w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from April to June 2016 by date

Thursday, 30 June 2016

RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Jonathan Avila
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Jonathan Avila
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Jonathan Avila
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Jonathan Avila
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Adam Solomon
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Alastair Campbell
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
WCAG-ACTION-327: Ping lisa and update her on outcome of the tf facilitator meeting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
WCAG-ACTION-326: Draft message for wider review Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Alastair Campbell
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Alastair Campbell

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

RE: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) John Foliot
Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
a degraded experience (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop) John Foliot
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Wayne Dick
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Jonathan Avila
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) John Foliot
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Alastair Campbell
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Jonathan Avila
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Alastair Campbell
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) John Foliot
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald

Tuesday, 28 June 2016

RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) John Foliot
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Sailesh Panchang
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Jonathan Avila
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop ALAN SMITH
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop ALAN SMITH
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop ALAN SMITH
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
WCAG minutes for June 28th 2016 Alastair Campbell
WCAG-ACTION-325: And david to lead on sc numbering issue Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Jim Allan
RE: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view White, Jason J
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 Moe Kraft
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Jonathan Avila
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view John Foliot
Re: CfC: Public review of updated Techniques and Understanding documents josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Jonathan Avila
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop John Foliot
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view Mike Elledge
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop White, Jason J
Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view David MacDonald
Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view David MacDonald
Desktop view should not be conforming alternative for Mobile view. David MacDonald
Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Alastair Campbell
Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Jonathan Avila

Monday, 27 June 2016

RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Jonathan Avila
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering successcriteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering successcriteria for WCAG 2.1) ALAN SMITH
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) White, Jason J
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) ALAN SMITH
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) John Foliot
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) White, Jason J
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) John Foliot
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Laura Carlson
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) John Foliot
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 Sarah Horton
Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) John Foliot
Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 John Foliot
RE: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Laura Carlson
Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 David MacDonald
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) David MacDonald
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 Eric Eggert
Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 Alastair Campbell
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie
Re: wiki page to collect WCAG's feedback josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 John Foliot
Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 David MacDonald
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Katie Haritos-Shea
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke

Sunday, 26 June 2016

RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) White, Jason J
Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) White, Jason J
Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage John Foliot
RE: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 White, Jason J
Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 John Foliot
wiki page to collect WCAG's feedback lisa.seeman

Saturday, 25 June 2016

RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage White, Jason J
Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1 josh@interaccess.ie
CfC: Public review of updated Techniques and Understanding documents josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage White, Jason J
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage White, Jason J
possible plain language replacements as we write SCs David MacDonald
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
WCAG Agenda June 28th 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage White, Jason J

Friday, 24 June 2016

RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.

Wednesday, 22 June 2016

Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD Thad C
Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD Wayne Dick

Tuesday, 21 June 2016

Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Minutes June 21, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage ALAN SMITH
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage ALAN SMITH
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage White, Jason J
Re: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
Re: WCAG Agenda June 21, 2016 Moe Kraft
RE: Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage White, Jason J
Proposed SC on notification of dynamic changes to apage David MacDonald
RE: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD josh@interaccess.ie
Rewording of proposed Success Criterion on dynamic and changes to content David MacDonald
Re: WCAG Agenda June 21, 2016 Mike Elledge

Monday, 20 June 2016

WCAG Agenda June 21, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Friday, 17 June 2016

Re: Home for orphan WCAG SC proposals David MacDonald
Re: Home for orphan WCAG SC proposals Andrew Kirkpatrick
Home for orphan WCAG SC proposals David MacDonald
Home for proposed SCs that don't have a Task Forcw David MacDonald
RE: Headings and ARIA substitutes Jonathan Avila
RE: Headings and ARIA substitutes Repsher, Stephen J

Thursday, 16 June 2016

Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes David MacDonald
RE: Headings and ARIA substitutes Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes David MacDonald
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes Wayne Dick
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes James Nurthen
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes John Foliot
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes Mike Elledge
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes John Foliot
Re: Headings and ARIA substitutes Wayne Dick

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD Katie Haritos-Shea
Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD Thad C
Headings and ARIA substitutes Wayne Dick
Re: CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD David MacDonald
Re: Headings in COGA Gap Analysis page Shane McCarron
Re: Headings in COGA Gap Analysis page James Nurthen
Headings in COGA Gap Analysis page Repsher, Stephen J
COGA SC B.3.3.2 Interactive controls are visually clear ... David MacDonald

