w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from July to September 2016 by date

Friday, 30 September 2016

• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Alastair Campbell
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Sailesh Panchang
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 - Suggested New 4.1.1-ish SC Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Jonathan Avila
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Alastair Campbell
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 john.foliot
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Jonathan Avila
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Jonathan Avila
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 White, Jason J

Thursday, 29 September 2016

• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 David MacDonald
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 David MacDonald
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Charu D Pandhi
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 White, Jason J
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Jonathan Avila
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Sailesh Panchang
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force- Meeting on 28 September 2016 alands289@gmail.com
• RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 David MacDonald
• Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Steve Faulkner
• Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 Sailesh Panchang
• **correction** [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 28 September 2016 Shadi Abou-Zahra
• RE: [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 28 September 2016 Vivienne Conway

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 28 September 2016 Shadi Abou-Zahra
• RE: Second screen API and working group john.foliot
• RE: Second screen API and working group Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Second screen API and working group James Nurthen

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

• Second screen API and working group Jonathan Avila
• RE: Adding a resource to Understanding 2.4.2 alands289@gmail.com
• Re: Adding a resource to Understanding 2.4.2 James Nurthen
• Adding a resource to Understanding 2.4.2 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• WCAG WG Meeting September 27, 2017 Laura Carlson
• RE: DRM protest timed with TPAC 2016 Jonathan Avila

Monday, 26 September 2016

• Re: WCAG Agenda Sept 27th, 2016 Mike Elledge
• FW: WCAG Agenda Sept 27th, 2016 Alastair Campbell

Saturday, 17 September 2016

• Re: DRM protest timed with TPAC 2016 john.foliot

Friday, 23 September 2016

• WCAG Agenda Sept 27th, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie

Thursday, 22 September 2016

• Re: Failures Definition (Problem?) Kurt Mattes
• RE: Failures Definition (Problem?) Jonathan Avila
• Re: Failures Definition (Problem?) John Foliot
• Re: Failures Definition (Problem?) Christophe Strobbe
• RE: Failures Definition (Problem?) Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Failures Definition (Problem?) Alastair Campbell
• Re: Failures Definition (Problem?) John Foliot
• Re: Failures Definition (Problem?) Alastair Campbell
• Re: Failures Definition (Problem?) Léonie Watson
• Failures Definition (Problem?) John Foliot

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

• Minutes of WCAG F2F of 20 September 2016 Jeanne Spellman
• Re: Missing scribing notes josh@interaccess.ie
• Missing scribing notes Alastair Campbell

Monday, 19 September 2016

• Re: Report from Silver sub-group on the Options for Designing Silver Sarah Horton
• RE: Report from Silver sub-group on the Options for Designing Silver Jonathan Avila
• WCAG meeting with DPUB in DPUB room Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Report from Silver sub-group on the Options for Designing Silver Sarah Horton

Sunday, 18 September 2016

• Re: Discussion materials for TPAC josh@interaccess.ie
• Discussion materials for TPAC Kepeng Li

Saturday, 17 September 2016

• Re: DRM protest timed with TPAC 2016 Joshue O Connor
• Re: Fwd: DRM protest timed with TPAC 2016 Joshue O Connor

Friday, 16 September 2016

• RE: DRM protest timed with TPAC 2016 Jonathan Avila
• Fwd: DRM protest timed with TPAC 2016 Michael Cooper
• Fwd: [TPAC 2016] reminder about airport transfers Michael Cooper
• Minutes of Silver sub-group teleconference of 16 September Jeanne Spellman

Thursday, 15 September 2016

• Remote participation for TPAC Andrew Kirkpatrick

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

• Minutes of the Silver sub-group teleconference of 13 September 2016 Jeanne Spellman
• Report from Silver sub-group on the Options for Designing Silver Jeanne Spellman
• Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016 Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.
• Re: Fw: means a lot to me r12a

Monday, 12 September 2016

• Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016 Sarah Horton

Friday, 9 September 2016

• Minutes of the SIlver Sub-group meeting of 9 September Jeanne Spellman
• Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016 Alastair Campbell
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 8 September 2016 Shadi Abou-Zahra
• Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016 John Foliot
• RE: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016 Jonathan Avila
• Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016 David MacDonald
• WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie

