w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from April to June 2016 by author

Adam Solomon

• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: regions of a page failure technique (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: regions of a page failure technique (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: regions of a page failure technique (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Issue 171 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)

ALAN SMITH

• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering successcriteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 26 May)
• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Tuesday, 17 May)
• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Further reading of WCAG 2.0 supporting docs for 3.3.2 seem to confirm change of content as I have been mentioning. (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Stepping up or down with the next step: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• RE: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 11 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone thatare used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone thatare used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• RE: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• RE: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• RE: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• RE: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are usedeverywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)

Alastair Campbell

• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• WCAG minutes for June 28th 2016 (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes (Monday, 16 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: Icon and Icon Fonts: New thread (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Re[2]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Wednesday, 4 May)
• warning category for techniques / failures. (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 4th, 2016 (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Issue 170 - F52 recommendations (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Issue 170 - F52 recommendations (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 - minutes (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)

Alistair Garrison

• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)

Andrew Kirkpatrick

• Minutes June 21, 2016 (Tuesday, 21 June)
• WCAG Agenda June 21, 2016 (Monday, 20 June)
• Re: Home for orphan WCAG SC proposals (Friday, 17 June)
• Re: focus order with tabindex - is it aloud? (Tuesday, 14 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull request 193 (Updates to PDF3) (Tuesday, 14 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull request 189 (Adding PX comment to G18 and G145) (Tuesday, 14 June)
• Re: CfC: Issue 182 (Force order with TabIndex - is it allowed?) (Tuesday, 14 June)
• Re: H91 changes (Wednesday, 8 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull request 174 (Wednesday, 8 June)
• Re: H91 changes (Wednesday, 8 June)
• CfC: Issue 182 (Force order with TabIndex - is it allowed?) (Tuesday, 7 June)
• CfC: Pull request 189 (Adding PX comment to G18 and G145) (Tuesday, 7 June)
• CfC: Pull request 193 (Updates to PDF3) (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• CfC: Pull request 174 (Monday, 6 June)
• CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 (Monday, 6 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: CfC: Adding px note to Understanding Documents (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: CfC: Issue 186 Resolution (Friday, 27 May)
• H91 changes (Wednesday, 25 May)
• Related to the Pull 188 discussion (Wednesday, 25 May)
• CfC: Adding px note to Understanding Documents (Wednesday, 25 May)
• CfC: Issue 186 Resolution (Wednesday, 25 May)
• Minutes from May 24 WCAG call (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: What to do with my proposed changes for large scale (text)? (Tuesday, 24 May)
• WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Wednesday, 11 May)
• WCAG proposal for discussion (Tuesday, 10 May)
• WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 (Saturday, 7 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 (Monday, 25 April)
• Tip for reading GitHub pull requests (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Monday, 25 April)
• CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Monday, 25 April)
• Proposed response to question (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 168 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• CfC: Issue 168 (Tuesday, 12 April)
• CfC: Issue 157 (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Marking Issues as deferred (Tuesday, 12 April)
• WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• CfC: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 - update (Sunday, 3 April)
• WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 (Sunday, 3 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)
• 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)

Balusani, Shirisha

• RE: High contrast in MAC (Friday, 27 May)
• High contrast in MAC (Thursday, 26 May)

Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.

• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Friday, 24 June)
• RE: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• New Member Introduction (Monday, 23 May)
• RE: WCAG proposal for discussion (Tuesday, 17 May)

Chaals McCathie Nevile

• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)

David MacDonald

• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Desktop view should not be conforming alternative for Mobile view. (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• possible plain language replacements as we write SCs (Saturday, 25 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• Rewording of proposed Success Criterion on dynamic and changes to content (Tuesday, 21 June)
• Re: Home for orphan WCAG SC proposals (Friday, 17 June)
• Home for orphan WCAG SC proposals (Friday, 17 June)
• Home for proposed SCs that don't have a Task Forcw (Friday, 17 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Wednesday, 15 June)
• COGA SC B.3.3.2 Interactive controls are visually clear ... (Wednesday, 15 June)
• Characteristics of Success Criteria (Tuesday, 14 June)
• Re: H91 changes (Thursday, 9 June)
• Characteristics of Success Criteria and How to write them (Wednesday, 8 June)
• Re: COGA SC (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: New Member Introduction (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: regions of a page failure technique (Thursday, 19 May)
• regions of a page failure technique (Wednesday, 18 May)
• GOV UK research on Low Vision (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: SCs for Mega Menu fails (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: An introduction (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New member introduction (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Pinch zoom (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Completed action item to update issue #173 (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Sunday, 1 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 26 April)
• In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Minutes from April 12, 2016 WCAG meeting (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: Authroing tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: WCAG Next Possible Models (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)

