<Laura_Carlson> scribe: Laura

<Laura_Carlson> scribe: Laura_Carlson

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info

Introductions & Announcements

ac: Any new members?
... Any announcements?

Chuck: For TPAC we can come up with appropriate health policies.
... we will be dividing the room in half.
... to accommodate people's preferences.

Bruce: any time on agenda today for subgroups?

Ac: not today.

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/104

RM: GitHub conversation 104

<bruce_bailey> Keyboard subgroup will not be starting up until 8/14 (contrary to email which I sent to wai-gl list).

<Rachael> Slide deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17VJvnm5UQW4WUzIoo9QNPVGfePgaZa8ifZWs-wtmv7E/edit#slide=id.g2f0d7d2c60e_0_0

RM: We have a slide deck:
... There is some support for writing a standard that prioritizes methods that meet outcomes through a combination of platform support and authors avoiding breaking that support.
... we have some examples.
... This would likely be done by placing the methods that specify authors avoid breaking platform support within the prerequisite level.
... This would likely be done by placing the methods that specify authors avoid breaking platform support within the prerequisite level.
... concerns include:
... The ability of the author to rely on platform support assumes a platform provides adequate support

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if any time on agenda today for subgroups

RM: In many cases the platform does not yet provide adequate support
... The platform may provide support but only through a means that is expensive or technically difficult for the user
... When platform support is not adequate, author support must be provided
... Authors need a way to determine when platform support is adequate
... Some situations such as emergency information that should always require author support.

Ac: It is a change from WCAG 2 approach

Gregg: Zoom we did include some things for platform support.
... We assumed support was already there.
... how do we prioritize?

RM: Will circle back to that.
... Terminology - I used "Platform" in the previous slide to mean all support that does not originate from the author, such as the support from the operating system, browser, assistive technology, authoring tools, or a combination of these.
... Is “platform” the correct term?

Gregg: don't define it that broadly.

<scotto> i would assume platform meant only operating system, browser, user agent.

<scotto> assistive tech or authoring tools i don't assume to be "platforms"

Gregg: No - conflicts with other definitions
... It is too broad. In the stack.
... platforms + authoring tools
... Platform, Authoring Tools, and Author

<kirkwood> i would call this the user’s platform

<Francis_Storr> +1 to Chuck

<Jon_Avila> Are 3rd party assistive technologies platform?

Chuck: I've always differentiated UA from platform.

<JJ> +1 to Chuck

<bruce_bailey> +1 to removing "authoring tools" from part of definition for Platform.

AC: for mobile apps it is known

<kirkwood> rather than the author’s platform

<bruce_bailey> I am okay with UA being part of platform.

AC: Everything between the user and the content.
... or EN301 549

<jeanne> I think it is useful to have UA be part of the platform

<bruce_bailey> +1 to not conflict with EN 301 549 definition

JA: AT is not always platform.

<GreggVan> platform software (platform): collection of software components that runs on an underlying software or hardware layer, and that provides a set of software services to other software components that allows those applications to be isolated from the underlying software or hardware layer (after ISO/IEC 13066-1 [i.19])

<GreggVan> NOTE: A particular software component might play the role of a platform in some situations and a client in others.

JK: user platform vs author platform

<Chuck> Repasting Gregg's EN 301 549 definition: platform software (platform): collection of software components that runs on an underlying software or hardware layer, and that provides a set of software services to other software components that allows those applications to be isolated from the underlying software or hardware layer (after ISO/IEC 13066-1

<Chuck> [i.19])

<Jon_Avila> From EN 301 549 Assistive Technology (AT): equipment, product system, hardware, software or service that is used to increase,

<Jon_Avila> maintain or improve capabilities of individuals (from ISO/IEC Guide 71:2014 [i.35])

<Jon_Avila> NOTE 1: Assistive technology is an umbrella term that is broader than assistive products.

<Jon_Avila> NOTE 2: Assistive technology can include assistive services, and professional services needed for assessment,

<Jon_Avila> recommendation and provision.

