Suggestion for List Posting
Does one design for interactivity or content? [Scripts-TECHS]
[Scripts-TECHS] Comments on Script Techniques for WCAG20
BIG ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DISCUSSED
- User and user needs conflict- BIG ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DISCUSSED
- Re: User and user needs conflict- BIG ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DISCUSSED
- Re: User and user needs conflict- BIG ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DISCUSSED
- Re: User and user needs conflict- BIG ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DISCUSSED
- suggestion for WCAG checklist
- Re: User and user needs conflict- BIG ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DISCUSSED
NEW CONSENSUS CANDIDATES FOR BIG ISSUES 6,9,10,12
Minutes for 27 September 2001 telecon
Script checker and a techniques document to support it.
Tool to aid with script conformance in pages.
Agenda
Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful
recommended reading
Stop this thread [was: Re: AccessiBlog updated]
Fw: Why Validate?
RE: [webwatch] Appropriate Alt Text
[w3c-wai-gl] <none>
[w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Does anyone know of any other script wizards?
- Re: Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Browser and Technology Support [Was: Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>]
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Re: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
AccessiBlog updated
- Re: AccessiBlog updated
CONSENSUS REVISED 9-20-01
BIG ISSUES REVISED 9-20-01 (SEE BOTTOM OF NOTE)
20 Sept 2001 minutes
regrets
how/what
[w3c-wai-gl] <none>
OOPs missed one
STATEMENTS WHERE CONSENSUS WAS NOT REACHED.
CONSENSUS
BIG ISSUES
Issue Elephants, consensus and discussion
[w3c-wai-gl] <none>
[w3c-wai-gl] <none>
Agenda
Content vs User Agent question
Re: media mix and universal connectedness, plus SENSES and CHOICES
definition of accessible: text is convenient
- Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient
- Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient
- Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient
- sigint-humint was Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient
- Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient
- The Alt/Object Problem [was: Re: media mix and universal connectedness]
- who does what Re: The Alt/Object Problem [...]
- [HTML Techs] Re: who does what Re: The Alt/Object Problem [...]
- WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [was: Re: who does what]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [was: Re: who does what]
- WCAG 2.0 CP 4.4 Considered Harmful [was: Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1...]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [was: Re: who does what]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [violates: who does what]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [violates: who does what]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful
- who does what Re: The Alt/Object Problem [...]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [was: Re: who does what]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [was: Re: who does what]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [was: Re: who does what]
- Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [was: Re: who does what]
- Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient
Connundrum and a Proposal to Address It
GJR's #wai IRC log (11 September 01 / 11:57:22 to 21:39:37)
Consensus on Elephants
Re: f2f session is over (8:50pm boston time/5:50pm local time [US Pacific])
Fwd: Re: switch users
Fwd: minutes, some before lunch, some this afternoon
irc log for monday morning
the emperor's clothes (or lack thereof)
On Procedure
f2f regrets
Comments on WCAG 2.0, collated
dyslexia: sources
two birds with one stone, focus, and organization
Issues on WCAG 2.0 August 24th draft
Proposals: Priority and Conformance schemes
- no conformance requirements Re: Proposals: Priority and Conformance schemes
- conformance to functionality classes Re: Proposals: Priority and Conformance schemes
Structure of deliverables: guidelines and techniques documents
- Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?
- Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?
- Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?
- Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?
- Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?
- Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?
Minutes from 6 September 2001 WCAG WG
regrets for today's call
PDF Techniques for WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 Dated Sept 13th, 2001
Re: Accessibility Testing Lab Software/Hardware
Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 3.)
Agenda
Accessibility Testing Lab Software/Hardware?
Error fixed on agenda for F2F
Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
- Re: UA/GL duplication of effort? Re: Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 2.)
Review of Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (part 1.)
Web user with dementia
Script Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
WCAG 2.0 Feedback - General
WCAG 2.0 Feedback - Design Principles and the definition of Content
akamai
minutes for 30 Aug 2001
Re: Agenda - regrets
Call for Review of the XML Accessibility Guidelines
Agenda
ACCESSKEY-an actual strength in a perceived weakness
Re: AccessKeys and what to use [resend with new attachment]
PDF of 24 August 2001 draft
review of:Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 W3C Working Draft 24 August 2001
regrets for thursday's call
Another update to open issues list
Issue tracking: I need your help!
