Andiag: if have a good idea of what people like or don't like about 1.0, why are we rewriting the guidelines. Why not just address those problemsag: new format is going to cost a lot of money to a lot of people who have been trained to implement 1.0 wendyq? Anditc: using Shawn's work and being aware of users' goalsag: five years worth of training has gone into WCAG 1.0 benq+ David Andiwhat governments need is a slightly updated version of WCAG 1.0 Tomq+ wendyq+ john Andiag: for a lot of people HTML is as far as they've gotten - just starting to learn about CSSwc: I would not touch the guidelines or SC at this point joeclarkq+ Andiwc: if we go back and re-do WCAG 1.0, it will be another two yearswc: we need to move on Michaelq+ lisa wendyack AL Andial: understand idea of combining some technologies - vast majority of Web sites use these twoal: lots of Web sites use such a vast range of technologies, we could not possibly combine them all Michaelack david Andial: think it's fine to combine as long as people can still make their own judgements about how to meet the GLs and SCdm: we came here with work to do - out of our scope to challenge the direction of the guidelinesdm: guidelines direction has been thought out very carefully Michaelq+ to say we make recommendations to Guidelines Michaelack tom Andidm: need to stick with our purpose if we are going to be productive over the next two daystc: major goal was to make WCAG 2.0 extensible in a way that WCAG 1.0 was not. wendyandi - want me to minute for the next bit? Andiok wendyscribe: wendyq? dinoircdino has joined wai-wcag wendyq- john Michaelq- john Michaelq- lisa Andiq+ Michaelack joe Michaelack michael wendyjc: many people have not been using for the last 5 years. there is proposal to make errata 1.0. even after wcag 2.0 goes to rec, can still use wcag 1.0.mc: there is a guidelines f2f in 2 weeks.mc: perhaps an outcome of this discussion is input into that f2f discussion.ag: seems silly to say things are set in stone when you've used "rewrite" sevearl things. Michaelack andi wendyasw: it's tweaking not rewriting in many sense.asw: we have several issues in bugzilla about ppl not understanding 1.0 to 2.0 mapping. thus, started mapping.asw: this should help preserve the investment that people have.ag: that principle that i've been operating under.ag: at the techniques level. take 2.0 techniques and map to wcag 1.0 checkpoints. Tomq+ wendyq+ Tomq- Michaelack w wendyaction: mc add the importance of linking from wcag 2.0 techniques to wcag 1.0 checkpoints * RRSAgent records action 10 wendyaction: wac write proposal for how css techniques could be written with "macro-level" tasks and how might be incorporated into html techniques. think about how map from wcag 1.0 checkpoints to wcag 2.0 techniques. includes how to link to tests (many of which are html) and back to general techniques. * RRSAgent records action 11 wendyagenda? wendyq? wendyq+ john wendyRRSAgent, make log world RRSAgentI have made the request, wendy Michaelack john wendyjs: that sounds like we are obligating ourselves to a detailed oversation of all known user agents and if they support a technique.js: is that correct? if so, when will we finish?mc: minimum - say if it is implemented.mc: if we know it is supported in one ua one way and something diff in another, makes it difficult to implement.jc: UAWG does that.mc: overlaps, but not 100#s/#/%jc: that's a lot of work. have someone else do it.bc: when we conceived it, we were going to define a set of reasonable UAs for which this would apply.mc: if we go with baseline, could end up with 0. :)http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/att-0667/ draft_test_matrix_v2.htmlmc: there are 2 approaches we can take: 1. s/must/should 2. remove UA info completely 3. leave as is KerstinircKerstin has joined wai-wcag wendyag: there is info available from other groups. e.g., supoprt for css http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0517.htmljs: mathml and svg have imp info, tools: there is a difference between UA support and user support. * wendy feels we're heading straight for the baseline issues...do we want to? wendyls: server solutions that provide semantic info is available in a form that current technologies can accept. * Michael no - we need to defer to CSUN FtF once we inventory the issues wendyls: eventually, ua support will overtake/incorporate server-side solutions Ryladogq+ wendyls: important thing is that the user has a mech to get to the info, not that directly in UAack ry joeclarkq+ to get on with the show a bit wendykhs: let's lessen the constraintmc: is s/must/may enough?bc: have minimum in 2nd sentence. therefore, delete 1st 2 sentences.mc: proposes rewordingack joe wendyjc: something needs to change. delete it. Michaelaction: mc delete first two sentences of UA support documentation requirement * RRSAgent records action 12 