<Jon_Avila> NOTE 3: Where ICT does not support directly connected assistive technology, but which can be operated by a

<Jon_Avila> system connected over a network or other remote connection, such a separate system (with any included

<Jon_Avila> assistive technology) can also be co

<alastairc> What would we think of as different "platforms"? Web, iOS, Android, ePub readers,

LO: Don't think our terminology matches what is already out there.

<Graham> big downvote on "Stack" - that is a very well known term in software development that has a very specific meaning.

RM: Doesn't need to be a formal technical term. But just a term for internal use.

<kirkwood> +1 to Scott

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this can be resolved on a technical level

MG: Need to stick with a technical definition. May vary on application.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask why Authoring Tools is include with initial draft?

<GreggVan> from wikipedia a particular type of operating system or environment such as a database or other specific software, and/or a particular type of computer or microprocessor, used to describe a particular environment for running other software.

Bruce: why was authoring tools included?

<Chuck> +1 breaking out authoring tools

<GreggVan> sorry wiktionary

RM: We can break it out.

<alastairc> q/

BT: Suggesting 4- author, platform user, user via AR Control

Gregg: Platform is important.
... Don't think we can talk about control as a dimension.
... Cost can be an issue.

<Jon_Avila> CVAA has the concept of nominal cost AT.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask about web across platforms

AC: Platforms can be simple or variable.

<alastairc> Straw poll: What terms do we use (internally) to distinguish between what the author does and everything else? 1) Author and Stack, 2) Author, Platform, Authoring Tools 3) Author & Not Author 4) Author controlled, platform controlled, user controlled, user controlled via AT 5) Something else

<Graham> My vote: author, not author...that seems clearest!

<kevin> 3

<Graham> 3

<Ben_Tillyer> 4

<Rachael> 3, 1

<Chuck> 3,1

<alastairc> 3 or 1 or 2 (in order)

<JJ> 3

<bruce_bailey> 1 or 3

<jtoles> 3, 1, 2

<giacomo-petri> 3 > 1

<Francis_Storr> 3, 1

<scotto> 2, 3, 4

<jaunita_george> 3,1

<mike_beganyi> 3, 1

<MJ> 3

<jeanne> 2, 3

<kirkwood> 3,1

Laura: 3

<Rain> 2, 4

<GreggVan> 5

<kirkwood> would examples be helpful?

<Francis_Storr> +1 to scotto

SO: Would rather, use the spec terminology than have internal terminology.

<GreggVan> +1 to scotto

<Graham> +1 to scotto

<kirkwood> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Jennie

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest we move on and revisit this after we actually try to have the conversation.

JD: In some circumstance author is difficult to distinguish.

Gregg: We can't make assumptions about what authors have control over.

<Ben_Tillyer> We could talk about what authors *should* or *could* have access to though?

Gregg: there isn't any one author.
... We can talk about content. Stay out of the process. Talk about outcomes.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to talk about coming up with the terms

Gregg: Assumptions are dangerous.

Chuck: This conversation is a perquisite for our further work.

RM: This is a different way for us to think about outcomes.
... Possible Way to Think About Outcomes in WCAG 3

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14K2FFE85GyDxv656jy2dHVETmI30fFvqDXWmEBMrrqE/edit

RM: How would authors determine platform support is adequate?
... Provides Visible pointer Example

<kirkwood> Question, in this case: is “Microsoft” an example of a platform?

RM: Gives second on Example Visible keyboard focus.
... we have these concepts in 2.2.

Gregg: These are good examples.
... One complication - not sure when an author needs to accept responsibility
... How do we detect?

<Zakim> scotto, you wanted to talk about regarding distinct style

<kirkwood> can we work with examples?

<Jon_Avila> Closed functionality is one example where the author needs to do more because it may not be coming from the platform or work with standard assistive technology.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say we need to be cautious with this

SO: Confused reading this.

AC: these are just examples.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to transition us to primary discussion

MG: Need to be cautious about this. Don't know if the problem exists yet.