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Characteristics of Success Criteria David MacDonald
Re: focus order with tabindex - is it aloud? Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Pull request 193 (Updates to PDF3) Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Pull request 189 (Adding PX comment to G18 and G145) Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Issue 182 (Force order with TabIndex - is it allowed?) Andrew Kirkpatrick
CfC: Publish COGA documents as FPWD josh@interaccess.ie
Minutes of the WCAG WG teleconference of 14 June 2016 Jeanne Spellman
Re: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 Moe Kraft
RE: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 Kathy Wahlbin

Saturday, 11 June 2016

Re: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 John Foliot
RE: WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 john.foliot
WCAG Agenda June 14, 2016 Joshue O Connor

Friday, 10 June 2016

RE: H91 changes Repsher, Stephen J

Thursday, 9 June 2016

RE: H91 changes Jonathan Avila
RE: H91 changes White, Jason J
RE: H91 changes Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
RE: H91 changes Jonathan Avila
RE: H91 changes Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: H91 changes David MacDonald

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

RE: H91 changes White, Jason J
Re: H91 changes Greg Lowney
Re: H91 changes Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: H91 changes White, Jason J
Re: CfC: Pull request 174 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: H91 changes Andrew Kirkpatrick
Characteristics of Success Criteria and How to write them David MacDonald
Re: H91 changes Jonathan Avila
Re: H91 changes Greg Lowney

Tuesday, 7 June 2016

Re: COGA SC David MacDonald
Re: Label Association with Input Field Question Mike Elledge
RE: Label Association with Input Field Question John Foliot
COGA SC lisa.seeman
RE: Label Association with Input Field Question Jonathan Avila
Label Association with Input Field Question Mike Elledge
Re: CfC: Pull request 193 (Updates to PDF3) John Foliot
Re: CfC: Issue 182 (Force order with TabIndex - is it allowed?) John Foliot
Re: CfC: Pull request 189 (Adding PX comment to G18 and G145) John Foliot
CfC: Issue 182 (Force order with TabIndex - is it allowed?) Andrew Kirkpatrick
CfC: Pull request 189 (Adding PX comment to G18 and G145) Andrew Kirkpatrick
CfC: Pull request 193 (Updates to PDF3) Andrew Kirkpatrick
6/7 Minutes for WCAG Wayne Dick
RE: WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 Kathy Wahlbin
Re: WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke

Monday, 6 June 2016

RE: CfC: Pull Request 137 White, Jason J
Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 Katie Haritos-Shea
Re: WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 James Nurthen
Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: CfC: Pull Request 137 White, Jason J
RE: Pull request 174 Sarah Swierenga
Re: Pull Request 137 David MacDonald
Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 Andrew Kirkpatrick
COGA drafts lisa.seeman
Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 Mike Elledge
RE: CfC: Pull Request 137 White, Jason J
Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 John Foliot
RE: Pull Request 137 Sarah Swierenga
RE: Pull Request 137 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: CfC: Pull Request 137 John Foliot
CfC: Pull request 174 Andrew Kirkpatrick
CfC: Pull Request 137 Andrew Kirkpatrick
WCAG Agenda June 7, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J

Friday, 3 June 2016

Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Gregg Vanderheiden

Thursday, 2 June 2016

Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Laura Carlson
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald
Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria josh@interaccess.ie
RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria lisa.seeman
RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Patrick H. Lauke

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria David MacDonald
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Michael Pluke
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Michael Pluke
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Alistair Garrison
Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria josh@interaccess.ie
RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Katie Haritos-Shea

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Patrick H. Lauke
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Detlev Fischer
RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria White, Jason J
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria lisa.seeman
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick

Sunday, 29 May 2016

Re: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" Sailesh Panchang

Saturday, 28 May 2016

RE: WCAG Agenda May 31, 2016 Kathy Wahlbin
Re: WCAG Agenda May 31, 2016 Sarah Horton
WCAG Agenda May 31, 2016 Joshue O Connor
Re: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" Gregg Vanderheiden

Friday, 27 May 2016

Re: CfC: Adding px note to Understanding Documents Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Issue 186 Resolution Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: High contrast in MAC Balusani, Shirisha
Re: High contrast in MAC Steve Faulkner

