deadline for comments, WCAG2
Deaf people, sign and simple language
Guideline 1.4, informative - also applies to non-native speakers
Guideline 2.2 - unsolicited transitions confuse
Guideline 3.1 Example 1 uses controversial use of acronym
Guideline 3.1, example 7 encourages copyright violation
Guideline 3.2 too liberal for WWW use
Guidline 1.1, L1, item 2, broken back reference to label
Guidline 1.1, level 1, item 3 too specific
html techniques for WCAG 2.0
IBM Comments on November 19, 2004 Public Draft of HTML Techniques
IBM Comments to November 19, 2004 Public Draft of CSS Techniques
IBM comments to the November 19, 2004 Public Draft of WCAG 2.0 Scripting Techniques
Issue 1363. WCAG becoming too technical for its diverse audience
L2 1.3 SC1 Information presented using color is also availab
SV: Call for Review: Working Draft of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. Aim and Audience of the WCAG
WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. Scope of the WCAG
WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. Terminology and Writing Style
WCAG 2.0 - November draft - comments re. WCAG Structure
WCAG 2.0 - November draft - Detailed Suggestions on WCAG Content
WCAG 2.0 - November draft - Overall Suggestions on Principles, Gu idelines, Conformance, Success Criteria, Techniques and Checklists
WCAG 2.0 - November draft : Conformance Claims in HTTP header?
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 - comments on the " Baseline Technology Assumption"
Last message date: Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:38:49 UTC