RM: Just intended to be an example.

<Jon_Avila> I think it is helpful and a good example because systems like kiosks do need these things.

RM: How would authors determine platform support is adequate? What is “good enough”?

<Jon_Avila> I think pointer issues are a problem for things like games

RM: Availability- Does any platform support the requirement?
... How does availability vary by region and language?
... Questions regarding Costs
... Questions regarding Difficulty for users to implement

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say we should consider "author" as an "author stack" for the purpose of this discussion

AC: we should consider "author" as an "author stack" for the purpose of this discussion.
... We went through some of this with the previous the accessibility supported discussion.

<alastairc> I think Gregg mentioned it being available in top 3 browsers?

Chuck: What was "good enough" in 2.2? How was it done?

Graham: Making it a lot more complicate than it needs to be.

<kirkwood> from the old days of code author. maybe to legacy?

JA: Think about games as an example

<alastairc> Reminder of where we got to on Accessibility Supported https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/53#discussioncomment-9353131

JA: May not get pointer or focus support.
... there is a need for outcome that 2.X didn't cover in new tech.

Gregg: In 2.0 We talked about free browsers.
... For AT we had a problem - If didn't have a computer you were out of luck. Solved now with AT on demand.

<Chuck> ack +

<Zakim> +, you wanted to ask for a scribe change

<Chuck> qq+ to ask for a scribe change

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to react to + to ask for a scribe change

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change

<bruce_bailey> scribe+

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to respond to Graham - separating authors would make it MORE complex and to also talk about separating platform requirements by platform

<bruce_bailey> Alastair: chair hat off, separating authors would make it MORE complex and to also talk about separating platform requirements by platform

<bruce_bailey> ... could be browser , content management system, elswehre....

<MJ> Sorry, I didn't hear that I was asked to scribe earlier. I'm not able to scribe today.

<bruce_bailey> ... we have very different platform, like mobile, ePUB, make author requirements very different....

<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to add to Graham's point minimum skill

<bruce_bailey> .... PDF is good example too, since platform always provides good option for focus whereas with HTML , default focus weak.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss good enough

<bruce_bailey> Jennie_Delisi: Do we want more epectations from browswer.

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Jen could you expand on that?

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Chair hat off, settings are quite different. Corporate on VPN versus virtual reality at home....

<bruce_bailey> ... It might be the case that the best we can do is provide guidance to platform controlers....

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> .... for eaxample, if behind firewall, corporate owner controls os, software, AT, and with limited variable can control for good accessibiltiy.

<jeanne> +1 to having the platform stack meeting the baseline is adequete. It also helps the UA to know what to prioritize for features of the UA

<bruce_bailey> ... But by setting high bar for public, can also encourage everyone to do better.

<Jan> +1 to Graham's comment - using a broader term like "technology" gives us more flexibility

<bruce_bailey> Graham: If stack is the limiting factor, restriction, might WCAG3 have authors document limitations which they are writting for.

<bruce_bailey> Jennie_Delisi: I looked at "good enough" for author tools. Take ACR from VPAT as an example with low code tool....

<bruce_bailey> ... author in that case has no control to get to good enough....

<alastairc> scribe- Laura_Carlson

<bruce_bailey> ... plain language version to determine if something can be implemented.

<alastairc> Covers 90% of your region's market?

<kirkwood> What about Wix, Wordpress etc?

<bruce_bailey> GreggVan: Can't document even every OS and browser, so maybe just focus on most popular?

<alastairc> kirkwood - Those are part of the authoring 'stack'

<kirkwood> i agree

<bruce_bailey> ... top 3, top 4 -- Document accessiblity needs for those common combinations....

<LenB> 'top 3' should be considered as 'top 3 used by your users' and not an international stats list

<bruce_bailey> ... we could even provide a score card. Some people running Windows XP, 7 -- would be good to note how backward compatible assumptions are reasonable.

<kirkwood> However the hosting plarforms are often legally accountable

<bruce_bailey> ... If we have a list of browsers but only one is missing checkmark -- that exerts pressure.

