06/30 call
Updated mapping of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 success criteria
Regrets: Agenda 6/30/05 =======================
Agenda 6/30/05 =======================
- Re: Agenda 6/30/05 =======================
- Probable regrets (RE: Agenda 6/30/05 =======================)
- Re: Agenda 6/30/05 - partial regrets
- Start time of WCAG telecon (was:Re: Agenda 6/30/05)
- Re: Agenda 6/30/05 =======================
- Re: Agenda 6/30/05 =======================
- regrets, Agenda 6/30/05
- Regrets: Agenda 6/30/05
GL 1.3 issue summary against June 30 draft
GL 2.2 issue summary (close/clarify/not addressed)
[2.4] Issue summary
Fwd: [Proposed Recommendation] QA Specification Guidelines
Web Standards Project Accessibility Task Force
GL 4.2 Issues Summary
[minutes] 23 june 2005 telecon
Proposed ednote to clarify captions and transcript
Protected message
Re: Need 1.1 L1 SC basic requirement to provide text alternative
Need 1.1 L1 SC basic requirement to provide text alternative
Reminder: Call starts early today
Parsing and extracting information (valid or not)
Validation: what criteria in L1, L2 or L3?...
regrets for today's call (06/23)
checklist prototype
Reasons to move validity back to P1
Summing up the debate about validity at Priority 1 or 2
- FW: Summing up the debate about validity at Priority 1 or 2
- RE: Summing up the debate about validity at Priority 1 or 2
RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
Guideline 1.3 SC
Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
content arranged in a sequence that affects meaning
[techs] examples for techniques requirements document
testing (no need to respond, still testing archives)
testing (no need to respond, testing archives)
Not over til its over - hang in there whatever your view(s).
a note on voluntary standards and policy related standards
Introduction: Updated version
Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
Multiple definitions for "baseline"
NEW: Issue #1534
Agenda: 23 June Telecon
- Regrets (RE: Agenda: 23 June Telecon)
- Re: Agenda: 23 June Telecon
- Re: Agenda: 23 June Telecon - partial regrets
♦Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 22 June 2005
test
Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
RE: Fwd: Re: [TECHS] Sample Scripting Techniques with baseline information (fwd)
FW: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
RE: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)]
RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely!
- RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
RE: Should validity be P1 or P2?
Another resource re: testability of WCAG2.0 guidelines and success criteria
Fwd: Re: [TECHS] Sample Scripting Techniques with baseline information (fwd)
Should validity be P1 or P2? (was Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers)
Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
- Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)
Re: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)]
Draft Introduction to WCAG 2.0
《EC商务周刊-资讯版》(2005年第22期 总第54期)
Re : Influence of valid code (generically)
Done - Revisited
FW: 4.2 notes/proposals
Over
2.3 Guideline revisions proposal
2 levels or 3
Over
F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates
- RE: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates
- RE: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates
- Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates
- Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)
- Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)]
- Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)
- Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)
- Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates
- RE: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates
[TECHS] Sample Scripting Techniques with baseline information
About tests 37-41 (headers)
About test 13 (client side image-maps)
WCAG formalization (rewriting WCAG HTML techniques as automatable rules)
Validation as test for basic accessibility
- Re: Validation as test for basic accessibility
- Re: Validation as test for basic accessibility
- RE: Validation as test for basic accessibility
GL 2.2: updated proposals
CLOSED: Issue #777
CLOSED: Issue #1259
CLOSED: Issue #659
CLOSED: Issue #1422
1.4 background sound
Changes..
- RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days
YOUR PASSWORD HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY UPDATED
- RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers
- RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers
- RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers
- RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- RE: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- RE: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- R: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: R: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- R: R: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
- RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers
- R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers
Proposals from June 13 Face to Face
Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers
Definition of "semantics"
NEW: Issue #1533
Updated Survey for 4.1
3.2 Proposal version 2
NEW: Issue #1531
NEW: Issue #1530
Updated survey for Guideline 2.5
Updated survey for guideline 3.1
Input for F2F on Guide and general techniques
Updated: 9 June 2005 Agenda
Issue summary for the guidelines document in general
9 June 2005 Agenda [=================================
Conformance Issues
GL 2.5 Remaining 3 issues
Issue Summary 1.4
CLOSED: Issue #478
CLOSED: Issue #503
Updated proposal for Guideline 1.1
NEW: Issue #1528
NEW: Issue #1529
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 08 June 2005
- RE: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 08 June 2005
- Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 08 June 2005
* Can we Start 1 hour early for Thursday call????