Thursday, 26 May 2016

High contrast in MAC Balusani, Shirisha
RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria ALAN SMITH
Re: acceptance criteria for new success criteria Thad C
acceptance criteria for new success criteria lisa.seeman
WCAG-ACTION-324: Create wcag wiki page for tf issues Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
WCAG-ACTION-323: And andrew to propose overall timeline to drive date planning Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

H91 changes Andrew Kirkpatrick
Related to the Pull 188 discussion Andrew Kirkpatrick
CfC: Adding px note to Understanding Documents Andrew Kirkpatrick
CfC: Issue 186 Resolution Andrew Kirkpatrick

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Minutes from May 24 WCAG call Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 Mike Elledge
Re: What to do with my proposed changes for large scale (text)? Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 Henny Swan
Re: What to do with my proposed changes for large scale (text)? josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
What to do with my proposed changes for large scale (text)? Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 David MacDonald
Re: New Member Introduction David MacDonald

Monday, 23 May 2016

Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 James Nurthen
RE: New Member Introduction Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke
New Member Introduction Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.
Re: WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 James Nurthen
WCAG Agenda May 24, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" White, Jason J
Re: Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" Sailesh Panchang

Friday, 20 May 2016

Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures White, Jason J
Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Patrick H. Lauke

Thursday, 19 May 2016

RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures White, Jason J
Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Aside on the use of ARIA landmark roles Thad C
RE: Aside on the use of ARIA landmark roles Jonathan Avila
Aside on the use of ARIA landmark roles White, Jason J
Re: regions of a page failure technique Mike Elledge
Re: regions of a page failure technique Adam Solomon
RE: regions of a page failure technique White, Jason J
Re: regions of a page failure technique Adam Solomon
Re: regions of a page failure technique David MacDonald
Re: regions of a page failure technique Adam Solomon

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

RE: regions of a page failure technique White, Jason J
Re: regions of a page failure technique Wayne Dick
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures White, Jason J
Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Alastair Campbell
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures White, Jason J
Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Alastair Campbell
regions of a page failure technique David MacDonald
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures White, Jason J
Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Tom Babinszki
GOV UK research on Low Vision David MacDonald
Re[2]: WCAG proposal for discussion josh@interaccess.ie
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Joshue O Connor
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Alastair Campbell
Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Alastair Campbell

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

RE: WCAG proposal for discussion White, Jason J
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: WCAG proposal for discussion Sarah Swierenga
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Mike Elledge
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures ALAN SMITH
Re: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures Alastair Campbell
Draft Minutes from 17 May 2016 Teleconference Mike Elledge
RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures ALAN SMITH
Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures josh@interaccess.ie
RE: WCAG proposal for discussion Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.
Further reading of WCAG 2.0 supporting docs for 3.3.2 seem to confirm change of content as I have been mentioning. ALAN SMITH

Monday, 16 May 2016

Meaning of phrases: "described to the user " or "provided to the user" Sailesh Panchang
Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes Alastair Campbell

Sunday, 15 May 2016

What does "Or is available in text" in SC 1.3.1 refer to Sailesh Panchang
RE: confusion in 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) White, Jason J
confusion in 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) Rakesh Paladugula

Saturday, 14 May 2016

Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes Wayne Dick
Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Wayne Dick
WCAG Agenda May 17, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie

Friday, 13 May 2016

TPAC 2016 Registration Now Open Michael Cooper

Thursday, 12 May 2016

Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Adam Solomon
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
Re: An introduction Moe Kraft
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change Alastair Campbell
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Wayne Dick
Stepping up or down with the next step: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Rakesh Paladugula
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Pinch zoom Wayne Dick
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion David MacDonald
RE: WCAG proposal for discussion White, Jason J
RE: WCAG proposal for discussion ALAN SMITH
Re: WCAG proposal for discussion Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Icon and Icon Fonts: New thread Alastair Campbell
Re: An introduction Shawn Lauriat
Re: SCs for Mega Menu fails David MacDonald
Re: An introduction David MacDonald
Re: New member introduction David MacDonald
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: SCs for Mega Menu fails Patrick H. Lauke