ben4. techniques related to level 2 and 3 SC [from wendy] joeclarkq+ wendyq+ john wendyack joe wendyq+ AliGq+ wendyack john wendyack wendy Michaelack a wendyack ali wendywac, alig: delete them Michaelaction: mc delete the untestable techniques / additional ideas stuff * RRSAgent records action 13 wendylots of nodding heads Michaeltopic: Getting to rec alanircalan has left wai-wcag MichaelircMichael has left wai-wcag AliGircAliG has left wai-wcag wendyircwendy has left wai-wcag benircben has left wai-wcag KerstinircKerstin has left wai-wcag AndiircAndi has left wai-wcag TomircTom has left wai-wcag JessieircJessie has left wai-wcag dinoircdino has left wai-wcag benircben has joined wai-wcag benagenda? MichaelircMichael has joined wai-wcag benscribe: benagenda + What's needed to get through the recommendation process? wendyircwendy has joined wai-wcag benSteve Bratt, COO of W3C - responsible for recommendation track process, here to discuss what's neded to get through the process alanircalan has joined wai-wcag benwc: do people have thoughts or questions about what we talked about before lunch? (things we need to do to get through rec.?) AndiircAndi has joined wai-wcag benkhs: what do we need to do?mc: suggest doing a high-level summary and then discss some of the transition points to help figure out where what we're doing is and isn't helpful toward getting us to recc.wc: there are about 10 major projects we could be doing based on how WCAG 1.0 is being used worldwide - would like to get to what it is we must do to get through recc.wc: what does it mean for us to have 2 interoperable implementations and how would we demonstrate that?wc: ex. 2 sites that we think meet WCAG 2.0 and then conduct usability testingwc: main thing is to do testing with people with disabilitiesag: a little bit of usability toojs: so now you have a sense for why this is taking us so longsb: 1st group of this type was UA, not quite like other specs in that there are issues of language, browsers, platforms, etc.sb: simple case that we talk about is two simple prorams that can talk to each other in a specific waysb: separating it into what we think has to be done is not easy - esp. because we want this to be adoptable into regulationsb: most people see our criteria as simple as 2 interop. implementations for each reqd. feature, your group may want to write up a page TomircTom has joined wai-wcag benmc: does that go in requirements itself?sb: usually, there is information about this specific to the CR stagemc: do we set criteria as we please or are there guidelines for how to construct this?sb: at some point, you'll go to last call and there will be a request from the group and a link to the group's decision to do this, a link to comments from last call and their disposition (incl. formal objections)sb: going from CR to Proposed Rec. then we look at what your criteria were for getting out of CR stagesb: problems can be avoided if WG can show agreed upon minimum criterion and how we met themkhs: technically, what we need to do is decide we want to have a site that complies. can it be two implementations from two different types of content (ex. one HTML/CSS site and a VoiceXML site)ag: can I ask how the public comments are actually being integrated? KerstinircKerstin has joined wai-wcag benwc: we have bugzilla database, which come from WG and public comments - we are working to close each of those issues before we go to last call KerstinBen, let me know if you want a break for a little while taking notes .... JessieircJessie has joined wai-wcag KerstinCan't promise the whole afternoon, but part of it certainly. :-) joeclarkq? joeclarkq+ bensb: yes, and closed means either you've agreed, not agreed and whether they want a formal objectionwc: all of this gets loged in public comments list - right now, I have a queue of 200+ issues that need to be sent to reviewerswc: also have a reviewer list and we keep in touch with them about how we're handling their comments. we've had substantial comments from Access Board, IAC Canada, etc. Michaelack joe benwc: some reviewers are waiting for last calljc: can you explain the w3c's responsibility for handling comments? address them?sb: response, ex. good suggestion, but no, good idea, but future... alanircalan has left wai-wcag benjc: there are parts of WCAG 2.0 where people fundamentally dispute issuesjc: all of the disputed issues will go through, my point is that the way you address it is, "yes, thank you for commenting"?sb: we would look for response that includes a rationale and give commenters opportunity to comment or formally object about something.sb: formal objections are rare, but it is possible for a formal objection to result in a case where Tim would overturn the decisions of a groupjc: tme crunch is another issuesb: most specs have some known faults. we do report formal objections and note them in the process of