<bruce_bailey> Ben_Tillyer: What is scope of conformance? ....

<bruce_bailey> .... What is being tested? Website? web page? piece of content?

<bruce_bailey> ... whoever is responsible for the piece should be identified as author in that context.

<bruce_bailey> I will also note that technology is changing quickly. What might be accessible in the future....

<bruce_bailey> ... Blue light filters is an example where platforms solveing some problems.

<bruce_bailey> ... focus rectangles are another example where user experience is changing fast.

<bruce_bailey> ... agree with Gregg that makes sense to look at what users are using, that will be known is some setttings....

<alastairc> From the "accessibility supported" proposal: "How popular does an AT need to be in order to count as supported? WCAG can define a method of creating your own user-agent list for Silver/gold. We wouldn’t set the list, but it could be used by people / regions / regulators to create one. (E.g. the GDS list)."

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say if our measure is a baseine, that implies...

<bruce_bailey> ... But also if we know things like IE7 is problematic, we should document that.

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: If we corner ourselves, we would box oursleves into writing more standards.

<bruce_bailey> Graham: COuld we not say a lttle bit about who is responsible for what? ....

<bruce_bailey> ... Sometimes I can make things work with some AT but discover bug with different combination of browser and AT....

<kirkwood> that’s for the courts to figure out

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to flowchart thoughts

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on AS proposal

<bruce_bailey> ... Maybe starte with author , then if not author, can AT fill the role?

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: We did have proposal from accessibility supported sub group that by-the-spec approach makes things concrete for the author and maybe that is enough for Bronze...

<bruce_bailey> ... For higher levels we would include examples of combinations working well to provide good ecccessibilty.

<bruce_bailey> ... To Grapham point, might have a internal style guide enforcing land marks and structured heading....

<bruce_bailey> ... but mobile does not support any of those technologies so what do? ....

<bruce_bailey> .... We could document the lack of accessiblity support.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Being at end of queue, we will try to bring a proposal to group.

Assertions (continued) https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/106

<Chuck> +1 intro next topic.

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Last week we started discussion of assertions. Website owner asserts something like having conducting usability testing....

<Rachael> template: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FA3UVwpLlkFD9H6rqKT57BGtpPFy_4juMlkxNGl7m5Y/edit#heading=h.ydb0ppi9970j

<bruce_bailey> ... If different SME conduct usability testing, results will be different. See Github and Google doc for some outline of where we are....

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Goal is explore assertions picking up from subgroup work. Starting with a template example...

<bruce_bailey> ... Initial work on assertion is on using style guide. Just a starting example.

<bruce_bailey> We may or might not go into subgroups today but expect that in a future meeting at least.

<bruce_bailey> First question is how does one know if an assertion is even valueable.

<bruce_bailey> How does one provide document? What are requirements for documentation?

<kirkwood> Who is the author of the assertion? The organization? this example is not authored this way

<bruce_bailey> .... dates, author of assertion, description, etc.

<bruce_bailey> ... Plain lainguage review is an example.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to suggest we run through the exercise next week

<bruce_bailey> Some things might be possible to document by a third party tester.

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: One of the goals is to see what happens if small groups work on same topic.

<bruce_bailey> kirkwood: Assertion does not read like a buisness making a claim.

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Organzition has documents style guide. Authors follow style guide.

<bruce_bailey> Assertion is that text alternative follow style guide.

<bruce_bailey> kirkwood: We have a style guide and we follow it and that is it.

<bruce_bailey> GreggVan: For that to be assertion, there would have be a statement like "we assert we follow a style guide"

<bruce_bailey> .... existance of style guide or documented process is not transpartent...

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

<bruce_bailey> ... need legal to sign off. Need to distinguish between assumtions and assertions....

<bruce_bailey> ... Having an assertions is easy -- just point to it....

<bruce_bailey> ... but evaluating if assertion is true or not is different. Does WCAG require testing of truth of assertions?