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Re: An introduction Katie Haritos-Shea
An introduction Shawn Lauriat
Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Katie Haritos-Shea
Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes Alastair Campbell
Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New member introduction Mike Elledge
Draft minutes from 10 May 2016 Teleconference Jonathan Avila
Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
RE: Is Advisory Technique H80 Sufficient? White, Jason J
Is Advisory Technique H80 Sufficient? Mike Elledge
New member introduction Repsher, Stephen J
WCAG proposal for discussion Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Re[2]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? Alastair Campbell
Re: Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Alastair Campbell
Re[4]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? josh@interaccess.ie
Re[4]: SCs for Mega Menu fails josh@interaccess.ie
Re[4]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Re[2]: SCs for Mega Menu fails Sailesh Panchang
Re[2]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? josh@interaccess.ie
Re[2]: SCs for Mega Menu fails josh@interaccess.ie
Re[4]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? David MacDonald
RE: SCs for Mega Menu fails Jonathan Avila
RE: Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Jonathan Avila
RE: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? Jonathan Avila
Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image josh@interaccess.ie
SCs for Mega Menu fails josh@interaccess.ie
Re: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Patrick H. Lauke
Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? Patrick H. Lauke
Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image Patrick H. Lauke
SC for 'real' text over a busy background image josh@interaccess.ie
Difference between SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.6? josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Pinch zoom Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Pinch zoom Jonathan Avila
Pinch zoom David MacDonald

Monday, 9 May 2016

Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Sailesh Panchang
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J
Completed action item to update issue #173 David MacDonald
RE: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures White, Jason J
Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Sailesh Panchang
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Sailesh Panchang
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
RE: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures White, Jason J
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J
Re: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 John Foliot
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Jonathan Avila
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell
RE: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 Sarah Swierenga

Sunday, 8 May 2016

Re: WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 Sarah Horton

Saturday, 7 May 2016

Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Sarah Horton
WCAG Agenda May 10, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Friday, 6 May 2016

Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only David MacDonald
Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Detlev Fischer
Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Jonathan Avila
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Jonathan Avila
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) James Nurthen
RE: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only John Foliot
RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only EA Draffan
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) David MacDonald
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) ALAN SMITH
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Laura Carlson
RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only ALAN SMITH
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Alastair Campbell
RE: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only White, Jason J
CfC: Publish WCAG 2.0 Edited Version with editorial errata only Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Jonathan Avila
RE: New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) White, Jason J
New SC relating to notifications of content change (was Re: Some thinking around the orientation discussion) Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures David MacDonald

Thursday, 5 May 2016

Re: warning category for techniques / failures. David MacDonald
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Phill Jenkins
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Sailesh Panchang
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Alastair Campbell
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Ta, Duc
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Alastair Campbell
Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes Patrick H. Lauke

Wednesday, 4 May 2016

Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Sailesh Panchang
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Alastair Campbell
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Ta, Duc
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. Sailesh Panchang
Re: warning category for techniques / failures. josh@interaccess.ie
warning category for techniques / failures. Alastair Campbell
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Phill Jenkins
Re: Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures wuyinghua@ritt.cn
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Phill Jenkins

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Jonathan Avila
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Jonathan Avila
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Alastair Campbell
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: WCAG Agenda May 4th, 2016 Alastair Campbell
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Alastair Campbell
Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Adam Solomon
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Alastair Campbell

Monday, 2 May 2016

RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. ALAN SMITH
Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. David MacDonald
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques John Foliot
RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. ALAN SMITH
RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. Jonathan Avila
Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. Detlev Fischer
RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. ALAN SMITH
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Kevin White

Monday, 2 May 2016

RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
RE: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. Jonathan Avila
Re: Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. Patrick H. Lauke
Not hearing grouping labels for checkboxes, radio buttons and link lists. ALAN SMITH
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF

Sunday, 1 May 2016

RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Patrick H. Lauke
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Wayne Dick

Saturday, 30 April 2016

Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
RE: Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Joshue O Connor
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald

Friday, 29 April 2016

RE: Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Joshue O Connor
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques ALAN SMITH
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Joshue O Connor
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
WCAG Agenda May 4th, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Alastair Campbell

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Denis Boudreau (gmail)
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Laura Carlson
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques John Foliot
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Jonathan Avila

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
RE: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures White, Jason J
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques John Foliot
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques John Foliot
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Alastair Campbell
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Mike Elledge
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone White, Jason J
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Paul J. Adam
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone ALAN SMITH
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Alastair Campbell
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Patrick H. Lauke
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures David MacDonald
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures David MacDonald
RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Glenda Sims
RE: Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques ALAN SMITH
RE: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 White, Jason J
Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques josh@interaccess.ie
RE: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques White, Jason J
Re[4]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Andrew Kirkpatrick
Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes Patrick H. Lauke
Re[2]: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques josh@interaccess.ie
Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures Alastair Campbell