going to recc. we do make a best effort to make people feel that they've been heard and address the issuessb: all the process does is force you to go through objections, realizing nothing is perfect joeclarkTime crunch is another issue that will tempt WCAG WG to ignore objections. (To clarify.) * ben thanks benag: time crunch is an issue, if you're not certain, there's no point in rushing aheadag: bigger than producing a technology specsb: question is whether in 2 years you'll have a spec that improves, by 1%, 2%, 50%? benkhs: at some point, you have to move forward and work with something, knowing that issues have been vetted joeclarkq+ benag: ex. in my job, I could be sued because of decisions made around this table - more impact than you thought about originallyjs: web is 15 years old. advent of GUI set blind users back 15 years, so we're just now catching up again. WCAG 1.0 pulled together a number of documents written to address these issues. there are a lot of problems with 1.0 and a lot of great things about 1.0. you've talked about how important it is in Europe and it's been important here too, so we should not change it lightly, but it makes some fundamental assumptions that simply don't hold Michaelack t benack Tom steveircsteve has joined wai-wcag wendyq+ to ask, "what need to do, not do we need to do it" bentc: so what I see from ag is that you want something that is substantial enough that we won't put ourselves in danger if adopted into legislation, but at the same time we're worried about timeframe. if we try to make it too perfect, how much better will it get? fundamental shift in 2.0 sets more of a framework for what needs to be done. getting that in place I think is much more important than improving on 1.0 wendyq+ david Michaelq+ Alistair alanircalan has joined wai-wcag Michaelack j benjc: point of interest for Steve. differenc between WCAG and many other W3C recs and even betwen other guidelines like ATAG and UAAG is that WCAG isn't being ignored and is being legislated. issue is that this is under more scrutiny and most cenrally, web access is a contensious issue in the first place, so the typical W3C approach may fail for WCAG 2.0 for the reasons that I mentionedsb: if the goal is to get the whole world to agree on something, does anyone think that's possible? how do you deal with that?sb: your group would know better than anyone else, but process and commenting is a way to measure how far we are from agreement wendyack we AliGircAliG has joined wai-wcag benwc: I want to acknowledge that I don't think anyone thinks we're ready for last call or that we've addressed all the issues. ? is what is it we need to do to make the world better than it is now?wc: would like us to focus on the ? of what it is we need to do. how do we make it more likely than not that WCAG 2.0 will be adopted. We can't guarantee adoption, we can't guarantee world consensus. Michaelack d bendm: feel privledged to hear some of your experience, discerning when issues are and are not an issue is a big job. can you provide an example where a technology needed to be changed radically from it's first release?sb: good question, XML 1.1 might be a good example, but not a very good analogy to WCAG casesb: XML 1.1 yielded a lot of pushback because a number of people didn't want to change what they'd already diddm: ex. like sleeping next to an elephant, every little change has big impactsb: an new opportunities joeclarkq? bensb: hopefully in the end, the decisions benefit everyone Ryladogq+ Michaelack a greggircgregg has left wai-wcag benag: in terms of getting a new guideline together, you would have to show that it was a considerable improvement Michaelq lisaq+ lisa benag: second, if you could keep it as in sync as possible with the previous version so that the investents in training that were made don't require retraining (ex.Priority vs. Levels change in terminology)ag: so you're really talking about cost benefit. you actually have to show that somehow because people will belooking at WCAG 2.0 carefully to see whether it's better. If it's not, they can afford to wait until we do prove that it's better. steveq+ benag: my major concern is that releasing too early, degrades the output and creates potential for others to write their own. would suggest that we hold back until we're sure it's ready. Michaelack r benkhs: several people here have experience with different types of stds. organizations kenircken has joined wai-wcag benkhs: I think there isn't going to be a point where you can say it's perfect. choice is avail. to stick with 1.0 or migrate to 2.0. govts./orgs. have a choice about which standard they're going to followkhs: what is status of W3C specs fast-tracing to ISOsb: we decided to wait until a group really wants to do it wendyq+ AlircAl has joined wai-wcag wendyq+ david alanircalan has left wai-wcag benkhs: I have had limited