Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
Catherine Brys
- Issue 1363. WCAG becoming too technical for its diverse audience (Thursday, 20 January)
- Re: Guideline 2.2 - unsolicited transitions confuse (Tuesday, 18 January)
- Re: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 - comments on the " Baseline Technology Assumption" (Monday, 10 January)
- WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. WCAG Structure (Monday, 10 January)
- WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. Terminology and Writing Style (Monday, 10 January)
- WCAG 2.0 - November draft - Detailed Suggestions on WCAG Content (Monday, 10 January)
- WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. Aim and Audience of the WCAG (Monday, 10 January)
- WCAG 2.0 - November draft - Overall Suggestions on Principles, Gu idelines, Conformance, Success Criteria, Techniques and Checklists (Monday, 10 January)
- WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. Scope of the WCAG (Monday, 10 January)
Charles McCathieNevile
Clarke, Andrew
David Woolley
- Guideline 3.2 too liberal for WWW use (Monday, 17 January)
- Guideline 3.1, example 7 encourages copyright violation (Monday, 17 January)
- Guidline 1.1, L1, item 2, broken back reference to label (Monday, 17 January)
- Guidline 1.1, level 1, item 3 too specific (Monday, 17 January)
- Guideline 2.2 - unsolicited transitions confuse (Monday, 17 January)
- Guideline 3.1 Example 1 uses controversial use of acronym (Monday, 17 January)
- Guideline 1.4, informative - also applies to non-native speakers (Monday, 17 January)
Rachel McAlpine
Sören Hansson
Wim Vanderbauwhede
Last message date: Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:38:49 UTC