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

RE: Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques Gian Wild

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models John Foliot
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
RE: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures John Foliot
Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? Sailesh Panchang
Let's add an approved date field to Failures and Techniques David MacDonald
In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures David MacDonald
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? Jonathan Avila
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Wayne Dick
Re: Re[2]: Comments on WCAG.Next Models John Foliot
WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 - meeting minutes Sarah Swierenga
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re[2]: Comments on WCAG.Next Models josh@interaccess.ie
Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Alastair Campbell
Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models josh@interaccess.ie
RE: Comments on WCAG.Next Models John Foliot
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Comments on WCAG.Next Models Gregg Vanderheiden
Re[2]: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Re[2]: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2? Sailesh Panchang
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Comments on WCAG.Next Models John Foliot
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Alastair Campbell
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone thatare used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
RE: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Jonathan Avila
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Alastair Campbell
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Alastair Campbell
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Eric Eggert
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Gregg Vanderheiden

Monday, 25 April 2016

Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt White, Jason J
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt James Nurthen
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt ALAN SMITH
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Wayne Dick
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Tip for reading GitHub pull requests White, Jason J
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Tip for reading GitHub pull requests Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila
Re: CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 White, Jason J
RE: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
CfC: Changes to Understanding 1.4.3 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila
Proposed response to question Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke
WCAG Agenda April 26th, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie

Friday, 22 April 2016

Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements Mike Elledge

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

Re[2]: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 josh@interaccess.ie

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Alastair Campbell
Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Andrew Kirkpatrick

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Kurt Mattes
Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements Wayne Dick
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Kurt Mattes
RE: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Sarah Swierenga
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Gregg Vanderheiden
RE: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone thatare used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
Re: Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata ALAN SMITH
Do icons fall under - 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
RE: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Kathy Wahlbin
Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements Alastair Campbell
Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Steve Faulkner

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Joshue O Connor

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

RE: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata EA Draffan
Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Sarah Horton
Re: Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements Thad C
Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata David MacDonald
Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Thad C
Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Wayne Dick

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Re: CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata John Foliot
Proper use of <header> and <nav> elements Mike Elledge
Minutes from April 18, 2016 WCAG meeting John Kirkwood
WCAG-ACTION-322: Look back to see if we added new input types to h91 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
CfC: Addition to WCAG 2.0 errata Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 Kathy Wahlbin
Re: WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 Mike Elledge
Re: WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 Sarah Horton

Sunday, 17 April 2016

WCAG Agenda April 19th, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie

Saturday, 16 April 2016

Re: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
RE: CfC: Issue 157 John Foliot
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.
Re: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics Detlev Fischer

Friday, 15 April 2016

RE: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics Jonathan Avila
Re: Re[2]: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive John Foliot
Re[2]: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive josh@interaccess.ie
Re: CfC: Issue 157 - note on contrast arithmetics Detlev Fischer

Thursday, 14 April 2016

Re: CfC: Issue 157 John Foliot
Re: CfC: Issue 157 David MacDonald
Re: CfC: Issue 157 John Foliot
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
RE: CfC: Issue 157 ALAN SMITH
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: CfC: Issue 157 John Foliot
Re: CfC: Issue 157 John Foliot
RE: CfC: Issue 157 Jonathan Avila
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: CfC: Issue 168 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive John Foliot
Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive Alastair Campbell
Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive Thad C
Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive Kurt Mattes
RE: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive lisa.seeman
RE: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive White, Jason J
consideration for wcag.next and cognitive lisa.seeman

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

Re: CfC: Issue 168 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: CfC: Issue 157 Patrick H. Lauke
CfC: Issue 168 Andrew Kirkpatrick
CfC: Issue 157 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Minutes from April 12, 2016 WCAG meeting David MacDonald
Marking Issues as deferred Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 Mike Elledge
Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 John Kirkwood

Monday, 11 April 2016

Re: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 Sarah Horton
RE: WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 Sarah Swierenga
Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) White, Jason J
Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) Mike Elledge
Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) Joshue O Connor
WCAG Agenda April 12, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Authroing tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) David MacDonald
RE: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) White, Jason J
Re: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) White, Jason J
Re: Authroing tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) Patrick H. Lauke
Authroing tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...) White, Jason J
FW: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... White, Jason J
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... Kurt Mattes