[2.1] Guideline summary and new proposal
3.1: Action item re foreign passages
- Re: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages
- RE: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages
- Re: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages
- RE: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages
Agenda for Techniques portion of Face to Face, 15 - 16 June 2005
CLOSED: Issue #1355
3.1: Another update
[TECHS] Review of SC with respect to Scripting and baseline issues.
GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy)
CLOSED: Issue #965
Reminder: straw poll for 2.4
Agenda: 13-16 June meeting in Brussels
[techs] [Fwd: ACCESSKEY heats up]
[minutes] 2 June 2005 telecon
[1.3] Alternative proposal for guideline text
regrets for today's call
Provide Feedback on Straw poll forms
Text being imperceptible (allegedly)
Agenda Update: 2 June 2005
[techs] Minutes for 01 June Techniques teleconference
Agenda: 2 June 2005
June 1 Draft
3.1: Another update to the proposal
CLOSED: Issue #802
CLOSED: Issue #1501
CLOSED: Issue #1225
CLOSED: Issue #1500
regrets, June 2
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 01 June 2005
Updated proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC2
[2.4] New proposal for guideline 2.4
CLOSED: Issue #1457
points to Ponder
Usability issues in Ajax/Web applications (with implications for accessibility)
- RE: Usability issues in Ajax/Web applications (with implications for accessibility)
- Re: Usability issues in Ajax/Web applications (with implications for accessibility)
3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call
- Re: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call
- RE: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call
- Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call
- RE: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call
(very minor) addition to 25 May 2005 WCAG TTF minutes?
[minutes] 26 May 2005 telecon
Regrets: Agenda: 26 May 2005
3.1 REQUIRING NON-TEXT ALTERNATES TO TEXT
RE 3.1 proposal - first half
- Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half
- RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half
- Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half
- RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half
Agenda: 26 May 2005 =========================
- Re: Agenda: 26 May 2005 (with corrected guideline 2.2 survey link)
- Re: Agenda: 26 May 2005 =========================
- Re: Agenda: 26 May 2005 =========================
- regrets: Agenda: 26 May 2005
Responses to comments on GL 3.1 proposal
3.1: Proposal with several updated SC
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 25 May 2005
Guideline 4.1 (use-spec) Issue Summary
GL 3.2 proposal and summary
- Re: GL 3.2 proposal and summary
- RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary
- RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary
- RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary
- RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text]
- RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text]
GL 2.2 proposals and issue summary
[TECHS] Techniques issues summary for Guideline 2.5
- RE: [TECHS] Techniques issues summary for Guideline 2.5
- RE: [TECHS] Techniques issues summary for Guideline 2.5
Outside expert opinion on Web standards and WCAG (especially GL 1.3)
Ill-defined terms in WCAG 2
"Accessibility features"
Further articles documenting the sense of "semantics"
Items to keep in mind for Principle 3: "Content and controls must be understandable"
Bugzilla down?
NEW: Issue #1526
[4.1] Article on when to create custom DTD's (and when not to)
CLOSED: Issue #180
late regrets:
[minutes] 19 May 2005 WCAG WG telecon
Regrets for today's call (05/19)
Regrets for today's call (05/19)
Regrets for this evening (R. Scano and L. Mascaro)
NEW: Issue #1525
possible regrets for Thursday plus suggestion?
Agenda + Announcement: 19 May 2005
ISSUE SuMMARY for 2.3 Avoiding Content that provokes siezures
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 18 May 2005
[techs] regrets for Wednesday's WCAG TTF call
GL 4.2: Revised modification to the conformance section
addition proposal, GL 4.2
[Techs] proposed definitions re: my May 11 WCAG TTF Action Item
- Re: [Techs] proposed definitions re: my May 11 WCAG TTF Action Item
- RE: [Techs] proposed definitions re: my May 11 WCAG TTF Action Item
Re: RE: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send)
RE: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send)
RE: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information,
move proposed SC to GL 1.3?