Wednesday, 7 September 2016

• Re: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? Wayne Dick
• RE: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? White, Jason J
• RE: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? David MacDonald
• RE: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? ALAN SMITH
• Re: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? John Foliot
• RE: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1? David MacDonald

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

• Minutes of the Silver Sub-Group teleconference of 6 September Jeanne Spellman

Monday, 5 September 2016

• COGA Feedback page josh@interaccess.ie
• No WCAG meeting Tues 6th Sept 2016 josh@interaccess.ie

Friday, 2 September 2016

• Minutes of the Silver sub-group of 2 September 2016 Jeanne Spellman

Thursday, 1 September 2016

• Re: feedback loops Joshue O Connor
• RE: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

• Re: feedback loops John Foliot
• Re: feedback loops Greg Lowney
• Re: feedback loops lisa.seeman
• Re: feedback loops Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: WCAG MINUTES August 30, 2016 Patrick H. Lauke

Tuesday, 30 August 2016

• RE: CfC: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs White, Jason J
• Re: CfC: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs Jeanne Spellman
• RE: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• CfC: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs Joshue O Connor
• Re: WCAG MINUTES August 30, 2016 Marc Johlic
• Minutes of Silver Sub-group teleconference of 30 August 2016 Jeanne Spellman
• Re: Silver Design Process goals survey Jeanne Spellman
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 30, 2016 Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.

Monday, 29 August 2016

• WCAG Agenda August 30, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Silver Design Process goals survey Mike Elledge
• Re: Silver Design Process goals survey Jeanne Spellman
• Re: CfC: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Ruby changes Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Updates to H28 resources Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Consider SMIL Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Issue 207 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Friday, 26 August 2016

• Minutes of the Silver Subgroup Teleconference of 26 August 2016 Sarah Horton

Thursday, 25 August 2016

• WCAG-ACTION-330: Move 2.1 requirements from w3c/wcag/ (wcag21 branch) to w3c/wcag21/ Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

• Techniques CFCs White, Jason J
• Re: CfC: Issue 207 John Foliot
• Re: CfC: Updates to H28 resources John Foliot
• Re: CfC: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5 John Foliot
• Re: CfC: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5 John Foliot
• Re: CfC: Ruby changes John Foliot
• Re: CfC: Consider SMIL John Foliot
• RE: Updates to H28 resources Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Consider SMIL Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• CfC: Updates to H28 resources Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Issue 207 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• CfC: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Ruby changes Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Consider SMIL Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Issue 207 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Tuesday, 23 August 2016

• Minutes for WCAG Call August 23, 2016 Mike Elledge
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 John Foliot
• Minutes of the Silver Subgroup meeting of 23 August 2016 Jeanne Spellman
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Greg Lowney
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Sarah Horton
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.

Monday, 22 August 2016

• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Joshue O Connor
• Silver Design Process goals survey Jeanne Spellman
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Joshue O Connor
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Joshue O Connor
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
• Re[2]: Comment about SMIL josh@interaccess.ie
• Error in response to PDF3 public comment Andrew Kirkpatrick
• WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Issue 215 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Issue 220 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Issue 209 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Issue 216 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Sunday, 21 August 2016

• WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016 Joshue O Connor

Saturday, 20 August 2016

• RE: Comment about SMIL White, Jason J
• Re: Comment about SMIL josh@interaccess.ie

Friday, 19 August 2016

• Minutes of the Silver Subgroup meeting of 19 August 2016 Jeanne Spellman

Thursday, 18 August 2016

• Re: CfC: Issue 215 Wayne Dick
• Re: CfC: Issue 215 David MacDonald

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

• RE: Issue 215 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Issue 220 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Issue 209 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Issue 216 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• CfC: Issue 215 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Issue 220 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Issue 209 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Issue 216 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Minutes of Silver subgroup meeting of 16 August 2016 Jeanne Spellman
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 16, 2016 Alastair Campbell

