Reminder: Call for Review: Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision
WCAG-ACTION-320: W to prepare mobile a11y wcag extension for wg review http://w3c.github.io/mobile-a11y-extension/
Minutes of WCAG.Next meeting at CSUN
Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT
- Re: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT
- Re: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT
- Re: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT
- Re: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT
- Re: Proposal to get out of the techniques business on WCAG.NEXT
WCAG Agenda 29th March 2016
Reminder: No WCAG meeting March 22
Reminder: How to proceed on WCAG 2.next: a design thinking exercise
What is a "WCAG2.next workshop"?
Fwd: Call for Review: Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision
Changed links in WCAG Understanding / Techniques
CfC: Publish updated QuickRef
Draft minutes from 15th March 2016 teleconference
Change in focus for WCAG2.next workshop
Minutes of teleconference on WCAG Next Workshop 14 March 2016
**Updated** WCAG Agenda March 15th, 2016
TPAC questions
Daylight savings time will change meeting times the next couple weeks
WCAG - March 15th 2016
How to proceed on WCAG 2.next: design thinking exercise
- Re: How to proceed on WCAG 2.next: design thinking exercise
- RE: How to proceed on WCAG 2.next: design thinking exercise
- Re: How to proceed on WCAG 2.next: design thinking exercise
WCAG WG Meeting Minutes March 8, 2016
WCAG-ACTION-319: Work with john f, alastair, david and others to discuss ideas for how to proceed on wcag 2.next and report back on april 5
Transient states
WCAG Agenda March 8th 2016
WCAG Agenda March 15 2016
CfC: Drop advisory technique H46
Minutes for March 1 2015 WCAG WG
Proposal to change Understanding SC 3.3.2 and related SC applicability
Icon and Icon Fonts: New thread
WCAG Agenda March 1st 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda March 1st 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda March 1st 2016
- RE: WCAG Agenda March 1st 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda March 1st 2016
Make it more obvious that older versions are out of date / obsolete
- Re: Make it more obvious that older versions are out of date / obsolete
- RE: Make it more obvious that older versions are out of date / obsolete
CfC: Publish updated Techniques and Understanding documents
- Re: CfC: Publish updated Techniques and Understanding documents
- RE: Publish updated Techniques and Understanding documents
- Re: CfC: Publish updated Techniques and Understanding documents
- RE: Publish updated Techniques and Understanding documents
- Re: CfC: Publish updated Techniques and Understanding documents
Review of Digital Publishing Accessibility Note http://w3c.github.io/dpub-accessibility/
Comments on: Digital Publishing Accessibility Note
Extension conformance and section 2.4
WCAG Working Group Teleconference Minutes--February 23, 2016
Icon Fonts and contrast
Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - whichhas long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re[4]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- RE: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
- Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)
WCAG Agenda February 23, 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda February 23, 2016
- Agenda+ How to Meet was: Re: WCAG Agenda February 23, 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda February 23, 2016
Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re[2]: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Re[2]: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re[2]: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Re[2]: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
- RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
WCAG FAQ
Ongoing editorial changes to the coga roadmaps
WCAG Agenda 16th February 2016
Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re[2]: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- Re: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
- RE: Should G83: "Providing text descriptions to identify required fields that were not completed" reference 3.3.2?
WCAG Agenda February 9, 2016
Owner need for Github issue "Headings in design have been used to comment inclusion on partial html sections and do not relate to section content #106"
[LVTF] Technique volunteers needed
CfC: Issue 150
Comment / question re. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions
- Re: Comment / question re. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions
- RE: Comment / question re. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions
- Re: Comment / question re. Requirements for WCAG 2.0 Extensions
CfC: Change to introductory paragraphs
- RE: Change to introductory paragraphs
- Re: CfC: Change to introductory paragraphs
- RE: Change to introductory paragraphs
- Re: CfC: Change to introductory paragraphs
- RE: Change to introductory paragraphs
- Re: CfC: Change to introductory paragraphs
IRC channel for Screenreader user questions
No WCAG meeting Tuesday
WCAG Agenda January 26th, 2016
Meeting Minutes January 19, 2015
WCAG Agenda January 19, 2016
RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? -and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG
RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - markup-wise
- Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - markup-wise
- RE: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - markup-wise
Issue 80 and F3
Meeting minutes January 12 2016
Question on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers
- Re: Question on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers
- Re: Question on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers
- Re: Question on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers
WCAG-ACTION-318: Horton to look at new technique for disappearing background images.
WCAG Agenda January 12, 2016
Contrast analysis and Pixel radius
Thoughts on pull request?
- Re: Thoughts on pull request?
- Re: Thoughts on pull request?
- Re: Thoughts on pull request?
RE: CFC - Publish Techniques and Understanding documents for public review
CfC: Publish Techniques and Understanding documents for public review
- Re: CfC: Publish Techniques and Understanding documents for public review
- RE: Publish Techniques and Understanding documents for public review
- Re: CfC: Publish Techniques and Understanding documents for public review
- RE: Publish Techniques and Understanding documents for public review
- Re: CfC: Publish Techniques and Understanding documents for public review