Declaring educational level
changing state and value programmatically
Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send)
- Re: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send)
Regrets for 12 May 2005 call
JavaScript action example
Agenda addendum: link to proposed SC for GL 1.3
Why 2GL .4 isn't on the agenda this week
Agenda update: 12 May 2005
Baseline definition
[w3c-wai-gl] <none>
[techs] Minutes of 11 May 2005 Techniques teleconference
Fwd: Test Development FAQ released
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 11 May 2005
Agenda: 12 May 2005
[Techs] Regrets for Wednesday
(1.3) Validation and semantics recap
Stevie Wonder does music video with audio description
[Techs-scripting]FW: setting focus on a form field using javascript
working definition of baseline
- Re: working definition of baseline
- RE: working definition of baseline
- RE: working definition of baseline
- RE: RE: working definition of baseline
- Re: working definition of baseline
- RE: working definition of baseline
- RE: working definition of baseline
User agent assumptions - vs - baseline
Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005
- Regrets: Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005
- Regrets: Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005
- regrets: Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005
3.1 Issue summary
3.1 comments
regrets for 5 May telecon
Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
- Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal
Agenda: 5 May 2005
programmatically determined
3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs
- overview of 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs
- Re: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs
- RE: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs
- Re: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs
NEW: Issue #1523
NEW: Issue #1524
Revised Proposal, GL 4.2
GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal
- Re: GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal
- Re: GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal
- RE: GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 04 May 2005
RE: RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
[tech] 4.2 Summary
[techs] requirements updated
The next WCAG WG face-to-face will be in Brussels 13-16 June
[techs] Please review issue summaries
[2.4] Proposal for guideline 2.4
Fwd: [PUBLICATION] QA Specification
[tech] re: regrets Wed (will have 4.2 by tommorrow)
[tech] re: regrets Wed (will have 4.2 by tommorrow)
[tech] re: regrets Wed (will have 4.2 by tommorrow)
RE: RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
Re: RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
Requiring ATAG conformance
[TECHS] Techniques Issues for Guideline 1.3 - plain text version
{TECHS] Techniques Issues for Guideline 1.3
[techs] Review of techniques issues for Guideline 2.4
RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
Sign language video
[minutes] 28 April 2005 WCAG WG telecon
[minutes] 27 April Techniques Task Force of the WCAG WG telecon
Guideline 1.3 and user interface changes
Late regrets for 28 April 2005 call
[1.1] Proposal for new example
RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7)
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Functional text content)
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Definition of functionality)
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Definition of content)
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (ASCII art)
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 8)
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7)
RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4)
- RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4)
- RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4)
Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4)
Fwd: Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
Re: [Techs] Kurzweil 3000 and WYNN zebra strips
double regrets
NEW: Issue #1521
NEW: Issue #1522
[Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable"
- RE: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable"
- RE: [Techs]Kurzweil 3000 and WYNN zebra strips
- Re: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable"
- RE: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable"
- RE: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable"
Agenda: 28 April 2005
[techs] Changes in requirements doc
Proposal for Guideline 1.1
Issues summary, GL 4.2
Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- FW: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
- Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005
- Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005
- Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005
- Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005
[techs] Updated requirements for techniques and checklists
[techs] Techniques for Guideline 4.2
[techs] Techniques for Guideline 2.4
[techs] Techniques for Guideline 1.3
[techs] Techniques for Guideline 1.1
[TECHS] Possible Scripting Techniques with Guideline Mappings
Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
- Re: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
- RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
- RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
[2.4] Proposals for 2.4
Regrets for 27 & 28 April telecons
WAI CSS and WCAG conformance pages (was: W3C style sheet fix (needed for WCAG conformance pages))
RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
- RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
- RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
- RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
- RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
[2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
Please comment on issue summaries
- Re: Please comment on issue summaries
- HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries)
- RE: HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries)
- RE: HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries)
- HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries)
NEW: Issue #1520
