Consistency review

It's time to do a consistency review of our documents for publication.
We've drafted the following tentative assignments of success criteria
to working group members at

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Consistency_Review


    *  Andi Snow-Weaver (Just the GL Understanding docs) GL 1.1, GL
1.2, GL 1.3, GL 1.4, GL 2.1, GL 2.2, GL 2.3, GL 2.4, GL 3.1, GL 3.2,
GL 3.3, GL 4.1
    * Drew LaHart 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.3
    * Alex Li 1.4.4, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3
    * Bengt Farre 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4
    * Bruce Bailey 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5
    * Christophe Strobbe 2.4.4, 2.4.9, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4
    * Cynthia Shelley 1.3.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.7
    * Sean Hayes 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7
    * David MacDonald 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.10
    * Gregg Vanderheiden 1.4.3, 1.4.6, 2.3.1, 2.3.2
    * Katie Haritos-Shea 3.1.3, 3.1.5, 3.1.6
    * Sofia Celic 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.7, 1.4.8, 1.4.9
    * Tim Boland 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6
    * Roberto Ellero 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5

Are we missing any working group members who can help with this review?

Can you let us know whether you will NOT be able to review these SC
before Nov 30? Michael would love to start seeing changes sooner than
that, of course.

Tasks in a Consistency Review:
  - Check that the success criterion wording is consistent
  - Check that the names of techniques are consistent between the
Understanding Doc and the Technique
  - Check that the language used in the Understanding Doc and the
Technique Doc is consistent with the SC wording. Sometimes
descriptions were written against earlier versions of the SC
  - Check for any typos, grammatical problems, formatting problems
  - Check for *showstopper* content problems, e.g., this Understanding
Doc or Technique is contradicting the SC.


Thanks, Loretta

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 01:21:42 UTC