item08 15:10:24 shiestyle has joined #ag 15:10:58 present+ 15:11:45 Fofila has joined #ag 15:12:03 tburtin has joined #ag 15:12:23 present+ 15:13:07 dan_bjorge has joined #ag 15:13:12 present+ 15:13:30 Detlev has joined #ag 15:13:42 present+ 15:13:52 zakim, take up item 2 15:13:52 agendum 2 -- Exploratory Guidelines and Outcomes https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/60#discussioncomment-9072721 -- taken up [from chuck] 15:13:58 I use pidgin, no issues 15:14:01 present+ 15:14:15 https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/60#discussioncomment-9072721 15:14:18 Chuck Adams: workingexploratory outcomes, Racheal had put in a summary 15:14:53 Chuck Adams:summarized, we can make some decisions, for the next 30 minutes hit some key points or in other conversations, Racheal should I dive in? 15:15:13 q? 15:15:22 RAcheal Bradley: Putting this in the working daraft, talking about immediate next steps 15:17:34 Chuck Adams: converstion that we couldn't complete, visual and priogramatically, no solution, group leaning to evaluate the use of thes case by case, write up the guildeline, keep both in outcome and evaluate case by case. that's what I remember from last week. Any objections to this approach. That's how we will proceed. Is it okay to leave out exceptions until next week. Convertion broad definition or not? Option proposed, we not worry abou 15:17:34 t exception,will consider in next phase. Any concerns? 15:17:35 q+ 15:17:39 ack Gregg 15:17:50 +1 15:18:03 q+ 15:18:07 ack Rach 15:18:10 GreggV: is it useful to leave a note mentions the topic, people think of an exception leave it as a question so people bring it up later 15:18:22 q+ 15:18:29 rached B: in working draft or editors draft 15:18:30 q+ 15:18:47 ack Ch 15:18:49 greggV: people will iobject in a note say things to be thinking about this this and this 15:19:10 ack Rach 15:19:13 chuck A: I incorrectly presumed that this was for us only not publis facing, not opposed, think about next context 15:19:27 q+ 15:19:30 ack Gregg 15:19:33 Rachel B: not including exception in this drat but a number of outcomes will get exceptions as we work 15:19:57 s/this drat/this draft/ 15:21:10 q? 15:21:14 Gregg V: exploratory draft just a big long list of outcomes, not stuffing bug list into WCAG3, lots of things that have not been thought through. I'm afraid if internal draft, wouldn't but outcomes into a draft to the public, these are candidates, looks like we haven;t figured out how to do it, seems me to be getting ahead of ourselves, none of these are beyond sticky notes onthe wall that I'v seen 15:21:17 q+ 15:21:20 ack Rach 15:21:45 q+ 15:23:27 s/I use pidgin, no issues// 15:23:28 ack Ch 15:23:29 Racheal B: Gregg, did go though that whole prioces no decision to publish working getting it into a publishable list, placeholder list of guidance, purpose is we know this is exploratory some are inspirational, promote come for research, work on ones we have enough research on, asking th public what did we miss, shift WCAG3 into a public converstion. ditors draft we decide if comfortable of publishing to working draft. 15:23:37 q+ 15:24:25 ack Gregg 15:24:38 Chuck A: we brought these concepts to the group before, engage the public earlier,they will see rougher work, we need to explain very caerfully, reearch a key point, give the users an earlier opportunity to comment 15:24:47 yes 15:24:51 Gregg V: big list in google docs that I made comments on? 15:25:01 Chuck A: google doc contains content 15:25:02 Can you post link for reference? 