<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg

<bruce_bailey> ... or is the assertion the measure? And truth is off the table. Reason for assertion is for things people promise to do.

<Chuck> Bruce: Asking if any of the user needs we went through a few weeks ago, have any of those user needs been identified as being good for assertions?

<bruce_bailey> Bruce: Are any User Needs particular good for assertions?

<jaunita_george> +1 to Julia

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say this is exactly the conversations we want to have in smaller groups

<bruce_bailey> julierawe: I just thought we could focus on (1) do you have it, (2) does it cover text alternatives like they should, (3) does org do the training?

<jaunita_george> Also, should certain things be in the style guide? Does the content conform to that style guide?

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: All these good questions are why we want to have exercise of what assertions might look like.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say the originators of this idea felt that the company is making a statement that could expose them.

<Chuck> Rachael: There is more complexities to come after this.

<Chuck> Gregg: +1 to Julia and Rachael. Julia, the thing you said is where assertions come into play. You are asserting processes have been done.

<bruce_bailey> scribe+

<Chuck> Gregg: Places that Rachael talked about, there are 3 types. There are a few where there is an outcome but no place for assertion.

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: [earlier} many outcomes probably have place for assertions

<Chuck> Gregg: There can be assertions, like for alt text, but you can't have an outcome be that there is "good" alt-text. But there is an assertion that you trained people to create good alt text.

<bruce_bailey> GreggVan: Could have assertion that org has trained people to write good alt text....

<Chuck> Gregg: An assertion that it was good, that you trained people, something like that. 3rd category is where we have not found a good testable measure. It should simpler, but you can't say that, you say it is as simple as you can be. If we can't figure out a measure, we can say we trained our people.

<bruce_bailey> ... those are different than assertions where we don't have good metrics at all. For example keep things as simple as possible.

<Chuck> Gregg: We can have assertions in places where we don't have a measure. We can then change to a testable outcome when we can measure.

<bruce_bailey> ... places where we have a measure we do not need an assertion.

<Chuck> Gregg: Assertions come in to include guidelines that are not yet testable.

<Chuck> Gregg: It would be good to see if we could attach that into an elaboration of what we can test.

<julierawe> +1 to Gregg

<Chuck> Gregg: You could make...

<bruce_bailey> ... even where we do not have maearus like "simple enough" could still have an assertion about what org is doing.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say the originators of this idea felt that the company is making a statement that could expose them.

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: Earlier, was concern for legal exposure....

<GreggVan> +1 esp with iso9000

<bruce_bailey> ... peopl putting out statements, assertions, that is demonstrate of confidence and could be challenged.

<Rachael> qq+

<bruce_bailey> Ben_Tillyer: Assertion about everyone following a style guide is problematic. Large companies, from my experience, have them but employees might not know about them.

<bruce_bailey> ... getting this out as an outcome, thing like a style guide probably would not be shared. So that can't really be 3rd party tested.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to react to Ben_Tillyer

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: Template did come from earlier work. Please add comment only for now.

<bruce_bailey> Jan McSorley: I ask that we make clear that we don't expect for 3rd party testability of assertions....

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on statements and what we'd consider in scope for WCAG

<bruce_bailey> ... Gregg said that is purpose for assertions. Things that are not binary. What is purpose and point of assertion?

<bruce_bailey> ... We need more clarity before exercise.

<Rachael> Slide deck on Assertions from the prequel conversations on Assertions: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/178EHzR7oKYyS7m-V2pZvjCg10kR2XLZ7tK2V-LUh2K8/edit#slide=id.p

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Two categories of assersitons, one is thing which are not binary ...

<jaunita_george> I mean, this may sound harsh, but what would the point be in giving credit for folx asserting that they're doing something without some validation?

<bruce_bailey> ... other use for assertions is assessing maturity of org....

<bruce_bailey> ... if you like testabiltiy of assertions, part is just assessing they exist....

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond to Jan

<bruce_bailey> ... but could also be ISO9000 type assessemnt where not public but independently verified.

