Tuesday, 1 January 2002
- RE: CSS versus tables
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
- Re: ems versus pixels
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- ems versus pixels
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
Monday, 31 December 2001
- RE: CSS versus tables
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
- test, please ignore
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
Sunday, 30 December 2001
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
- RE: CSS versus tables
Friday, 28 December 2001
- Please review Requirements for WCAG 2.0 (deadline 18 January)
- RE: CSS versus tables
- RE: CSS versus tables
- CSS versus tables
- Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
- Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
Thursday, 27 December 2001
- A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))
- Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities)
Friday, 28 December 2001
Thursday, 27 December 2001
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities)
- Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities)
- Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities
Tuesday, 25 December 2001
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
Monday, 24 December 2001
Saturday, 22 December 2001
Friday, 21 December 2001
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- Time response types and recommendations
- auction sites (related to checkpoint 2.4)
Thursday, 20 December 2001
- 20 December 2001 WCAG WG Minutes
- RE: Agenda
- Regrets
- Re: Agenda
- Re: CC/PP Re: A single URI
- Re: CC/PP Re: A single URI
- Re: CC/PP Re: A single URI
- CC/PP Re: A single URI
- Re: A single URI
- Jim Buck Jr. Goes to War?
- Re: A single URI
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- RE: Multiple versions of a web page
- Multiple versions of a web page
- Regrets for tomorrow
- Re: A single URI
Wednesday, 19 December 2001
Thursday, 20 December 2001
Wednesday, 19 December 2001
- Re: A single URI
- Re: A single URI
- [CSS-TECH] Action Item Update
- Re: A single URI
- Re: A single URI
- Re: Agenda
- Agenda
- RE: A single URI
- RE: A single URI
- A single URI
Tuesday, 18 December 2001
Monday, 17 December 2001
- Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
- another approach... perhaps
- Re: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
- RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
Tuesday, 18 December 2001
Monday, 17 December 2001
- RE: form controls to the left or right of labels?
- RE: form controls to the left or right of labels?
- RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
- RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
Sunday, 16 December 2001
Monday, 17 December 2001
Saturday, 15 December 2001
- Re: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
- happy holidays and new year.
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- RE: accesskey shortcuts.
- regrets for 12/27, 1/3
- regrets for 12/27
- Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
Friday, 14 December 2001
- RE: form controls to the left or right of labels?
- Re: form controls to the left or right of labels?
- RE: form controls to the left or right of labels?
- Re: form controls to the left or right of labels?
- RE: form controls to the left or right of labels?
- RE: Semantic-pragmatic (was Re: tone as a guildeline?)
- RE: accesskey shortcuts.
- 13 December 2001 WCAG WG Minutes
Thursday, 13 December 2001
- FW: Curl aims to replace HTML
- Regrets for 12/20 and 12/27
- RE: regrets
- Re: Can one use a keyboard to navigate and zoom within an SVG image?
- regrets
- form controls to the left or right of labels?
Wednesday, 12 December 2001
- Re: Can one use a keyboard to navigate and zoom within an SVG image?
- Re: Can one use a keyboard to navigate and zoom within an SVG image?
- Can one use a keyboard to navigate and zoom within an SVG image?
- Re: Agenda
- Re: Agenda
- RE: Agenda
Tuesday, 11 December 2001
- Agenda
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Non-testable, normative requirements (was RE: tone as a guildeline?)
- RE: tone as a guildeline?
- Re: tone as a guideline?
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
Monday, 10 December 2001
- Re: automatic refreshing of pages.
- Re: automatic refreshing of pages.
- automatic refreshing of pages.
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)
- Re: awareness
- Re: awareness
- Re: Accessibility and freedom of expression
- Accessibility and freedom of expression
- Re: tone as a guildeline?
- Re: tone as a guildeline?
- Semantic-pragmatic (was Re: tone as a guildeline?)
- Re: tone as a guildeline?
Sunday, 9 December 2001
- tone as a guildeline?