Unicode encodings
Definition of information (was RE: non-text content)
Early Regrets - April 28th
One model for validation of JavaScript (vaguely related to 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation")
Regrets for next week
IRC log isn't what we're talking about
[minutes] 21 April 2005 telecon
non-text content
issue 1214. 2.4: 1194.22-like SC should be level 1 [21]
[techs] minutes from April 20 telecon
Re: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
[Techs]Window-Eyes info for matrix
[Techs] JAWS info for matrix
[Fwd: Re: Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation]
Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary)
- RE: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary)
- Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary)
- Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary)
- Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary)
- Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary)
- Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary)
Dublin Core Accessibility element
Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April
- Triple Regrets: Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April
- Regrets: Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April
- Regrets: Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April
- Late regrets: Agenda for Thursday 21 April
[2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
- RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
- FW: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
- RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
- re: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
- RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
Agenda: 21 April 2005
Loretta's analysis of UAAG Guideline 9
Wendy's analysis of UAAG Guideline 6
Resend of planning example
Wendy's analysis of web applications vs user agents
UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary
- Re: UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary
- RE: UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary
- RE: UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary
Guideline 4.2 Subgroup Report
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 20 April 2005
Proposed planning framework
[TECHS] draft introduction to client side scripting techniques
Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation
- Re: Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation
- Re: Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation
Issue summary for 1.3: "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
Strange behavior of mail archive?
regrets for 4/20 call
Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
Need for exemptions for teaching materials, samples, multilingual documents
[2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4
Guide doc: resend of Wendy's HTML-Techs mockup
Agenda correction: Today's call starts same time as always
[minutes] 13 April 2005 TTF telecon
_Tech] Release date for Mac screen reader
[Techs] Divide Techniques docs into chapters?
imporved accessibility metadata paper
Agenda: Thursday 14 April
- Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April
- Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April
- Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April
- Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April
- Regrets: Agenda: Thursday 14 April
- regrets: Agenda Thursday 14 April
- Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April
Guide doc: Drafts to discuss on Thursday
List of HTML Techniques not affected by baseline and list of affected
HTML Techniques16.1, 10.6 baseline Discussion
[techs] Techniques Teleconference 13 April 2005
RE: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78¸ 79, 27, 128, 129, 183
- Re: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78¸ 79, 27, 128, 129, 183
- RE: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78¸ 79, 27, 128, 129, 183
Example of baseline information included in HTML Technique 12.4
Example of Baseline information included in HTML Technique 5.11
Re: [Fwd: RE: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy']
WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy'
- Re: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy'
- Re: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy'
- RE: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy'
- RE: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy'
Screen Reader Supported Languages
Conformance Requirements proposal
More info about new JAWS 6.10 features
FW: [techlunch] JAWS 6.10 Free Update for 6.0 Users Released
Unifying ATAG and UAAG in 4.2 (or surrogate)
[TECHS] Object tag test files.
Overview of "baseline" (was re: Definition of baseline)def of baseline
NEW: Issue #1499
NEW: Issue #1502
NEW: Issue #1514
NEW: Issue #1513
NEW: Issue #1517
NEW: Issue #1519
NEW: Issue #1515
NEW: Issue #1518
NEW: Issue #1507
NEW: Issue #1512
NEW: Issue #1516
NEW: Issue #1487
NEW: Issue #1509
NEW: Issue #1510
NEW: Issue #1495
NEW: Issue #1494
NEW: Issue #1504
NEW: Issue #1506
NEW: Issue #1511
NEW: Issue #1491
NEW: Issue #1508
NEW: Issue #1505
NEW: Issue #1500
NEW: Issue #1497
NEW: Issue #1490
NEW: Issue #1501
NEW: Issue #1498
NEW: Issue #1503
NEW: Issue #1496
NEW: Issue #1492
NEW: Issue #1493
NEW: Issue #1489
NEW: Issue #1488
NEW: Issue #1486
Definition of "baseline"
Regrets for Thursday 7 April 2005 conference
Regrets for this week
Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques
Issues and proposals: conformance claims
- Re: Issues and proposals: conformance claims
- Re: Issues and proposals: conformance claims
- RE: Issues and proposals: conformance claims
Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2
- RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2
- RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2
- Re: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2
AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005
- RE: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005
- Regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005
- Regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005
- regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005