<Jan> That is helpful, Alastair - using assertions to demonstrate maturity. I think it's a slippery slope because companies that may think they are mature and want to make claims that are at a higher level of maturity might not fully understand what it means to be mature from an accessibility perspective. Thanks for the slide deck, Rachael.

<bruce_bailey> Rachael: See slide deck about testability, we have had earlier discussions about testabiltiy.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: There are some additions.

<bruce_bailey> ... Please think ahead of time about exercise.

<bruce_bailey> Graham: If we are going to have assertions, then there needs to be some kind of audit trail....

<bruce_bailey> .... without some way to investigate, assertions are just aspiratiponal nonsense.

<bruce_bailey> ... are assertisons reapeatable and testable?

<bruce_bailey> alastairc: Chair hat off, I would put repeastabiliy and testability outside of our scope....

<bruce_bailey> ... There could be followup from regulators and litigation....

<Jan> +1 to Graham's concern - I think we need to be careful about allowing assertions to be tied to higher levels of conformance - e.g. Silver or Gold, etc.

<bruce_bailey> ... if org asserts they have style guide but cannot prove it (to regulator) they are putting themselves at risk.

<bruce_bailey> Chuck: All these concerns are why want to have subgroups.

<bruce_bailey> Graham: I do like assertions for "fluffy" things , but I could be worried org is making things up, but maybe that is extreme.

<kirkwood> assertions have to be acceptable to meet a legal requirement

<bruce_bailey> ... We should at least consider WCAG3 having a voice in how assertion work.

<bruce_bailey> alastairc Yes we can have lots of examples and best practices.

<bruce_bailey> kirkwood: My experience in courtrooms is that assertions are scruitinzed by legal.

<bruce_bailey> Gregg: Point that some orgs take so seriiously , they will NOT make them.

<GreggVan> +1 to a great discussion

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/dorry/sorrty/
Succeeded: s/sorrty/sorry/
Succeeded: s/as authoring too included/as authoring tools included/
Succeeded: s/of variable/or variable/
Succeeded: s/can con up /can come up /
Succeeded: s/is to broad/is too broad/
Succeeded: s/authoring tols/authoring tools/
Succeeded: s/nee to /need to /
Succeeded: s/demention/dimension/
Succeeded: s/Asumptions /Assumptions /
Succeeded: s/complicate the it /complicate than it /
Succeeded: s/and not author are /is /
Succeeded: s/we can come/For TPAC we can come/
Succeeded: s/Temple did/Template did/
Default Present: tburtin, Ben_Tillyer, rscano, kevin, JMcSorley, bruce_bailey, Jennie_Delisi, filippo-zorzi, Rachael, giacomo-petri, Francis_Storr, Rain, julierawe, Azlan, mbgower, mike_beganyi, sarahhorton, MJ, ShawnT, kirkwood, Makoto, Laura_Carlson, marco-sabidussi, JohnRochford, LenB, avon, GN, JJ, Frankie, alastairc, Chuck, maryjom, GreggVan, scotto, Jan, jtoles, Jen_G, jon_avila, Graham, AlinaV, ljoakley, jaunita_george, Kimberly
Present: tburtin, Ben_Tillyer, rscano, kevin, JMcSorley, bruce_bailey, Jennie_Delisi, filippo-zorzi, Rachael, giacomo-petri, Francis_Storr, Rain, julierawe, Azlan, mbgower, mike_beganyi, sarahhorton, MJ, ShawnT, kirkwood, Makoto, Laura_Carlson, marco-sabidussi, JohnRochford, LenB, avon, GN, JJ, Frankie, alastairc, Chuck, maryjom, GreggVan, scotto, Jan, jtoles, Jen_G, jon_avila, Graham, AlinaV, ljoakley, jaunita_george, Kimberly
Regrets: Sarah Horton, Azlan Cuttilan, Roberto Scano, Todd Libby
Found Scribe: Laura
Found Scribe: Laura_Carlson
Inferring ScribeNick: Laura_Carlson
Scribes: Laura, Laura_Carlson

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: 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.)