- RE: "objective" clarified
- [WCAG10 techs] Tables examples
- Re: form controls: mandatory status
- Re: The Culture of this group
Saturday, 8 December 2001
- Re: Test Cases (distribution of; experiment design)
- Re: When to display alt + image
- Re: accesskey shortcuts.
- Re: form controls: acesskey shortcuts.
- RE: Foundation for text techniques
- Re: When to display alt + image
Friday, 7 December 2001
- Re: Foundation for text techniques
- when display ALT + image
- Re: Foundation for text techniques
- Re: Foundation for text techniques
- tooltips should probably be a user setting as a recommendation.
- Re: Foundation for text techniques
- Re: Foundation for text techniques
- RE: Foundation for text techniques
- RE: "objective" clarified
- RE: accesskey shortcuts.
- accesskey shortcuts.
- form controls: acesskey shortcuts.
- form controls: mandatory status
- Foundation for text techniques
- RE: "objective" clarified
- 6 December 2001 WCAG WG Minutes
- [TECHS-GATEWAY] Draft
Thursday, 6 December 2001
- RE: "objective" clarified
- Re: Agenda
- RE: Agenda
- Re: title inclusion
- Re: title inclusion
- Re: title inclusion
- Re: "objective" clarified
- Re: title inclusion
- Re: test cases
- Re: title inclusion
- The Culture of this group
- RE: title inclusion
Wednesday, 5 December 2001
Tuesday, 4 December 2001
- Re: test cases
- Test Cases
- RE: title inclusion
- Agenda
- Re: title inclusion
- Re: title inclusion
- Re: title inclusion
Wednesday, 5 December 2001
Tuesday, 4 December 2001
- Re: title inclusion
- title inclusion
- Learning difficulties and the web
- Re: Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People withCognitive Disabilities
Monday, 3 December 2001
- Re: "objective" clarified
- Re: join the Web Content Guidelines Working Group
- Re: Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with Cognitive Disabilities
- One more thing
- Part 2 - Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with Cognitive Disabilities
- Part 1 - Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with Cognitive Disabilities
- "objective" clarified
- request and summary
- RE: last part of todays telecon
- Re: Agenda
Sunday, 2 December 2001
Saturday, 1 December 2001
Friday, 30 November 2001
- Re: last part of todays telecon
- Re: last part of todays telecon
- Re: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"
- Re: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"
- Re: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"
- RE: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"
- Re: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"
- Re: PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"
Thursday, 29 November 2001
- last part of todays telecon
- PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "objective"
- minutes from 29 November 2001
- RE: Agenda
- Re: Checkpoint 2.4 beta 3
- Checkpoint 2.4 beta 3
- RE: Clear and simple writing
Wednesday, 28 November 2001
- Agenda
- Thanks to the minute takers: Jo, Cynthia, and Charles!!
- minutes from F2F meeting
- Re: javascript and accessibility [scripts-TECHS]
- Re: Clear and simple writing
Tuesday, 27 November 2001
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] issue 001225
- text and other alternatives Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] issue 001225
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Clear and simple writing
- Re: Checkpoint 2.4 beta 2
Monday, 26 November 2001
- Checkpoint 2.4 beta 2
- How do I/O devices relate? ?[tech-SCRIPTS]?
- Re: Assistive TEchnology levels?
- Re: [conformance techniques] How to connect to an EARL claim.