15:25:04 It would replace the current list of placeholder guidelines: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag3/#guidelines 15:25:08 q+ 15:25:17 can we put link to list (google doc) in IRC so we are on same page 15:25:59 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XA5X9f9G5vmKJ7BiC7GCf8nWaCjnKGcSYrFd9ImWxc8/edit?pli=1#heading=h.l86m24tnln43 15:26:00 @alastairc Ta! 15:26:01 yep 15:26:15 q+ 15:26:55 ack Rach 15:26:56 Gregg V: taking big long list and taking the exparamental topics to the public? Not sure about that. Should we take big list and stick it in? Can show public with enough introduction we an put thm in, very raw very early, please look and see what we are missing 15:27:45 ack Ch 15:27:46 Racheal B: working on list in our space getting a clean list, pull request with things that are authoring only, things with not a lot of reearch, show to the group, a full converstaion with framing just getting starting list 15:28:34 q+ 15:28:35 q+ to say -- suggest we post annotated list 15:28:36 ack Ch 15:28:48 s/exparamental/experimental/ 15:29:11 q? 15:29:13 ack Gregg 15:29:13 GreggVan, you wanted to say -- suggest we post annotated list 15:29:18 Chuck A: back to the concept of essential exceptions, note in internal notes, Gregg suggested could we add as brief notes out to the publis, I avhe a concern with that. If we start putting in exceptions haven't flushed them out, not good vetting, content is raw getting group review, an idea of exception will get noted not for the pulic 15:30:24 q+ 15:30:46 Gregg V: put it out as annoted list, put them out with bullets "need Research:, concerns, this and that and the other may turn into exception or how would this be implemented. so when public looks at it, if they know the answers they write to us. Also blunt you haven't thought about this. 15:31:23 q? 15:31:26 ack Ch 15:31:32 shiestyle has joined #ag 15:31:34 Chuck A: not a bad ide not pushing back on that, we could add those notes fater publication, exactly what you said could be notes. 15:31:35 essential definition from 2.2: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-essential 15:31:37 essential: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information *and* functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform 15:31:54 s/bad ide/bad idea/ 15:32:10 q? 15:32:12 q+ 15:32:12 scribe: Rachael 15:32:20 +1 to Gregg. wary of Essential Exception (language) myself, it is seemingly a condition or can be addressed in notes / comments 15:32:27 q+ 15:32:38 scribe+ alastairc 15:32:50 q? 15:32:53 ack ljo 15:33:02 Chuck: I'm not sure how we should move forward. 15:33:03 q+ to ask if definition for essential is being reconsidered? 15:33:34 q+ 15:33:36 ljoakley: I support Gregg's suggestion. I think we want people to provide the suggestions and comments. 15:33:37 dan_bjorge has joined #ag 15:33:39 ack Rach 15:33:40 +1 15:34:12 ack bru 15:34:12 bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if definition for essential is being reconsidered? 15:34:14 Rachael: I think we'll be more productive with a PR, but we need to have a list to put in front of people. We need lots of framing, lots of notes. 15:34:54 bruce_bailey: I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with our definition of essential 15:34:54 ack Gregg 15:34:57 q+ on general framing for essential exception 15:35:05 I think definition is fine as is 15:35:20 GreggVan: I am concerned about something going viral in the field and we don't even see it. 15:35:32 q+ to say where I think we are at regarding "essential exceptions" 15:35:38 ...we want WCAG 3 to look like we're going where we haven't gone before, thoughtfully. 15:35:41 q+ to respond to gregg 15:35:55 ...want to avoid people thinking its going off the rails. We don't want people being scared of it. 15:35:56 ack ala 15:35:56 alastairc, you wanted to comment on general framing for essential exception 15:36:04 @Gregg thank you 15:36:13 +1 15:36:24 alastairc: This comes down to the framing when we put it out. We need draft text to put in front of people. Not work saying much more until we have text in front of us that we are preparing to put out. 15:36:32 q- 15:36:52 s/work/worth 15:36:57 ...on the essential exceptions whether we do that per outcome or not. I suggest we try to keep as much