Monday, 15 August 2016

• Comment about SMIL Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 16, 2016 Shawn Lauriat
• RE: Re[2]: Checklist for Proposals Joshue O Connor
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 16, 2016 Jonathan Avila
• RE: Re[3]: What should we do with a long success criteria? White, Jason J
• WCAG Agenda August 16, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Re[2]: Checklist for Proposals White, Jason J
• Re[2]: Checklist for Proposals josh@interaccess.ie
• Re[3]: What should we do with a long success criteria? josh@interaccess.ie

Friday, 12 August 2016

• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles White, Jason J
• Re: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles Adam Zerner
• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles Jonathan Avila

Thursday, 11 August 2016

• Re: CfC: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Success Criteria Requirements Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles White, Jason J
• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles White, Jason J
• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles ALAN SMITH
• RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles White, Jason J
• Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Jonathan Avila

Wednesday, 10 August 2016

• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 White, Jason J
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Jonathan Avila
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Jonathan Avila
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 White, Jason J
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Mike Elledge
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Jonathan Avila
• Re: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Mike Elledge
• RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Jonathan Avila
• Clarification of SC 1.2.3 Mike Elledge
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Alastair Campbell
• RE: Checklist for Proposals White, Jason J
• RE: Success Criteria Requirements White, Jason J
• Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals Sailesh Panchang
• RE: CfC: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force White, Jason J
• Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals Laura Carlson
• Re: CfC: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force Laura Carlson
• Re: CfC: Success Criteria Requirements Laura Carlson
• Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals Sailesh Panchang

Tuesday, 9 August 2016

• RE: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force ALAN SMITH
• RE: Checklist for Proposals Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Success Criteria Requirements Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Success Criteria Requirements ALAN SMITH
• RE: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force ALAN SMITH
• Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals Gregg Vanderheiden
• CfC: Checklist for Proposals Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Success Criteria Requirements Andrew Kirkpatrick
• CfC: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Minutes for WCAG call Aug 9, 2016 David MacDonald
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Sailesh Panchang
• RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria White, Jason J
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Re: What should we do with a long success criteria? lisa.seeman
• Re: Volunteers needed for 3 comments Wayne Dick
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016 Wayne Dick

Monday, 8 August 2016

• Fwd: Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria lisa.seeman
• Fwd: template for new SC lisa.seeman
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria lisa.seeman
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016 Shawn Lauriat
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016 Laura Carlson
• Re: Volunteers needed for 3 comments John Foliot
• Re: template for new SC Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: What should we do with a long success criteria? Jonathan Avila
• template for new SC lisa.seeman
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Alastair Campbell
• Re: What should we do with a long success criteria? Gregg Vanderheiden
• What should we do with a long success criteria? lisa.seeman
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016 Laura Carlson

Sunday, 7 August 2016

• WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016 Michael Cooper
• Re: Volunteers needed for 3 comments Adam Solomon
• Volunteers needed for 3 comments Andrew Kirkpatrick

Friday, 5 August 2016

• Re: Success Criteria guidance Greg Lowney

Thursday, 4 August 2016

• Examples of Unexpected Changes from Focus and Form Input? Mike Elledge
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Laura Carlson
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Eric Eggert
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines lisa.seeman
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria lisa.seeman
• RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria lisa.seeman

Wednesday, 3 August 2016

• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria White, Jason J
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Success Criteria guidance ALAN SMITH
• RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria White, Jason J
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria guidance Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria guidance Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria White, Jason J
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Success Criteria guidance ALAN SMITH
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Laura Carlson
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines lisa.seeman
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria guidance Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines lisa.seeman
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines lisa.seeman
• Re: Success Criteria guidance lisa.seeman
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria lisa.seeman
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Alastair Campbell
• RE: Success Criteria guidance EA Draffan
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines lisa.seeman

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Katie Haritos-Shea
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria guidance Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines David MacDonald
• Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: Success Criteria guidance Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Success Criteria guidance White, Jason J
• Re: Success Criteria guidance Mike Elledge
• Success Criteria guidance Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: Parallax and vestibular disorders White, Jason J
• Minutes for WCAG WG 8/2 Wayne Dick
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Alastair Campbell
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 2, 2016 Marc Johlic
• Re: WCAG Agenda August 2, 2016 Sarah Horton