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- [CSS-TECHS] issue 001225
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Correct grammar etc Re: Clear and simple writing
- RE: Time Bounds-- Universal and User-Specific
- Tone
Sunday, 25 November 2001
Monday, 26 November 2001
Sunday, 25 November 2001
Monday, 26 November 2001
Sunday, 25 November 2001
- Re: Can we have more information
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Can we have more information
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
- Re: Clear and simple writing
Saturday, 24 November 2001
Sunday, 25 November 2001
Saturday, 24 November 2001
Sunday, 25 November 2001
Saturday, 24 November 2001
Sunday, 25 November 2001
Saturday, 24 November 2001
Friday, 23 November 2001
Thursday, 22 November 2001
Wednesday, 21 November 2001
- Re: Minutes (finally) (fwd)
- Re: Deconstructing WCAG: FWAP 0.1 Straw Man
- RE: Time Bounds - Universal and User-Specific
- Re: Time Bounds - Universal and User-Specific
- regrets for Nov. 22
- Time Bounds - Universal and User-Specific
Tuesday, 20 November 2001
- Re: off topic? out of office
- Timed Responses
- Re: off topic? out of office
- RE: Snippet for Re: srcelement/target onfocus: device independence [scripts-TECHS]
- off topic? out of office
- Snippet for Re: srcelement/target onfocus: device independence [scripts-TECHS]
- Framework for Web Accessibility Policies (FWAP) 0.1
- RE: srcelement/target onfocus: device independence [scripts-TECHS]
- srcelement/target onfocus: device independence [scripts-TECHS]
- PDF Techniques as technology-specific success criteria
Monday, 19 November 2001
- Re: Deconstructing WCAG: FWAP 0.1 Straw Man
- Re: Deconstructing WCAG: FWAP 0.1 Straw Man
- RE: Framework for Web Accessibility Policies (FWAP) 0.1
Sunday, 18 November 2001
- regrets
- [conformance techniques] How to connect to an EARL claim.
- Re: Framework for Web Accessibility Policies (FWAP) 0.1
- Re: Framework for Web Accessibility Policies (FWAP) 0.1
- Re: Framework for Web Accessibility Policies (FWAP) 0.1
- RE: FWAP 0.1 Straw Man
- Re: Deconstructing WCAG: FWAP 0.1 Straw Man
- FWAP: One More Thing
- Deconstructing WCAG: FWAP 0.1 Straw Man
Saturday, 17 November 2001
- Re: [SCRIPT-TECHS] DOM-2 request for links or content
- Re: [SCRIPT-TECHS] DOM-2 request for links or content
- [SCRIPT-TECHS] DOM-2 request for links or content
Friday, 16 November 2001
Thursday, 15 November 2001
Wednesday, 14 November 2001
- [CSS-TECHS] Font Techniques Page Uploaded for WCAG 2.0 CSS Techni ques
- Flowchart of dependencies of checkpoints
- RE: Assistive TEchnology levels?
- FW: Update to W3C Communications Recommendation
- Fwd: Business benefits
Tuesday, 13 November 2001
Monday, 12 November 2001
- [CSS-TECHS] Issues since 9/20/00
- Re: Attending the F2F by phone
- Attending the F2F by phone
- Assistive TEchnology levels?
- Comments/questions on Latest Proposed Minimum Def
- RE: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT.
- Critera for the Minimum and Next up Set
Sunday, 11 November 2001
- Consensus on "testable" + Proposition for "objective"
- f2f Required Readings
- Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox "Beyond Accessibility: Treating Users with Disabilities as People"
- Re: [meant for PF] "until user agents" and resource media diversity
- "until user agents" and resource media diversity
Saturday, 10 November 2001
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properties?
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properties?
- [CSS-TECHS] CSS Properties by User Agent Tables Uploaded
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properties?
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properties?
- RE: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properti es?
- RE: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properti es?
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properties?
Friday, 9 November 2001
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properties?
- [CSS-TECHS] List of CSS Values cross referenced with Properties?
- [technology - workarounds] Re: .rpm file extension
- [site logic] Re: an index for every directory?
- an index for every directory?
- 8 November 2001 WCAG WG Minutes
Thursday, 8 November 2001
Wednesday, 7 November 2001
- Agenda
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] Test suites, font units of measurement
- FW: Re: Announcement: Next face-to-face meeting, 13-14 November 2 001
- Re: Announcement: Next face-to-face meeting, 13-14 November 2001
Monday, 5 November 2001
Sunday, 4 November 2001
- Re: EO's document for review
- Re: [CSS-TECHS] Notes from 1 November 2001 subgroup discussion
- Re: Business case suggestions
Friday, 2 November 2001
Thursday, 1 November 2001
- [CSS-TECHS] Notes from 1 November 2001 subgroup discussion
- Regrets
- Re: Agenda-regrets
- Re: Fw: Agenda
- regrets
- EO's document for review
- Fw: Agenda
Wednesday, 31 October 2001
- Re: Agenda
- Re: .rpm file extension
- Re: Agenda
- Re: Business Benefits of Accessible Web Design:
- [CSS-TECHS] Planning mtg for CSS-TECHS
- Re: Business Benefits of Accessible Web Design:
Thursday, 1 November 2001
Wednesday, 31 October 2001
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT (reformulated). - Another go
- WAMO - 8 - Completed
- WAMO - 8 -
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT (reformulated).