as we can in the general framing and only put in outcome specific notes when there is something specific on that particular one. 15:36:57 ack Ch 15:36:57 chuck, you wanted to say where I think we are at regarding "essential exceptions" 15:37:01 +1 15:37:08 ...right now the shape of the list we need feedback on. 15:37:26 s/shape of the list we need/shape of the list is what we need 15:37:31 Q+ 15:37:34 +1 to alastair that "essential exception" could be part of introduction, rather than outcome-by-outcome 15:37:40 ack kirk 15:37:51 q+ 15:38:01 GN0153 has joined #ag 15:38:03 if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform 15:38:04 chuck: We are looking to create the PR. I think we are at adding a framing note about essential exceptions and then if needed, circle back on this after people have the text in front of them. 15:38:07 ack ala 15:38:15 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-essential 15:38:22 kirkwood: Can someone put in the defintion to essential exceptions? 15:38:37 q? 15:38:41 alastairc: See above. We will likely change that after we've worked on WCAG 3 a bit. Useful default to start with. 15:39:29 chuck: Third bullet. In our rough documents we have both "process" and "task" in different parts. Sometimes we may be referring to the same thing or possibly to a nuance. Do we want to clarify or normalize on one of these terms. 15:40:06 ...possibly "process" is more of the mechanism and "task" is more human oriented. 15:40:14 Rachael: Process is more software oriented, task was more human oriented, was a way to distinguish 15:40:19 q+ 15:40:27 q+ 15:40:31 ...we have 3 choices. Do we want to use process, task or accept that we are using both. 15:40:32 ack ala 15:40:34 alastairc: 15:40:54 q+ 15:41:07 ack Gregg 15:41:12 alastairc: I thought there was a difference between them. Process is something the site provides that has a start and finish. Task is a human goal. I'm inclined to keep both. Process is a subset of task. 15:41:12 +1 to Alastair here 15:41:30 +1 to Alastair 15:41:33 GreggVan: A task is a think you need to do. A process requires you to do multiple things. 15:41:35 sorry i was slowessential 15:41:36 if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform 15:41:54 ...a process has multiple things that have to be done and done in order. 15:42:12 Buying something is a process. Adding to cart, paying, etc. are tasks. 15:42:13 q+ to say a task is a thing to be done. A process is how to do it 15:42:27 s/sorry i was slow// 15:42:41 quit 15:42:47 ...process usually means multiple pages. 15:42:47 So ok to keep both terms? 15:42:56 Poll: keep the use of both terms "process" and "task" 15:43:00 ack dj 15:43:08 Chuck: Will do poll. 15:43:29 DJ: I agree there is a difference. In keeping both, we may use process incorrectly rather than task. 15:43:50 q? 15:43:54 ack azlan 15:43:54 Azlan, you wanted to say a task is a thing to be done. A process is how to do it 15:43:56 ...I'd like to see a task and actions distinction where actions are one control for example. 15:44:27 Azlan: A task is what you have to do. A process is how to do it. 15:44:37 ...worth keeping both. 15:44:40 q+ re understanding 15:44:44 POLL: Keep using both terms "process" and "task" and potentially add additional nuanced terms such as "action" 15:45:15 +1 15:45:15 +1 15:45:16 +1 15:45:17 +1 15:45:18 -1 15:45:21 ack Jennie 15:45:21 Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss understanding 15:45:21 +1 15:45:24 +1 15:45:25 +1 15:45:38 +1 15:46:06 +1 15:46:14 Jennie_Delisi: I want to make sure we remember that to "process" (cognitive) is part of a process as well. 15:46:26 +1 15:46:33 Chuck: One -1 but overall support. 15:46:34 q+ 15:46:38 ack Rach 15:46:39 * no problem Rachael - one moment 15:46:44 +1 15:46:54 +1 but would like a definition sooner than later 15:46:56 Rachael: Something to look at when we put the PR out is whether task and process are used appropriatly. 