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

Re: Consistency review

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:59:35 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0711211659g66818a0bm33ef1f7efbef14e6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sofia Celic" <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Sorry! I meant to do that in the original message.


Guidelines(Editor's Draft May-November 2007):
        http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

Understanding(Editor's Draft May-November 2007 -- Review Version):
         http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/

Techniques(Editor's Draft May-November 2007 -- Review Version):
         http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/

Loretta

On Nov 21, 2007 4:46 PM, Sofia Celic <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org> wrote:
> 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 00:59:58 GMT

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