W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2007

RE: Consistency review

From: Sofia Celic <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:46:23 +1100
Message-ID: <A921AF4A5FC01245A8D846D004B61B36052158D0@kooxch01.visionaustralia.org>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi Loretta,

Can you please clarify which versions of the documents we are required
to review. Please post URLs.

With thanks,
Sofia


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2007 12:22 PM
To: WCAG
Subject: Consistency review


It's time to do a consistency review of our documents for publication.
We've drafted the following tentative assignments of success criteria
to working group members at

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Consistency_Review


    *  Andi Snow-Weaver (Just the GL Understanding docs) GL 1.1, GL
1.2, GL 1.3, GL 1.4, GL 2.1, GL 2.2, GL 2.3, GL 2.4, GL 3.1, GL 3.2,
GL 3.3, GL 4.1
    * Drew LaHart 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.3
    * Alex Li 1.4.4, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3
    * Bengt Farre 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4
    * Bruce Bailey 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5
    * Christophe Strobbe 2.4.4, 2.4.9, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4
    * Cynthia Shelley 1.3.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.7
    * Sean Hayes 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7
    * David MacDonald 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.10
    * Gregg Vanderheiden 1.4.3, 1.4.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.2
    * Katie Haritos-Shea 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.1.6
    * Sofia Celic 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.7, 1.4.8, 1.4.9
    * Tim Boland 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6
    * Roberto Ellero 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5

Are we missing any working group members who can help with this review?

Can you let us know whether you will NOT be able to review these SC
before Nov 30? Michael would love to start seeing changes sooner than
that, of course.

Tasks in a Consistency Review:
  - Check that the success criterion wording is consistent
  - Check that the names of techniques are consistent between the
Understanding Doc and the Technique
  - Check that the language used in the Understanding Doc and the
Technique Doc is consistent with the SC wording. Sometimes
descriptions were written against earlier versions of the SC
  - Check for any typos, grammatical problems, formatting problems
  - Check for *showstopper* content problems, e.g., this Understanding
Doc or Technique is contradicting the SC.


Thanks, Loretta




________________________________

<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside
Newsletters for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  www.ellaforspam.com	
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 00:46:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:51 GMT