Denis Boudreau (gmail)

• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Thursday, 28 April)

Detlev Fischer

• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Tuesday, 31 May)
• Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics (Saturday, 16 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics (Friday, 15 April)

EA Draffan

• RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)

Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo

• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)

Eric Eggert

• Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Tuesday, 5 April)

Gian Wild

• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 26 April)

Glenda Sims

• Re: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)

Greg Lowney

• Re: H91 changes (Wednesday, 8 June)
• Re: H91 changes (Wednesday, 8 June)

Gregg Vanderheiden

• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Friday, 3 June)
• Re: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" (Saturday, 28 May)
• Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Saturday, 2 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Saturday, 2 April)

Gregg Vanderheiden RTF

• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Sunday, 1 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics (Saturday, 16 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)

Henny Swan

• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Tuesday, 24 May)

James Nurthen

• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Headings in COGA Gap Analysis page (Wednesday, 15 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 (Monday, 6 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)

Jeanne Spellman

• Minutes of the WCAG WG teleconference of 14 June 2016 (Tuesday, 14 June)

Jim Allan

• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 28 June)

Jim Tobias

• RE: WCAG Next Possible Models (Friday, 8 April)

John Foliot

• Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• a degraded experience (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Sunday, 26 June)
• Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Sunday, 26 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 (Saturday, 11 June)
• RE: Label Association with Input Field Question (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull request 193 (Updates to PDF3) (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: CfC: Issue 182 (Force order with TabIndex - is it allowed?) (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull request 189 (Adding PX comment to G18 and G145) (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Thursday, 28 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Re[2]: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Tuesday, 19 April)
• RE: CfC: Issue 157 (Saturday, 16 April)
• Re: Re[2]: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Friday, 15 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Thursday, 14 April)
• RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Friday, 8 April)
• WCAG Next Possible Models (Friday, 8 April)
• RE: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Saturday, 2 April)

John Kirkwood

• Minutes from April 18, 2016 WCAG meeting (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 (Tuesday, 12 April)

john.foliot

• RE: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 (Saturday, 11 June)

Jonathan Avila

• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Monday, 27 June)
• RE: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Friday, 17 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Thursday, 9 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Thursday, 9 June)
• Re: H91 changes (Wednesday, 8 June)
• RE: Label Association with Input Field Question (Tuesday, 7 June)
• RE: Aside on the use of ARIA landmark roles (Thursday, 19 May)
• Draft minutes from 10 May 2016 Teleconference (Tuesday, 10 May)
• RE: SCs for Mega Menu fails (Tuesday, 10 May)
• RE: Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• RE: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Pinch zoom (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Thursday, 28 April)
• RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics (Friday, 15 April)
• RE: CfC: Issue 157 (Thursday, 14 April)
• RE: CfC: Issue 171 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)

josh@interaccess.ie

• Re: CfC: Public review of updated Techniques and Understanding documents (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: wiki page to collect WCAG's feedback (Monday, 27 June)
• Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Saturday, 25 June)
• CfC: Public review of updated Techniques and Understanding documents (Saturday, 25 June)
• WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 (Saturday, 25 June)
• Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Tuesday, 21 June)
• CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Tuesday, 14 June)
• Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• Re: What to do with my proposed changes for large scale (text)? (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re[2]: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re[2]: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Tuesday, 17 May)
• WCAG Agenda May 17, 2016 (Saturday, 14 May)
• Re[4]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[4]: SCs for Mega Menu fails (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[4]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[2]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[2]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[2]: SCs for Mega Menu fails (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[4]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• SCs for Mega Menu fails (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• WCAG Agenda May 4th, 2016 (Friday, 29 April)
• Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re[2]: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re[2]: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 (Monday, 25 April)
• WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 (Monday, 25 April)
• Re[2]: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re[2]: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re[2]: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 (Sunday, 17 April)
• Re[2]: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Friday, 15 April)