experience with an ISO spec and they all have a logical order for dealing with comments and making some kind of resolution and deciding when to move forward. You'll never have all commenters agree that things are perfect, so I'd like to know what is it WCAG needs to do (technicaly) to move forward? Michaelack l greggircgregg has joined wai-wcag benls: to give some perspective, in Israel, we don't currently have access regs. they are currently writing some and so far (though it's not final) they seem to be referring to WCAG 2.0 as the latest draft and will eventually point to WCAG 2.0 later on. reason they did that was that they decided it was better to start with latest. it's a country without any baggage around access regulation and they still came up with a decision that WCAG 2.0 was better even th Michaelack t bentc: I'm going to step back a minute to examine why are we saying that WCAG 2.0 is really different and why it's better. thing is, we think this approach is better for people with disabilities and the regulation is up to policy makerstc: we have got considerable evidence that what we're doing does constitute a considerable improvement. as much as adoption is a big issue, we shouldn't tie ourselves to the fact that some will have to change what they're already doing Michaelack s joeclarkq? wendyq+ tim bentc: far more credible to say that we've taken an approach that benefits pwds than one that benefits people who have adopted previous guidelinessb: patent policy example. it was very contentious in W3C as a community and got a lot of public scrutiny. decided new patent policy was worth it and went aheadsb: if you can make significant improvements with another year of work, then you should do it, but if it's another 5, it may not be worthwhilesb: getting something out to last call indicates that the WG is ready for the world to review and commentsb: ok to highlight differences of opinion in WG at last call stage if need be, though not idealsb: getting it out there sooner sounds like it would be beneficial to yousb: goal for testability also points toward moving toward CR stage sooner to establish testabilitysb: get to a point where some of the things we're concerned about get out there for the public to review Michaelack w bensb: not uncommon to go back to last call phase after getting public comments from this stage - groups usually decide to go back based on those comments.ag: one of our issues is defining what testability means. if there was a level where you could say everyone who reads it has to come up with the same thing. that would really help.wc: but some of those things will nevery be objectively testable Michaelscribe: AliGack d Michaelack t AliGdm: disability rights organsations are pushing things. If we take too much time, there is a cost in terms of corporate knowledge.TB People say WCAG 2 is better than WCAG 1. From a QA standpoint, WCAG 2 should not be seen as a completely different thing. WCAG 2 should be see as more of an enhancement. Demonstrating that WCAG 2.0 we should show the changes which have been made. With regard to testing, are there certain less contenscious things which could be tested first, then move on to other things.WC : Sounds like end to end. Taking one thing.SB: Is there a business case which shows the improvements.DM: There was a person in Canada that thought it was better because it does not go out of date.WC: Reads requirements for WCAG 2.0 wendyhttp://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/ AliGDM: WCAG 1.0 was descriminatory, so it helped people with certain disabilities over others.WC: This was a myth. Other myths existed about WCAG 1.0 also.MC: I am hearing concern that WCAG 2.0 is not right because it is not fully baked. Others say that it is better. We still need to know what work needs to be done.MC: We also heard that things need to be done right now. joeclarkIf you rolled the knowledge gained from the usability study of 1.0, you would at least know what would be acceptable for 2.0.WENDY: 1.0 has too may serious flaws to simply be fixedup.ALISTAIR: An improved 1.0 might buy us a little more time.STEVE: Then you'd have to train people on the new "1.5" as well as 2.0.ALISTAIR: No, you wouldn't.WENDY: Governments aren't going to change their laws this year for "1.5" and next year for 2.0. Michaelscribe: joeclark joeclarkALISTAIR: I'm not saying to make a "1.5." Use errata to create an updated version of 2.0. AliGWC: There are problems with WCAG 2 which could loose us credibility. We need to find out what we need to do to iron out these problems. joeclarkJOHN SLATIN: We talked about that over the last 1.5 years.