- Re: .rpm file extension
- Re: How not to get a good reaction from a webmaster
- How not to get a good reaction from a webmaster
- Re: .rpm file extension
- Re: .rpm file extension
- Reminder: face to face meeting registration ends on 7 November
- Agenda
Tuesday, 30 October 2001
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT (reformulated).
- W3C WAI WG f3f
- "Test Case for grouping of Links and whitespace"
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT (reformulated).
- .rpm file extension
- W3C WAI WG room details. (fwd)
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT (reformulated).
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT.
Monday, 29 October 2001
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Client-side software requirements
- [CSS-TECHS] In case you missed it in the minutes...
- A confession of professional incompetence was Re: Feeling Ashamed
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT.
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2 (history, past and future)
- Re: Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT.
- RE: Problems with OTACS-2
Sunday, 28 October 2001
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Minimum Set = eliminate barriers with aid of AT.
- [theory: business models] add P to B and C player classes
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Minor wording correction in October draft
Saturday, 27 October 2001
- Minor wording correction in October draft
- Re: Feeling Ashamed
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Biggest Objection to OTACS-2
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Access Tool Requirements
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Priorities in WCAG: Explaining the Problem
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Feeling Ashamed
- RE: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Nielsen Norman Report
- upside AND downside and readily achievable measures
- OTACS 3 [was: Re: OTACS 2 and the WCAG 1.0 priority 1 definition]
- Re: OTACS 2 and the WCAG 1.0 priority 1 definition
- OTACS 2 and the WCAG 2.0 priority 1 definition
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Alternative proposal
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: Updated guidelines with open issues incorporated
- Updated guidelines with open issues incorporated
Friday, 26 October 2001
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- RE: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: Problems with OTACS-2
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: Consensus Items
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- RE: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: MSN.com
- Re: Conformance Scheme OTAC -2
- Re: Consensus statement -- minimum set
- RE: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Alternative proposal
- Problems with OTACS-2
Thursday, 25 October 2001
- Re: attachment for Accessibility of Online Services and Merchants for Deaf / Hearing-Impaired Consumers
- Re: Consensus statement -- minimum set
- attachment for Accessibility of Online Services and Merchants for Deaf / Hearing-Impaired Consumers
- FW: Accessibility of Online Services and Merchants for Deaf / Hearing-Impaired Consumers
- Conformance Scheme OTAC -2
- Consensus statement -- minimum set
- 25 October 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- Re: MSN.com
- MSN.com
- Regrets for today's call
- regrets
- RE: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First thoughts on a minimum set, a secondary set, and several questions
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- adequate, testable, success criteria
Sunday, 25 November 2001
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
Thursday, 25 October 2001
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
Wednesday, 24 October 2001
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: The Norman-Nielsen report
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Semi-regrets
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: The Norman-Nielsen report
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Re: The Norman-Nielsen report
- First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
- Identifying Accessibility Problems
- Re: The Norman-Nielsen report
- Agenda
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: The Norman-Nielsen report
- First thoughts on a minimum set, a secondary set, and several questions
Tuesday, 23 October 2001
- W3C TR update
- RE: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- The Norman-Nielsen report
- Re: Conformance Ideas Collection #2
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
Friday, 23 November 2001
Tuesday, 23 October 2001
Monday, 22 October 2001
- WCAG 1.0 checkpoints by relevant content type
- FW: Call for review: Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
Sunday, 21 October 2001
- Re: FW: Combining Server/Client-side techniques for accessibility
- Re: Combining Server/Client-side techniques for accessibility
- Re: suggestion for WCAG checklist
- FW: Combining Server/Client-side techniques for accessibility
Friday, 19 October 2001
Thursday, 18 October 2001
- Action Item: Minimum checkpoint classification
- Re: 18 October 2001 WCAG WG minutes
- apologies for dropout
- Consensus Items
- 18 October 2001 WCAG WG minutes
- Update and reminder: Other W3C work in progress
- Re: Agenda
- Re: Conformance Ideas Collection #2
- Agenda
Wednesday, 17 October 2001
- Conformance Ideas Collection #2
- RE questions of normative and informative in same doc
- Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- RE: Normative and Non-Normative - Why? MORE
- RE: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Regrets for thursday
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- RE: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- regrets for Thursday, 10/18
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- Request to Join
Monday, 15 October 2001
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
- Re: Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
- RE: "are you ignoring me" email
- Normative and Non-Normative - Why?