Joshue O Connor

• WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 (Saturday, 11 June)
• WCAG Agenda May 31, 2016 (Saturday, 28 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 18 May)
• RE: Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)

Jutta Treviranus

• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)

Kathy Wahlbin

• RE: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 (Tuesday, 14 June)
• RE: WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 (Tuesday, 7 June)
• RE: WCAG Agenda May 31, 2016 (Saturday, 28 May)
• RE: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• RE: WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 (Tuesday, 19 April)
• RE: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)

Katie Haritos-Shea

• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Wednesday, 15 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• Re: An introduction (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)

Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL

• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 June)
• RE: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Tuesday, 21 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Thursday, 9 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Thursday, 9 June)
• RE: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• RE: New Member Introduction (Monday, 23 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Tuesday, 5 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Saturday, 2 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)

Kevin White

• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Thursday, 28 April)

kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com

• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Tuesday, 17 May)

Kurt Mattes

• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Monday, 11 April)

Laura Carlson

• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)

Liddy Nevile

• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)

lisa.seeman

• wiki page to collect WCAG's feedback (Sunday, 26 June)
• COGA SC (Tuesday, 7 June)
• COGA drafts (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Tuesday, 31 May)
• acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 26 May)
• RE: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Thursday, 14 April)
• consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Thursday, 14 April)

Léonie Watson

• RE: CfC: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Duplicate survey option (Monday, 4 April)

Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.

• Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Saturday, 16 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Tuesday, 5 April)

Michael Cooper

• TPAC 2016 Registration Now Open (Friday, 13 May)

Michael Pluke

• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)

Mike Elledge

• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda June 21, 2016 (Tuesday, 21 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Label Association with Input Field Question (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Label Association with Input Field Question (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: regions of a page failure technique (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Draft Minutes from 17 May 2016 Teleconference (Tuesday, 17 May)
• Re: New member introduction (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Is Advisory Technique H80 Sufficient? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements (Friday, 22 April)
• Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)

Moe Kraft

• Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda June 21, 2016 (Tuesday, 21 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 (Tuesday, 14 June)
• Re: An introduction (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 - update (Tuesday, 5 April)

Patrick H. Lauke

• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering successcriteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Sunday, 26 June)
• Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Sunday, 26 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Tuesday, 31 May)
• What to do with my proposed changes for large scale (text)? (Tuesday, 24 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Friday, 20 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: SCs for Mega Menu fails (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Pinch zoom (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. (Monday, 2 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Sunday, 1 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Thursday, 21 April)
• Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 168 (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 157 (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: Authroing tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)

Paul J. Adam

• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Friday, 1 April)

Phill Jenkins

• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 4 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Sunday, 10 April)

Rakesh Paladugula

• confusion in 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) (Sunday, 15 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Thursday, 12 May)

Repsher, Stephen J

• RE: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Friday, 17 June)
• Headings in COGA Gap Analysis page (Wednesday, 15 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Friday, 10 June)
• New member introduction (Tuesday, 10 May)

Sailesh Panchang

• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• Re: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" (Sunday, 29 May)
• Re: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" (Monday, 23 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 20 May)
• Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" (Monday, 16 May)
• What does "Or is available in text" in SC 1.3.1 refer to (Sunday, 15 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: Re[2]: SCs for Mega Menu fails (Tuesday, 10 May)
• Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Monday, 9 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Wednesday, 4 May)
• Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Re[2]: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)

Sarah Horton

• Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 (Monday, 27 June)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 31, 2016 (Saturday, 28 May)
• Re: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 (Sunday, 8 May)
• Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Saturday, 7 May)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)

Sarah Swierenga

• RE: Pull request 174 (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: WCAG proposal for discussion (Tuesday, 17 May)
• RE: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 (Monday, 9 May)
• WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 - meeting minutes (Tuesday, 26 April)
• RE: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• RE: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 (Monday, 11 April)
• RE: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)