Saturday, 9 April 2016

Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... Jutta Treviranus

Sunday, 10 April 2016

RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... White, Jason J
RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... John Foliot
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... Phill Jenkins

Saturday, 9 April 2016

Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... Liddy Nevile
RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald
RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... White, Jason J
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... Chaals McCathie Nevile
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... John Foliot
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald
Re: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... Chaals McCathie Nevile

Friday, 8 April 2016

RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... White, Jason J
RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... John Foliot
Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal... David MacDonald
Re: WCAG Next Possible Models David MacDonald
RE: WCAG Next Possible Models Jim Tobias
RE: WCAG Next Possible Models White, Jason J
WCAG Next Possible Models John Foliot
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Thursday, 7 April 2016

Re: CfC: Issue 171 David MacDonald
Re: Issue 171 David MacDonald
RE: CfC: Issue 171 Jonathan Avila
Re: Issue 171 James Nurthen
Re: Issue 171 David MacDonald
WCAG-ACTION-321: Propose project plan for wcag Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: Issue 171 Adam Solomon
Re: Issue 171 Patrick H. Lauke

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Re: Issue 170 - F52 recommendations Alastair Campbell
Re: CfC: Issue 171 David MacDonald
Re: CfC: Issue 171 David MacDonald
Re: Issue 171 David MacDonald
Re: Issue 171 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Issue 171 Mike Elledge
Re: Issue 171 Adam Solomon
Issue 170 - F52 recommendations Alastair Campbell
Re: Issue 171 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: Issue 171 Mike Elledge
RE: Issue 171 Kathy Wahlbin
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Laura Carlson
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Steve Faulkner
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Adam Solomon

Tuesday, 5 April 2016

RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Wayne Dick
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Sarah Horton
RE: Issue 171 ALAN SMITH
Re: Issue 171 Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: Issue 171 ALAN SMITH
RE: Issue 171 John Foliot
RE: CfC: Issue 171 Léonie Watson
RE: Issue 171 Sarah Swierenga
Re: CfC: Issue 171 Patrick H. Lauke
RE: Issue 171 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
CfC: Issue 171 Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 - minutes Alastair Campbell
Re: WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 - update Moe Kraft
Re: 1.3.1 question Eric Eggert
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: 1.3.1 question Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.

Monday, 4 April 2016

Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke
Re: 1.3.1 question Jonathan Avila
Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald
Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Jonathan Avila
RE: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are usedeverywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
Re: Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Correction: 1.3.3 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
RE: 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 White, Jason J
Re: 1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 Patrick H. Lauke
Re: 1.3.1 question Gregg Vanderheiden
1.3.2 question for shapes/icons alone that are used everywhere now but were not back in 2008 ALAN SMITH
RE: 1.3.1 question White, Jason J
Re: 1.3.1 question Wayne Dick
Re: 1.3.1 question Wayne Dick
Re: 1.3.1 question Paul J. Adam
Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: 1.3.1 question Wayne Dick
Re: 1.3.1 question Sailesh Panchang
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: 1.3.1 question James Nurthen
Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke
Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald
Re: 1.3.1 question Mike Elledge
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald
RE: 1.3.1 question John Foliot
Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke
RE: 1.3.1 question ALAN SMITH
Re: 1.3.1 question Mike Elledge
Re: 1.3.1 question Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: 1.3.1 question Patrick H. Lauke
Re: 1.3.1 question Adam Solomon
Re: 1.3.1 question Alastair Campbell
Duplicate survey option Léonie Watson

Sunday, 3 April 2016

WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 - update Andrew Kirkpatrick
WCAG Agenda April 5, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Saturday, 2 April 2016

Re: 1.3.1 question Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: 1.3.1 question Gregg Vanderheiden
Re: 1.3.1 question John Foliot
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL

Friday, 1 April 2016

Re: 1.3.1 question Mike Elledge
RE: 1.3.1 question ALAN SMITH
Re: 1.3.1 question Paul J. Adam
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Re: 1.3.1 question David MacDonald
RE: 1.3.1 question Jonathan Avila
Re: 1.3.1 question Andrew Kirkpatrick
Re: 1.3.1 question Andrew Kirkpatrick
RE: 1.3.1 question ALAN SMITH
RE: 1.3.1 question Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
RE: 1.3.1 question Jonathan Avila
RE: 1.3.1 question ALAN SMITH
1.3.1 question Andrew Kirkpatrick

Last message date: Thursday, 30 June 2016 23:07:18 UTC