[Scribe returns to Alistair] Michaelscribe: AliG wendyq? joeclarksomeone else scribe, please. AliGJS: We have looked at an errata for WCAG 1.0. But the time you spend on WCAG 1.0 errata is time lost on WCAG 2.0.JC: There is a killer to using a WCAG 1.0 errata. There does not seem to be enough time, or people to work on an errata. steveircsteve has left wai-wcag AliGTC: Errata would be window dressing. joeclarkWendy utters phrase "so we do not produce a piece of *crap*" AliGWC: If we provide a WCAG 2.0 which is testable then it would allow authoring tools to take it up, etc... Michaelack t AliGMC: What I am hearing is a way off between sooner rather than better.TC: Is it reasonable to start the process in order to get feedback. AlircAl has left wai-wcag AliGSB: It would be good to solicite feedback about things which could have a negative impact.TC: AG was saying that things have to be really solid, but due to resources some time we have to guess as some things.DM: are there any cases where a new recommendation is produced, and people continue to use the old spec.SB: CSS, XHTML.TB: Are there any chartering things regarding WCAG wendysteve bratt - http://w3.org/People/all#steve AliGMC: How do we resolve the issue which is blocking us.WC: I have been pushing hard on time lines, which has forced people, which is good. We need to look at the things which we need to get done for WCAG 2.0. We have a lot of pieces, but we just need to pull the information together.JS: I would like to see this group concentrate on keeping a line between the issues which we can work on and those things which the full WCAG working group can work on.MC: Sometimes there is nothing we can do about that.TC: We should be able to find any critical decisions, and we should then able to get an answer back from the main WCAG 2.0 working group.WC: We need to make some progress on the techniques documents. It would be great to break up into groups and look the different techniques.BC: It would be good to look at the flow through the documents.KG: There is a lot of work ahead. And a number of different things which need to be done.BC: The discussion suggests that we need to start processing issues.KG: There seems to be more to it than that. There are a number of large issues which need to be tackled. * Michael AliG maybe you and I can work this afternoon on a proposal for a solution to the issues that seems adoptable by this group AliGKG: This brings me back to Ian's suggestion that we need to come up with a model for how technology producers can produce there own guidelines.The audience are technology spec writers. AliGDM: There is a general spec. AlircAl has joined wai-wcag Alq? benq+ Michaelack t AliGMC: I think the audience of WCAG is content writers. But I think that the document which Kerstein is talking about does not exist. WCAG is trying to fulfil a larger role than it is designed for, hence the problems.TC: We have a good insight into how to make technologies accessible, we should pass this on to other developers of technologies.TC: We also need to realise that our documents are to be written into legislation etc... AliGAGillman: Some concerns which have been raised in PF is ZAG WCAG integration. Michaelack ben wendys/ZAG/xag joeclarkq+ to ask about topics for these imminent breakout groups AliGBC: A spec for how to write accessible specs does not describe the specification which tells authors how to make accessible content. Kerstinq+ lisa AlircAl has left wai-wcag Kerstinack lisa Michaelack l Kerstinack joeclark Michaelack j AliGLS: I liked the idea of looking at different areas, we are trying to produce documents which are too much to too many. This is the route of the problem. If the idea is to produce guidelines for guidelines makers, it would narrow what we are looking at and we find a way to a specification. wendyour charter: http://www.w3.org/2004/04/wcag-charter.html AliGMC: The breakout groups are CSS, formats, scripting, general, a proposal for moving forward.For creating an accessible specifications - the hook between wcag 2.0 may be the requirment on exposing stucture to programmes. joeclarkWhat are the deliverables for these breakout groups? wendydeliverables: notes, hopefully in the form of a draft proposal or list of issues and/or summary. reports from each group. JessieircJessie has left wai-wcag Michael_ircMichael_ has joined wai-wcag MichaelircMichael has left wai-wcag MichaelMichael_ircMichael_ is now known as Michael RyladogircRyladog has left wai-wcag wendyircwendy has left wai-wcag AndiircAndi has left wai-wcag KerstinircKerstin has left wai-wcag Michael_ircMichael_ has joined wai-wcag MichaelircMichael has left wai-wcag Michael__ircMichael__ has joined wai-wcag MichaelMichael__ircMichael__ is now known as Michael Michael_ircMichael_ has left wai-wcag mcmayircmcmay has left wai-wcag AndiircAndi has joined wai-wcag joeclarkMICHAEL: We feel that we're stuck because we need resolution on topics that are not getting resolved.In the Techniques group, suddenly we keep hearing that only the larger group can make certain decisions, which aren't getting made."And the larger group is not