Monday, 1 August 2016

• WCAG Agenda August 2, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Sunday, 31 July 2016

• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Gregg Vanderheiden

Saturday, 30 July 2016

• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Wayne Dick

Friday, 29 July 2016

• Silver Subgroup minutes of 29 July 2016 Jeanne Spellman
• RE: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 David MacDonald
• Re: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 Detlev Fischer
• Re: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 Alastair Campbell

Thursday, 28 July 2016

• Re: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 David MacDonald
• Re: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 Janina Sajka
• Re: Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 Eric Eggert
• Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1 John Foliot
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Alastair Campbell
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Wayne Dick
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Mike Elledge
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Laura Carlson
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Alastair Campbell

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Laura Carlson
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders Thad C
• Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders David MacDonald
• RE: Parallax and vestibular disorders Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Parallax and vestibular disorders Alastair Campbell
• Minutes from July 26 WCAG call Andrew Kirkpatrick

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

• Minutes of Silver Subgroup meeting 26 July 2016 Jeanne Spellman

Monday, 25 July 2016

• Re: WCAG Agenda July 26, 2016 - Updated Sarah Horton
• RE: WCAG Agenda July 26, 2016 - Updated Kathy Wahlbin
• Communications Survey Andrew Kirkpatrick
• WCAG Agenda July 26, 2016 - Updated Andrew Kirkpatrick
• WCAG Agenda July 26, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick

Sunday, 24 July 2016

• RE: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? lisa.seeman

Saturday, 23 July 2016

• (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?  Sailesh Panchang

Friday, 22 July 2016

• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Sailesh Panchang
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Sailesh Panchang
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Sailesh Panchang
• RE: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? John Foliot
• Re: Revise reference to "PDA" in example of Keyboard interface Patrick H. Lauke
• RE: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? White, Jason J
• RE: Revise reference to "PDA" in example of Keyboard interface White, Jason J
• Revise reference to "PDA" in example of Keyboard interface David MacDonald
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Léonie Watson
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: Just to clarify: 2.1 is extension, Silver is Rewrite? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
• Just to clarify: 2.1 is extension, Silver is Rewrite? Wayne Dick
• RE: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
• RE: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? David MacDonald

Thursday, 21 July 2016

• RE: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? David MacDonald
• Re: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Sailesh Panchang
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Sailesh Panchang
• Silver Subgroup update and minutes of 21 July 2015 teleconference Jeanne Spellman
• RE: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? David MacDonald
• RE: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com
• RE: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? White, Jason J
• Re: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? White, Jason J
• ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• [FYI] Quickref bugfix update Eric Eggert
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Patrick H. Lauke
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion Katie Haritos-Shea
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion David MacDonald
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion David MacDonald

Wednesday, 20 July 2016

• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: Guidance for TF-submitted Success Criteria Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Patrick H. Lauke
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• FW: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• RE: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Jonathan Avila
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Guidance for TF-submitted Success Criteria Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Jonathan Avila
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Guidance for TF-submitted Success Criteria Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? john.foliot
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Alastair Campbell
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Jonathan Avila
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Alastair Campbell
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Alastair Campbell
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Jonathan Avila
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Jonathan Avila
• RE: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - NEW Should we leverage AAPIs? Katie Haritos-Shea
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? John Foliot
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• RE: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? John Foliot
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Katie Haritos-Shea
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Katie Haritos-Shea
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? John Foliot
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? John Foliot
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? John Foliot
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Wayne Dick
• Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• RE: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Minutes 19 July 2016 Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.
• RE: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? John Foliot
• Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Wayne Dick
• Re: Possible Lisbon 2017 TPAC Hotels Shawn Lauriat
• Possible Lisbon 2017 TPAC Hotels Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: WCAG Agenda July 19, 2016 Jeanne Spellman
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Laura Carlson
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Sailesh Panchang
• RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? White, Jason J
• Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Sailesh Panchang
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? Katie Haritos-Shea
• (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace ​"programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? David MacDonald
• Re: Numbering Scheme for WCAG 2.1 David MacDonald
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Katie Haritos-Shea