Shane McCarron

• Re: Headings in COGA Gap Analysis page (Wednesday, 15 June)

Shawn Lauriat

• Re: An introduction (Wednesday, 11 May)
• An introduction (Tuesday, 10 May)

Steve Faulkner

• Re: High contrast in MAC (Friday, 27 May)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Wednesday, 6 April)

Ta, Duc

• Re: warning category for techniques / failures. (Thursday, 5 May)
• Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 4 May)

Thad C

• Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Wednesday, 22 June)
• Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Wednesday, 15 June)
• Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 26 May)
• Re: Aside on the use of ARIA landmark roles (Thursday, 19 May)
• Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Thursday, 14 April)

Tom Babinszki

• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)

Wayne Dick

• Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD (Wednesday, 22 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes (Thursday, 16 June)
• Headings and ARIA substitutes (Wednesday, 15 June)
• 6/7 Minutes for WCAG (Tuesday, 7 June)
• Re: regions of a page failure technique (Wednesday, 18 May)
• Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes (Saturday, 14 May)
• Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image (Saturday, 14 May)
• Re: WCAG proposal for discussion (Thursday, 12 May)
• Re: Pinch zoom (Wednesday, 11 May)
• Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Sunday, 1 May)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Tuesday, 26 April)
• Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: CfC: Issue 171 (Tuesday, 5 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)
• Re: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker

• WCAG-ACTION-327: Ping lisa and update her on outcome of the tf facilitator meeting (Thursday, 30 June)
• WCAG-ACTION-326: Draft message for wider review (Thursday, 30 June)
• WCAG-ACTION-325: And david to lead on sc numbering issue (Tuesday, 28 June)
• WCAG-ACTION-324: Create wcag wiki page for tf issues (Thursday, 26 May)
• WCAG-ACTION-323: And andrew to propose overall timeline to drive date planning (Thursday, 26 May)
• WCAG-ACTION-322: Look back to see if we added new input types to h91 (Tuesday, 19 April)
• WCAG-ACTION-321: Propose project plan for wcag (Thursday, 7 April)

White, Jason J

• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Thursday, 30 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) (Wednesday, 29 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Wednesday, 29 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop (Tuesday, 28 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Monday, 27 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Sunday, 26 June)
• RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) (Sunday, 26 June)
• RE: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 (Sunday, 26 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Saturday, 25 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage (Tuesday, 21 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Thursday, 9 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Wednesday, 8 June)
• RE: H91 changes (Wednesday, 8 June)
• RE: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: CfC: Pull Request 137 (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Monday, 6 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Thursday, 2 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Wednesday, 1 June)
• RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Tuesday, 31 May)
• RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria (Tuesday, 31 May)
• RE: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" (Monday, 23 May)
• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Friday, 20 May)
• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Thursday, 19 May)
• Aside on the use of ARIA landmark roles (Thursday, 19 May)
• RE: regions of a page failure technique (Thursday, 19 May)
• RE: regions of a page failure technique (Wednesday, 18 May)
• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)
• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)
• RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures (Wednesday, 18 May)
• RE: WCAG proposal for discussion (Tuesday, 17 May)
• RE: confusion in 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) (Sunday, 15 May)
• RE: WCAG proposal for discussion (Wednesday, 11 May)
• RE: Is Advisory Technique H80 Sufficient? (Tuesday, 10 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Monday, 9 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) (Friday, 6 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Tuesday, 3 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Monday, 2 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Sunday, 1 May)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Saturday, 30 April)
• RE: Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Friday, 29 April)
• RE: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RE: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: Tip for reading GitHub pull requests (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 25 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Thursday, 21 April)
• RE: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive (Thursday, 14 April)
• RE: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• RE: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• RE: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• Authroing tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) (Monday, 11 April)
• FW: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Monday, 11 April)
• RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Sunday, 10 April)
• RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Saturday, 9 April)
• RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... (Friday, 8 April)
• RE: WCAG Next Possible Models (Friday, 8 April)
• RE: 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 (Monday, 4 April)
• RE: 1.3.1 question (Monday, 4 April)

wuyinghua@ritt.cn

• Re: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures (Wednesday, 4 May)

Last message date: Thursday, 30 June 2016 23:07:18 UTC