15:47:02 rachael: Something to look at when we put the PR out, think about if the words "process" and "task" are used appropriately. 15:47:12 * Understanding/comprehension is an essential piece of accessibility. This is needed to complete a task, but may be inherent. 15:47:13 zakim, take up item 3 15:47:13 agendum 3 -- Text Alternatives Conversation Continued https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit#heading=h.cu8l0ohk9n2q -- taken up [from 15:47:16 ... chuck] 15:47:18 scribe- 15:47:29 Jennie_Delisi:Understanding/comprehension is an essential piece of accessibility. This is needed to complete a task, but may be inherent. 15:47:48 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit 15:47:50 alastairc: Picking up where we left off on text alternatives. I will share screen and share document. 15:48:15 ...A couple updates from discussion we had last time. Partly on decision tree and partly on testing process. 15:49:01 ...Last time we split into groups and worked on examples. We will do so again. Not quite ready to be compiled but there were some items to discuss. 15:49:28 ...there were some items like data and artistic items where the image itself was the experience. a plain text alternative was not equivilent. That added a level to the decision tree. 15:49:35 q+ 15:49:39 shiestyle has joined #ag 15:49:56 alastairc:: "a plain text alternative would not be an equivalent" 15:49:59 I will go through queue after Alastair does his preview 15:50:09 q+ 15:50:31 ack mb 15:50:34 ...another change was that if the non-text content duplicates adjacent text, the alt should be null. Not a hard and fast requirement. 15:51:37 mbgower: The thing that's missing here, is a second part. If no, provide a brief alternative and a second alternative wiht more information. 15:51:51 q? 15:51:58 ack Gregg 15:52:15 ..similar to situation b where you can't provide everything. Example: a video, you title the video and then provide the alternatives. 15:52:24 [editorial discussions] 15:52:26 q+ Gregg 15:52:55 mbgower: Edit revised proceedure 2. Change shall to may 15:53:44 alastairc: group 3 was working on examples for that 15:54:20 ack Gregg 15:54:24 q+ to ask about the ask 15:54:40 +1 "may" 15:54:41 gpellegrino has joined #ag 15:54:44 mbgower: If process its still useful to have the process flow 15:54:48 present+ 15:54:56 presnet+ 15:54:57 GreggVan: Change to its allowable to make it null. 15:55:30 alastairc: One of the examples if you have icons and text. They each have an icon. If each gets alt text that matches text next to it, should it be a failure. 15:56:08 q? 15:56:18 GreggVan: I was called into a situation where that happened. Making it a "may" may solve that problem. IT may be the right or wrong thing to do. We shouldn't say its always the thing to do. 15:56:20 The text should not duplicate immediately visible text. Alternatively, it either should describe the image/icon or be null. 15:56:29 q+ to queue scribe change at the top of the hour 15:56:32 ack Ch 15:56:32 chuck, you wanted to ask about the ask 15:57:05 ack Rach 15:57:05 Rachael, you wanted to queue scribe change at the top of the hour 15:57:10 q+ for next topic 15:57:24 ack ala 15:57:24 alastairc, you wanted to discuss next topic 15:58:08 alastairc: One more topic before we break into groups. On the decision tree, starting with whether its operable or not isnt' the right place to start. It doesnt' handle situations where image is part of a control or thumbnails in an image gallery. 15:58:19 Kimberly has joined #ag 15:58:27 ...Dan, do you have examples which don't handle that complex case? Or does anyone else? 15:58:53 +present 15:58:58 Dan: examples we were evaluating in the exercise were graph widgets. Relatively common for webapps displaying graphs to have parts of the graph be operable. 15:59:33 * operable data visualizations. Excellent example, dan_bjorge. 