RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 - Suggested New 4.1.1-ish SC
Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
- Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
**correction** [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 28 September 2016
[Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 28 September 2016
- RE: [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 28 September 2016
Second screen API and working group
Adding a resource to Understanding 2.4.2
WCAG WG Meeting September 27, 2017
WCAG Agenda Sept 27th, 2016
Failures Definition (Problem?)
- Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)
- Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)
- Re: Failures Definition (Problem?)
- RE: Failures Definition (Problem?)
Minutes of WCAG F2F of 20 September 2016
Missing scribing notes
WCAG meeting with DPUB in DPUB room
Discussion materials for TPAC
Fwd: DRM protest timed with TPAC 2016
Fwd: [TPAC 2016] reminder about airport transfers
Minutes of Silver sub-group teleconference of 16 September
Remote participation for TPAC
Minutes of the Silver sub-group teleconference of 13 September 2016
Report from Silver sub-group on the Options for Designing Silver
Minutes of the SIlver Sub-group meeting of 9 September
[Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 8 September 2016
WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016
- RE: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016
- Re: WCAG Agenda September 13th, 2016
Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1?
- RE: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1?
- Re: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1?
- Re: Should we talk about an icon for transcripts in WCAG 2.1?
Minutes of the Silver Sub-Group teleconference of 6 September
COGA Feedback page
No WCAG meeting Tues 6th Sept 2016
Minutes of the Silver sub-group of 2 September 2016
Re: feedback loops
CfC: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs
- RE: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs
- Re: CfC: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs
- RE: To publish updated WCAG 2.0 Understanding and Techniques docs
Re: WCAG MINUTES August 30, 2016
Minutes of Silver Sub-group teleconference of 30 August 2016
WCAG Agenda August 30, 2016
Minutes of the Silver Subgroup Teleconference of 26 August 2016
WCAG-ACTION-330: Move 2.1 requirements from w3c/wcag/ (wcag21 branch) to w3c/wcag21/
Techniques CFCs
CfC: Updates to H28 resources
CfC: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5
- RE: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5
- Re: CfC: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5
- Re: CfC: H64 & H70 `frame` is obsoleted by HTML5
CfC: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5
- RE: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5
- Re: CfC: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5
- Re: CfC: H73 `summary` is obsoleted by HTML5
CfC: Ruby changes
CfC: Consider SMIL
CfC: Issue 207
Minutes for WCAG Call August 23, 2016
Minutes of the Silver Subgroup meeting of 23 August 2016
Silver Design Process goals survey
Error in response to PDF3 public comment
WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016
WCAG Agenda August 23, 2016
Minutes of the Silver Subgroup meeting of 19 August 2016
CfC: Issue 215
CfC: Issue 220
CfC: Issue 209
CfC: Issue 216
Minutes of Silver subgroup meeting of 16 August 2016
Comment about SMIL
WCAG Agenda August 16, 2016
Re[2]: Checklist for Proposals
Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles
- RE: Proposed SC: Unique Titles - or - Unique & Updated Titles
Clarification of SC 1.2.3
- RE: Clarification of SC 1.2.3
CfC: Checklist for Proposals
- Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals
- RE: Checklist for Proposals
- Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals
- RE: Checklist for Proposals
- Re: CfC: Checklist for Proposals
CfC: Success Criteria Requirements
- RE: Success Criteria Requirements
- RE: Success Criteria Requirements
- Re: CfC: Success Criteria Requirements
- RE: Success Criteria Requirements
- Re: CfC: Success Criteria Requirements
CfC: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force
- RE: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force
- RE: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force
- Re: CfC: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force
- Re: CfC: Accessibility Conformance Testing Task Force
Minutes for WCAG call Aug 9, 2016
template for new SC
What should we do with a long success criteria?
WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016
WCAG Agenda August 9, 2016
Volunteers needed for 3 comments
Examples of Unexpected Changes from Focus and Form Input?
Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- RE: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
- Re: Acceptance Criteria for proposals for new Success Criteria
Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines
- Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines
- Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines
- Re: Success Criteria Best Practice Guidelines
Success Criteria guidance
- Re: Success Criteria guidance
- RE: Success Criteria guidance
- Re: Success Criteria guidance
- Re: Success Criteria guidance
Minutes for WCAG WG 8/2
WCAG Agenda August 2, 2016
Silver Subgroup minutes of 29 July 2016
Color Contrast and Transparency | WCAG 2.1
Parallax and vestibular disorders
- RE: Parallax and vestibular disorders
- Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders
- Re: Parallax and vestibular disorders
Minutes from July 26 WCAG call
Minutes of Silver Subgroup meeting 26 July 2016
Communications Survey
WCAG Agenda July 26, 2016 - Updated
WCAG Agenda July 26, 2016
(WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
Revise reference to "PDA" in example of Keyboard interface
Just to clarify: 2.1 is extension, Silver is Rewrite?
Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1?
- Re: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1?
- RE: Do we want a Biometric Alternative SC in WCAG 2.1?
Silver Subgroup update and minutes of 21 July 2015 teleconference
‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
- RE: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
- Re: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
- RE: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
- Re: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
[FYI] Quickref bugfix update
RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"? - Techniques Discussion
Guidance for TF-submitted Success Criteria
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?
Minutes 19 July 2016
Possible Lisbon 2017 TPAC Hotels
(WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: Re[2]: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- Re: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
- RE: (WCAG 2.1) Do we want to replace "programmatically determined link context" in 2.4.4 with "Accessible Name"?
Numbering Scheme for WCAG 2.1
WCAG Agenda July 19, 2016
WCAG Agenda July 19, 2016
Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1
- Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1
- Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1
- Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1
- RE: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1
New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features
- Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features
New SC: Meaningful element name
- Re: New SC: Meaningful element name
- Re: New SC: Meaningful element name
- Re: New SC: Meaningful element name
Should WCAG explicitly talk about *mainstream* assistive technologies?
Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?
- Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?
- RE: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?
- Re: Should we drop any WCAG 2 SCs in 2.1?
proposed success criteria
Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links?
- Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links?
- RE: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links?
- Re: Should WCAG2.1 provide requirements or guidance on buttons vs. links?
Responsive tables and accessibility
RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
Replying to Github issues by email
RE: [w3c/wcag] Technique G183 not applicable to touch/inputs that lack hover/focus (#201)
1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- RE: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
- Re: 1.4.2 audio control, do we want to require the stop mechanism to be more discoverable?
Technique G183 not applicable to touch/inputs that lack hover/focus
Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities
- Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities
- RE: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities
- Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities
- Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities
- Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities
- Re: Ethics of user testing and people with cognitive disabilities
User testing with user with cognitive disability
- Re: User testing with user with cognitive disability
- triplicate mails to same list (was Re: User testing with user with cognitive disability)
User testing with person with Cognitive disability
test with a user who had a cognitive disability
WCAG Agenda July 12th 2016
Re: Fwd: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures
- Re: University of Illinois automated tool WCAG failures
Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
- Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
- Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
- RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
- RE: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
- Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
- Re: Should 2.4.4 require Link text or ACCNAME, rather than enclosing sentence etc...
Should SC 2.4.4 require Link text or Accessible Name, rather than enclosing sentence etc.?
User agent SCs?
WCAG WG Meeting Minutes July 5, 2016
WCAG-ACTION-329: And awk to work out a way to deal with definition changes.
WCAG-ACTION-328: Discuss need for definition changes in wcag at editors meet.
Regrets for tomorrow's meeting
Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- RE: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- RE: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- RE: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content
- Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content