Sunday, 14 October 2001
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
Monday, 15 October 2001
Saturday, 13 October 2001
Thursday, 11 October 2001
- Re: Conformance claims - by success criteria?
- Re: Conformance claims - by success criteria?
- Re: Conformance claims - by success criteria?
- Re: Fwd: reporting scheme Re: conformance
- Conformance claims - by success criteria?
- 11 October 2001 Minutes WCAG WG telecon
- RE: conformance
- [CSS-TECHS] comments on WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20010716
- RE: conformance
- reporting scheme Re: conformance
- [ATTN: Chairs] relay service and telephone number in forms
- Re: conformance
- Re: conformance
- Re: conformance
- Re: conformance
- Regrets -- At conference presenting at telecom time
- Re: conformance
- apologies
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
- Re: Suggestion for List Posting
- Re: Required (at least Recommended) Reading
- Re: conformance
- WCAG meeting minutes, October 4, 2001
- conformance
- Re: machine-readable claims Re: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- Re: Agenda
- machine-readable claims Re: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- Agenda
- RE: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
- Re: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- Static pages are dead
- Request to Join WAI Web Content Guidelines Working Group
- Request to Join
- Re: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- RE: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- Re: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- RE: Agenda
- RE: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- FW: + info line reply to be shared
Monday, 8 October 2001
- RE: Agenda
- Re: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- Re: user needs vs author needs RE: Agenda
- RE: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts
- Re: user needs vs author needs RE: Agenda
- Re: Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- RE: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts
- Conformance Ideas -- Collection #1
- RE: Agenda
- Accessibility of Online Services and Merchants for Deaf / Hearing-Impaired Consumers
- When is a checkpoint N/A
Sunday, 7 October 2001
- RE: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts
- Dont confuse consensus statements with Guidelines
- REMINDER
- What's new (was Re: modem use limits)
- Re: Blind ballots
Saturday, 6 October 2001
Friday, 5 October 2001
- Re: user needs vs author needs RE: Agenda
- Request to join
- Request to Join
- Re: Conformance issues with 1.0
- Conformance issues with 1.0
- Re: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts
- Re: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts
- Re: C-6 Killed --- New C-6 proposed. R1-2 and N3-4-5 covered.
- Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts
- Re: C-6 Killed
- C-6 Killed --- New C-6 proposed. R1-2 and N3-4-5 covered.
- user needs vs author needs RE: Agenda
- RE: Agenda
- RE: Agenda
Thursday, 4 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Re: Subject=FW:%20CONSENSUS%20REVISED.%20%20%209-28-01&In-Reply-To= <001d01c14b01$607c64a0$066fa8c0@750>
- Subject=FW:%20CONSENSUS%20REVISED.%20%20%209-28-01&In-Reply-To= <001d01c14b01$607c64a0$066fa8c0@750>
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
- Re: Required (at least Recommended) Reading
- Re: Required (at least Recommended) Reading
- Required (at least Recommended) Reading
- Agenda
- FW: CONSENSUS REVISED. 9-28-01
- In CSS, Scripting and Screenreaders When Does Invisible Mean Inaudible?
- RE: Suggestion for List Posting
- Request to Join