15:59:37 q+ 15:59:37 ...There are operable controls are part of this. there are gray areas in the first question that makes me question it. 15:59:39 ack Ch 15:59:44 ...not sure which direction to go down the tree. 16:00:17 q+ to ask simple/complex as starting point? 16:00:20 alastairc: I would like to assign that example to one of the groups to tackle it. 16:00:36 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wkQ8ZKiRnNnax9ENaDXfQhl6kh-iYlXx7gMEhKMTQBU/edit 16:00:44 scribign stops, breaking into subgroups. See documents 16:00:48 q- 16:02:27 avk has joined #ag 16:03:12 present+ 16:05:17 mbgower you were in group 2 with us I believe! 16:11:26 Reminder - the pass/fail examples are NOT whether the website example passes, but listing for that scenario what alt-text should pass, and what should fail. I.e. make up the alt-text in multiple ways to show what would pass/fail for that scenario. 16:11:27 shiestyle has joined #ag 16:32:33 shiestyle has joined #ag 16:46:10 GreggVan has joined #ag 16:52:00 bruce_bailey has joined #ag 16:52:32 RRSagent, draft minutes 16:52:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/16-ag-minutes.html bruce_bailey 16:54:19 scribe+ 16:54:31 shiestyle has joined #ag 16:55:31 q+ 16:56:08 Group 3 focused on emoji vs symbols. Emoji have standard alt text, but symbols do not. Also, use of dingbats is problematic as there is no association between the symbol/picture produced and the letter used. 16:57:21 Group 4 focused on a couple with gaps. Sprites was a specific example, but came up with pass & fail examples. Also expanded on the image for exploration (17). We added a map example, a visitor map example. Talked through that, and what pass/fail examples were. 16:57:24 s/scribign stops/scribing stops/ 16:57:28 jtoles has joined #ag 16:57:53 ... had a brief stab at example 13, tried an org-chart, but not sure about that one, so haven't got to pass/fail examples yet. 16:58:18 q- 16:58:54 Group 1 focused on an interactive image, chose a zoomable sunburst. Didn't finish, but made some suggestions to the decision tree that we updated in our google doc. Ended contemplating whether it was too much for this excercise. It was very complex, so unclear what equivelents would be. 16:59:06 Decision tree (for straightforward images) on WAI: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/ 16:59:08 ... made some suggestions. 16:59:16 I don't have access to comment on the relevant doc, but for the point that Mike was making on Dingbat fonts, perhaps we should treat these in the same way as ASCII art. 16:59:34 zakim, end meeting 16:59:34 As of this point the attendees have been rscano, chuck, kevin, Francis_Storr, alastairc, Jeanne, dj, JakeAbma, ashleyfirth, Jennie_Delisi, Azlan, bruce_bailey, ljoakley, Graham, 16:59:37 ... wendyreid, shadi, maryjom, giacomo-petri, Makoto, Justine, mbgower, Frankie, sarahhorton, ToddL, kirkwood, Laura_Carlson, GreggVan, tburtin, dan_bjorge, Detlev, AlinaV, 16:59:37 ... gpellegrino, present, avk 16:59:37 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v1 16:59:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/16-ag-minutes.html Zakim 16:59:44 I am happy to have been of service, alastairc; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:59:44 Zakim has left #ag 17:05:09 rrsagent, make minutes 17:05:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/16-ag-minutes.html chuck 17:05:32 zakim, end meeting 17:09:05 GreggVan has joined #ag 17:11:18 kirkwood has joined #ag 17:17:36 shiestyle has joined #ag 17:45:40 shiestyle has joined #ag 18:00:09 Jem has joined #ag 18:09:22 shiestyle has joined #ag 18:34:49 shiestyle has joined #ag 18:55:59 shiestyle has joined #ag 19:18:28 shiestyle has joined #ag 20:02:04 shiestyle has joined #ag 20:37:33 shiestyle has joined #ag 20:42:31 kirkwood has joined #ag 21:14:13 shiestyle has joined #ag 21:42:24 shiestyle has joined #ag 22:04:31 shiestyle has joined #ag 22:27:52 shiestyle has joined #ag 22:32:34