Checkpoint 1.2 clarifications
suggested checkpoint title revision:
question about 2.0 formats:
WCAG 2.0 Feedback - Perceived lack of clarity about target audience for Guidelines Document
WCAG 2.0 Comment: What Tells Me To label Input Controls
Font Sizes - units of measure
Caption synchronization tolerance
- Re: Caption synchronization tolerance
- Re: Caption synchronization tolerance
- Re: Caption synchronization tolerance
- Cognition Simulation
- Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Cognition Simulation
- Re: Cognition Simulation
- Re: Cognition Simulation
- Re: eating our own dog food
- Re: Cognition Simulation
- Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- Re: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- Re: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- understanding vs implementing Re: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- Re: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- Re: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- Bandwidth as a constraint
- Re: Bandwidth as a constraint
- Re: Bandwidth as a constraint
- Re: Bandwidth as a constraint
- Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- Re: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
- RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation
Caption synchronization tolerance
open issues list updated per 23 august telecon discussion
semantics in style
audio-only covered by 1.2 and 1.1?
The Web in the news
Are the guidelines upside down?
- Re: Are the guidelines upside down?
- Re: Are the guidelines upside down?
- Re: Are the guidelines upside down?
Saturday AM lyric
Data models?
Re: Disability Type Analysis of WCAG 1.0
- RE: Disability Type Analysis of WCAG 1.0
WCAG 2.0 24 August 2001 Public Working Draft
Against WCAG 1.0 style priorities->conformance
Caption synchronization tolerance
Checkpoint views
23 August 2001 WCAG WG minutes
What is the target audience for the guidelines? <eom>
[proposal] additional success criterion for WCAG2 CP 1.5
- Re: [proposal] additional success criterion for WCAG2 CP 1.5
- Re: [proposal] additional success criterion for WCAG2 CP 1.5
Re: AccessKeys and what to use
WCAG 2 issue #1
Eating one's own dog food
In defense of flame wars
updated checkpoint mapping
WCAG In Haiku; From William's Terse Version; Hope These Are Helpful
- Re: WCAG In Haiku; From William's Terse Version; Hope These Are Helpful
- Re: WCAG In Haiku; From William's Terse Version; Hope These Are Helpful
reviews/comments
Agenda
- Re: Agenda
Higher Profile for Non-Blind Disabled Users
Infamous article now online
Modularization proposals
Peace!
Modularization
Multiple guidelines views (views)
- Re: Multiple guidelines views (views)
- RE: Multiple guidelines views (views)
- RE: Multiple guidelines views (views)
Splitting guidelines
A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.
- Re: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.
- Re: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.
- RE: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.
the 4 colour theorem, and an alternative to the current list of guidelines.
Title testing
Guideline 1 examples
Action item: "default"
Tech Players Question IAB's Rich Media Guidelines
A brief examination of purpose.
alt title and links
Fwd: web access - ADA Laws
Rewrite of Introduction: Purpose
- Re: Rewrite of Introduction: Purpose
- Re: Rewrite of Introduction: Purpose
- RE: Rewrite of Introduction: Purpose
Possible deletion
8/16 Meeting Minutes
- Simplest and clearest...
- Re: Simplest and clearest...
- Re: Simplest and clearest...
- RE: Can't We All Just Get Along?
- Re: Simplest and clearest...
- RE: Simplest and clearest...
- Functional equivalents vs. descriptions
- Re: Functional equivalents vs. descriptions
- Re: Simplest and clearest...
- Why we will never find a good version of 3.3 (and what's wrong with WCAG 2.0)
- Re: Why we will never find a good version of 3.3 (and what's wrong with WCAG 2.0)
- RE: Why we will never find a good version of 3.3 (and what's wrong with WCAG 2.0)
- RE: Why we will never find a good version of 3.3 (and what's wrong with WCAG 2.0)
- 3.3, what now, what next?
- Re: 3.3, what now, what next?
- Re: 3.3, what now, what next?
"Real-time commentary"
Wording issues
Attractiveness and v.2
Regrets for today's call
Advocacy in WCAG 2.0
accesskey defaults
Wording issues
New draft - 14 August 2001
Agenda
Further infamy for Joe Clark
WCAG Usability Testing - update and call for comments
4.3 - descrambled
Proposed edit to note -- to avoid conflict with criteria
add a sentence?
Multimode expression
Rewrites
class use (notional vs. blindless grouping)
forwarded message from Joe Clark
demographic considerations (was Re: Including content modes in 4.1)
Greetings
2.2 - proposal for success criteria
9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: 9 August 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
last minute regrets
Request to Join
Request to Join
WCAG 2.0 Criteria Review For checkpoints up to 2.7
Agenda
Paper "Designing for users with cognitive disabilities"
Regrets
Update on W3C/WAI mailing lists
Agenda
Test...