fully cognizant of our ability to do the work."Our proposal is to work with the larger group to resolve certain blocker issues, like baseline,which here means which accessibility tasks are delegated to Web content, which to adaptive technology, and which to user agent.Also technology features that are not formal parts of a specification (e.g., embed).WENDY: Tim has a list of all possible CSS attributes we could address, but we should probably focus solely on access-related attributes.When you say "stymied," Michael, you make it sound like we haven't made progress, but we *have* made progress (Kerstin, Andi agree).Wendy tries to "gauge the frustration in the room."KERSTIN: We're talking about baseline as though we didn't have energy and excitement on that topic from Dublin.TOM: We seemed to have all but completely decided on baseline at Dublin.WENDY: We should entirely resolve baseline at CSUN meeting.Propose that we spend tomorrow morning creating a project plan for what needs to be done between now and CSUN, how much time each task takes, and what skills-- all just for baseline."I really wanted to leave the meeting knowing which of those things we could scratch off the list" of things we needed to do before Candidate Recommendation.Ben notes that some UAAG checklists seem to be unrelated to the reality of the device in question, so the UAAG checklists are possibly unreliable.WENDY: One of the UAAG issues is support of scripting, which UAAG does not require. So we still have an unanswered question about scripting/no script.q+ Tom Michaelq+ tom joeclarkWENDY: There's a baseline keyword in Bugzilla that can be searched on.q+ Andi Michaelack tom joeclarkTOM: As mentioned in Dublin, having a suite of WCAG documents would be "cool." But could UAAG be brought to v2.0 with some alterations to the issues?WENDY: I'd rather do WCAG 1.1."I don't think that's currently in their charter."BEN: Conditional content is a big one, and I think that needs to happen. For example, title="" can be rendered instead of the original.That could be dealt with in an errate.errata.TOM: But you'd have ATAG 2, WCAG 2, and UAAG 2 tied together as a suite and interrelated.As an example of "Here's where authors, authoring tools, and user agents need to get to."WENDY: That already exists. It's called the Interdependent Components of Web Accessibility.To fix that, we'd have to know what's wrong with UAAG, talk to them about it, and bring it back here.We have a confirmed PF/UA/WCAG meeting tomorrow where we could bring this up.So, tomorrow: Work with Ben on UAAG gap analysis.Come up with work plan on how to resolve baseline between now and CSUN, and, if possible, an agenda of questions and items on how to address it for CSUN.Also, long-term planning: Which things that are "all possible" can we knock off the list?NEXT!JENAE: Wendy's idea of combining HTML with CSS. A lot of the CSS techniques and test cases are triggered by HTML elements. Thus HTML doc will trigger CSS and vice-versa.Putting them together has them all in one place.ALISTAIR: Combining them to reduce "links" seems pointless since the total number of links will be the same.WENDY: Feedback from usability testing of WCAG 1 and WAI redesign is task-based.ALISTAIR: It's completely up to you. Personally, in terms of what I look at the documents for, I would say that HTML and CSS should be separated, since that's how people are used to it.WENDY: But the ways people are used to it are not usable.ANDI wants to see a proposal, "but don't make it look like a document."WENDY thinks the most important thing to have is the index, then items by tasks.Our tasks right now are too atomic.JOHN: Has a list of things they have general techniques for. David has some for GL 2.5, which they looked over.Hoped to revise them so they look more like the more-recent techniques.DAVID will clean those up and give them back to John by CSUN.John is working on Level 3 success criterion for GL 3.1 about complexity reduction and assertions of those."We decided a long time ago to expunge from the guidelines anything that requires that merely a statement exist."KATIE is to produce a VoiceML technique.JOE knows people at Opera who could help Katie with that. greggircgregg has left wai-wcag joeclark1:30 tomorrow is the joint meeting with PF and UA.MICHAEL: We will definitely plan for next f2f meeting and what needs to be done for candidate recommendation.We will break out into three groups tomorrow: Analyzing UAAG; workplan for resolving baseline; plan for Recommendation.i.e., UAAG, baseline, long-term planning.KERSTIN to present 5min overview to PF/UA meeting tomorrow. greggircgregg has joined wai-wcag joeclarkMICHAEL adjourns.though people keep talking. kenircken has left wai-wcag benircben has left wai-wcag Michaelrrsagent, generate minutes RRSAgentI have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-wai-wcag-minutes Michael