Monday, 18 July 2016

• RE: Numbering Scheme for WCAG 2.1 White, Jason J
• Numbering Scheme for WCAG 2.1 John Foliot
• Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? David MacDonald
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? David MacDonald
• Re: WCAG Agenda July 19, 2016 Mike Elledge
• RE: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? John Foliot
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Wayne Dick
• Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? David MacDonald
• Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? John Foliot
• RE: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? Jonathan Avila
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? David MacDonald
• Re: Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 David MacDonald
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Sailesh Panchang
• Re[4]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 josh@interaccess.ie
• RE: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Jonathan Avila
• Re: Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 David MacDonald
• RE: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Jonathan Avila
• RE: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Jonathan Avila
• RE: Re[4]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Jonathan Avila
• WCAG Agenda July 19, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Patrick H. Lauke
• WCAG Agenda July 19, 2016 Andrew Kirkpatrick
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Sailesh Panchang
• RE: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Jonathan Avila
• Re: New SC: Meaningful element name Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Sailesh Panchang
• RE: Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 White, Jason J
• Re[4]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 josh@interaccess.ie
• RE: Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Jonathan Avila
• Re: Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 David MacDonald
• Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Patrick H. Lauke
• RE: New SC: Meaningful element name Jonathan Avila
• Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Patrick H. Lauke
• RE: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Jonathan Avila
• Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Alastair Campbell
• Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Joshue O Connor
• Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Patrick H. Lauke
• Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1 Joshue O Connor
• Re: New SC: Meaningful element name Sailesh Panchang
• Re: New SC: Meaningful element name Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: New SC: Meaningful element name Alastair Campbell

Friday, 15 July 2016

• RE: New SC: Meaningful element name White, Jason J
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Sailesh Panchang
• Re: New SC: Meaningful element name David MacDonald
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Sailesh Panchang
• RE: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features White, Jason J
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features David MacDonald
• Re: New SC: Meaningful element name Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Alastair Campbell
• New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Re[4]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? John Foliot
• Re: Should WCAG explicitly talk about *mainstream* assistive technologies? John Foliot
• New SC: Meaningful element name Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Re[4]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Should WCAG explicitly talk about *mainstream* assistive technologies? Patrick H. Lauke
• RE: Should WCAG explicitly talk about *mainstream* assistive technologies? White, Jason J
• Re: Should WCAG explicitly talk about *mainstream* assistive technologies? Kurt Mattes
• Re[4]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? josh@interaccess.ie
• Should WCAG explicitly talk about *mainstream* assistive technologies? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Re[2]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Alastair Campbell
• Re[2]: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Alastair Campbell
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? josh@interaccess.ie

Thursday, 14 July 2016

• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? David MacDonald
• RE: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? John Foliot
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? David MacDonald
• Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? John Foliot
• Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1? David MacDonald
• RE: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? White, Jason J
• Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? David MacDonald
• RE: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? White, Jason J

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

• Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? David MacDonald
• RE: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? White, Jason J
• Re: Responsive tables and accessibility Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Responsive tables and accessibility Alastair Campbell
• Re: proposed success criteria Thad C
• RE: Responsive tables and accessibility Jonathan Avila
• Re: proposed success criteria David MacDonald
• proposed success criteria lisa.seeman
• Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? Eric Eggert
• Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links? David MacDonald
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? David MacDonald
• Re: Responsive tables and accessibility Alastair Campbell
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities Bernard R.M.

Tuesday, 12 July 2016

• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop Sailesh Panchang
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Jonathan Avila
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Jonathan Avila
• RE: Responsive tables and accessibility Jonathan Avila
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? David MacDonald
• Re: Responsive tables and accessibility Steve Faulkner
• Re: Responsive tables and accessibility Alastair Campbell
• Re: WCAG Agenda July 12th 2016 Alastair Campbell
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? White, Jason J
• Re: Responsive tables and accessibility Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? John Foliot
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Laura Carlson
• RE: Responsive tables and accessibility Jonathan Avila
• Re: Responsive tables and accessibility Gregg Vanderheiden
• Responsive tables and accessibility Jonathan Avila
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? White, Jason J
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? David MacDonald
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities David MacDonald
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Mike Elledge
• Replying to Github issues by email Léonie Watson
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? White, Jason J
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Mike Elledge
• RE: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities White, Jason J
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities Michael Cooper
• RE: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities EA Draffan
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities David Sloan
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Alastair Campbell
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities David MacDonald
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Wayne Dick
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? David MacDonald
• Re: [w3c/wcag] Technique G183 not applicable to touch/inputs that lack hover/focus (#201) David MacDonald
• RE: [w3c/wcag] Technique G183 not applicable to touch/inputs that lack hover/focus (#201) Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL

Monday, 11 July 2016

• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? White, Jason J
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? David MacDonald
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? John Foliot
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? White, Jason J
• Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? James Nurthen
• RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable? David MacDonald
• RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... Jonathan Avila
• Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... David MacDonald
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... White, Jason J
• RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... Jonathan Avila
• RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... White, Jason J
• RE: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Jonathan Avila
• RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... Jonathan Avila
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities David MacDonald
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities lisa.seeman
• Technique G183 not applicable to touch/inputs that lack hover/focus Patrick H. Lauke
• RE: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities Rochford, John
• Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities David Sloan
• Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities josh@interaccess.ie

Sunday, 10 July 2016

• Re: User testing with person with Cognitive disability David MacDonald
• Re: triplicate mails to same list (was Re: User testing with user with cognitive disability) David MacDonald
• Re: User testing with person with Cognitive disability Bernard R.M.
• Re: User testing with person with Cognitive disability lisa.seeman
• triplicate mails to same list (was Re: User testing with user with cognitive disability) Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: User testing with user with cognitive disability lisa.seeman
• User testing with user with cognitive disability David MacDonald
• User testing with person with Cognitive disability David MacDonald
• test with a user who had a cognitive disability David MacDonald

Friday, 8 July 2016

• RE: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures David MacDonald
• RE: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures John Foliot
• Re: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures David MacDonald
• RE: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
• Re: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures John Foliot
• WCAG Agenda July 12th 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Detlev Fischer
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell

Thursday, 7 July 2016

• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Fwd: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... lisa.seeman
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Alastair Campbell
• Re: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures David MacDonald

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

• Re: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures Gregg Vanderheiden
• University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures David MacDonald
• RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... White, Jason J
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors David MacDonald
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Léonie Watson
• Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... David MacDonald
• Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... James Nurthen
• Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... John Foliot
• Re: Should SC 2.4.4 require Link text or Accessible Name, rather than enclosing sentence etc.? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc... David MacDonald
• Should SC 2.4.4 require Link text or Accessible Name, rather than enclosing sentence etc.? David MacDonald
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors ALAN SMITH
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors David MacDonald
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors Laura Carlson
• RE: User agent SCs? White, Jason J
• 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors ALAN SMITH
• Re[2]: User agent SCs? josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: User agent SCs? Laura Carlson
• Re: User agent SCs? Patrick H. Lauke
• Re[2]: User agent SCs? josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: User agent SCs? Steve Faulkner
• Re: User agent SCs? josh@interaccess.ie
• User agent SCs? Alastair Campbell
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Laura Carlson
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• WCAG WG Meeting Minutes July 5, 2016 Laura Carlson
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• WCAG-ACTION-329: And awk to work out a way to deal with definition changes. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
• WCAG-ACTION-328: Discuss need for definition changes in wcag at editors meet. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Jonathan Avila

Monday, 4 July 2016

• Regrets for tomorrow's meeting Mike Elledge
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Gregg Vanderheiden RTF
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Jonathan Avila
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Jonathan Avila
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Jonathan Avila
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Adam Solomon
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Adam Solomon
• RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content White, Jason J
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Jonathan Avila
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Alastair Campbell
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Adam Solomon
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Steve Faulkner
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Adam Solomon
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Adam Solomon
• Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content Patrick H. Lauke
• Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content David MacDonald
• Responsive sites dropping content David MacDonald

Friday, 1 July 2016

• 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 David MacDonald
• WCAG Agenda July 5th 2016 josh@interaccess.ie
• Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop David MacDonald

Last message date: Friday, 30 September 2016 15:42:34 UTC