F2F logistics
1.4 and ALT text
Re: linking? RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria (fwd)
Missing 3.4 thread stuff
RE: linking? RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
- Plug for the insightful blind folks
- RE: linking? RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
- RE: linking? RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
- RE: linking? RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
Fwd: Alertbox: First Rule of Usability? Don't Listen to Users
Criterion
Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
- RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
- RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
- RE: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria
New checkpoint: identifying language
Combing checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3
Open issues from 26 July 2001 draft
Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illu
- Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illu
- Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illu
Minutes from 02 August 2001 telecon
RE: examples of a variety of sites that include illustrations of concepts (i.e., examples of 3.4)
- RE: examples of a variety of sites that include illustrations of concepts (i.e., examples of 3.4)
- Re: checkpoint 3.4 again.
regrets
examples of a variety of sites that include illustrations of concepts (i.e., examples of 3.4)
- Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illustrations of concepts (i.e., examples of 3.4)
- Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illustrations of concepts (i.e., examples of 3.4)
- Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illustrations of concepts (i.e., examples of 3.4)
Re: Is this a Job for SVG and WAI?
slideshow sites/interfaces [was RE: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)]
Combining 1.1 and 3.4
feedback on "some things to play with"
Regrets for Tomorrow...................
Drafts with CSS to hide sections
dissenting opinion (was Re: RE: checkpoint 3.4 again)
- Re: dissenting opinion (was Re: RE: checkpoint 3.4 again)
- Re: dissenting opinion (was Re: RE: checkpoint 3.4 again)
Multimedia
Additional comments on 31 July draft.
Agenda
Suggestion for clearer wording of 2.1 in 31 July draft.
Issues arising from 31 July draft
NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001
- RE: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001
- Re: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001
- RE: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001
- Re: NEW DRAFT - 31 July 2001
Sentence about "uiniversal aspect"
Document structure
Proposal: checkpoint 3.4
Proposal: checkpoint 3.4
Request to Join
International Accessibility
More on 3.4
- Re: More on 3.4
- Philosophy Re: More on 3.4
- Philosophy of WCAG (thanks Matt)
- Re: More on 3.4
- RE: More on 3.4
RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
- RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
List etiquette
Format for addressing grade-level content........
- Re: Format for addressing grade-level content........
- Re: Format for addressing grade-level content........
- Re: Format for addressing grade-level content........
New Member
Sounds and checkpoint 11.1
Request to Join
HTML minutes 26-07-2001 Teleconference (FINALLY)
Checkpoint 3.4 again
- Re: Checkpoint 3.4 again
wichita state's usability resources (Re: Aside on Fonts)
- Re: wichita state's usability resources (Re: Aside on Fonts)
- Re: wichita state's usability resources (Re: Aside on Fonts)
PDF Techniques and Adobe products
Re: pdf and 508
FW: Winners of ICAES 2001 International Access Engineering Awards Announced & WAVE
Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1
- Re: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1
- Re: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1
NEW DRAFT NEW DRAFT NEW DRAFT
Agenda
RE: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- RE: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- RE: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
- Re: guideline 7.1 about screen flickering (fwd)
Action Paul: adding a sentence to the intro
regrets for thursday's call
RE: photos and participants
fun: photos and participants
- Re: photos and participants
- Re: fun: photos and participants
- Re: fun: photos and participants
- Re: fun: photos and participants
19 July 2001 - WCAG WG Telecon
IRC reminder - on during today's telecon
regrets
multimedia breakout notes (20 june 2001/GL f2f)
raw minutes: final afternoon session of GL f2f, 21 june 2001
minutes from 20 june 2001 GL f2f
Re: Including content modes in 4.1
- Re: Including content modes in 4.1
- Re: Including content modes in 4.1
- Re: Including content modes in 4.1
William's Semantic Web Primer
Regrets and Action Item
Re: Who would be able to attend a F2F in Melbourne
UAAG's content-type, output modality, & selection labels
Reminder of action items from last few meetings
Timeline: July through November
Agenda
New CSS Techniques draft
F2F meeting in Melbourne
Who would be able to attend a F2F in Melbourne, Australia - 12-15 November 2001?
!important
Request to join
HTML Minutes for Today July 12, 2001
IRC
regrets for today's call
an action item :)
Comments on SUFFICIENCY for tomorrows COnf Call
Comments on SUFFICIENCY for tomorrows COnf Call
Fw: Sufficiency/checkpoint satisfaction criteria (repost of last week's draft)
Agenda
Sufficiency/checkpoint satisfaction criteria (repost of last week's draft)
request to join
"Request to Join"
Request to Join
HTML Minutes for July 5, 2001
Minutes for July 5, 2001 conference call
"Auditory" descriptions
Additional agenda item
Agenda
regrets for Thursday's telecon
Notes and relevant threads to the baseline capabilities/user agents clause discussion
Proposal: sufficiency criteria for WCAG 2.0
DTD for techniques documents
- Re: DTD for techniques documents
- Re: DTD for techniques documents
- Re: DTD for techniques documents
- Re: DTD for techniques documents