w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from January to March 2017 by author

Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker

• WCAG-ACTION-337: Work on a definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Tuesday, 21 March)

alands289@gmail.com

• RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Thursday, 30 March)
• RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC appliesbroadly (Thursday, 23 March)
• RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Tuesday, 21 March)
• RE: Thursday call Agenda - note time information due to US time change (Thursday, 16 March)
• RE: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

Alastair Campbell

• Re: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Issue 10 UI Interface contrast (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Friday, 24 March)
• Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Friday, 24 March)
• Re: adapting-text SC rewrite (Thursday, 23 March)
• Terminology for personalisation (and stuff) (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: Questions about SC 1.4.11 - Resize content (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking (Monday, 20 March)
• Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking (Thursday, 16 March)
• Re: Proposal for managing GitHub issues & comments (Thursday, 16 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Monday, 6 March)
• Re: Minutes AGWG call Feb 21 (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: User-adaptations in SCs (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: User-adaptations in SCs (Wednesday, 15 February)
• User-adaptations in SCs (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: Graphics contrast updates (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Graphics contrast updates (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Graphics contrast updates (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Length of line (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: how to submit a revised SC? (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Sampling for Testability (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Length of line (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Resize content (#77) (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Resizing examples (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Resizing examples (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Resize content (#77) (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Backwards compatibility (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Resizing examples (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Resize content (#77) (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: additions to the acceptance criteria (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: additions to the acceptance criteria (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Sunday, 15 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• UA/platform issues (was Length of line) (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line & Resize & Reflow. (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line & Resize & Reflow. (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 7 January)
• Re: requirement 8 (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Discussion on SC numbering (Wednesday, 4 January)
• FW: Discussion on SC numbering (Tuesday, 3 January)

Alex Bernier

• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)

Alistair Garrison

• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Sunday, 29 January)

Andrew Kirkpatrick

• Funka next week (Friday, 31 March)
• AGWG meeting April 4, 2017 (Friday, 31 March)
• Focus for the week (Friday, 31 March)
• AGWG meeting April 5, 2017 (Friday, 31 March)
• Re: Updating the Issues (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 (Thursday, 30 March)
• CFC: Changes to Editor's draft require CFCs (Thursday, 30 March)
• CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Scribes for April (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Thursday call minutes (Thursday, 23 March)
• WCAG Thursday call (Wednesday, 22 March)
• Re: Updating the Issues (Wednesday, 22 March)
• Updating the Issues (Tuesday, 21 March)
• March 21 Minutes (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: ACT Framework Editor's Draft (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: Questions about SC 1.4.11 - Resize content (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: Call for Review: COGA candidate FPWDs (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Call for Review: COGA candidate FPWDs (Tuesday, 21 March)
• AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Friday, 17 March)
• Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking (Thursday, 16 March)
• Thursday call minutes, March 16, 2017 (Thursday, 16 March)
• Re: Thursday call Agenda - note time information due to US time change (Thursday, 16 March)
• Second task for SC Managers (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Task for SC managers (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Thursday call Agenda - note time information due to US time change (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Minutes from March 14 call (Tuesday, 14 March)
• AGWG meeting March 14, 2017 (Monday, 13 March)
• ACT Framework Editor's Draft (Sunday, 12 March)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Sunday, 5 March)
• AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Sunday, 5 March)
• No meeting next week (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Test of the SC (Sunday, 19 February)
• AGWG meeting February 21, 2017 (Saturday, 18 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Thursday, 16 February)
• Are we modifying WCAG 2.0 SC's in our WCAG 2.1 SC proposals? (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: Language SC (Wednesday, 15 February)
• AGWG Meeting February 14, 2017 - minutes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: What is the deadline for pull requests for FPWD consideration? (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Sunday, 5 February)
• AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Scribes (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Important proposed change in our surveys (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Automated and manual testing process (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation) (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Video of My talk at UX India a few months ago is now available - Impact of Inclusive Design (Friday, 27 January)
• FW: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation) (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: first working draft question (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Sc manager questions (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: SC Managers - any items ready for review? (Monday, 9 January)
• SC Managers - any items ready for review? (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: requirement 8 (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: requirement 8 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Aparna Pasi

• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)

Bailey, Bruce

• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Thursday, 30 March)
• RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 14, 2017 (Tuesday, 14 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• RE: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017 (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017 (Tuesday, 17 January)
• WCAG meeting January 10th, 2017 (Thursday, 5 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Beranek, Nicholas

• RE: W3C membership and Director have approved the re-charter of the WCAG Working Group (Saturday, 28 January)

Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L.

• Issue 33 Confirm Important Information (Was Error Prevention) (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017 (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Butler, Shari

• Re: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017 (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Wednesday, 8 February)

Chakravarthula, Srinivasu

• RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Monday, 6 March)
• RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 2 March)
• RE: No meeting next week (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Video of My talk at UX India a few months ago is now available - Impact of Inclusive Design (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)

Chris McMeeking

• Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input) (Tuesday, 31 January)

Coralie Mercier

• Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation) (Friday, 27 January)

Daniela Di Gianantonio

• RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)

David MacDonald

• Re: A test for Color. Please comment. (Friday, 31 March)
• New verse for WCAG Theme Song (Friday, 31 March)
• Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Issue 10 UI Interface contrast (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1 (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: adapting-text SC rewrite (Thursday, 23 March)
• Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC appliesbroadly (Thursday, 23 March)
• Re: adapting-text SC rewrite (Thursday, 23 March)
• Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Thursday, 23 March)
• Re: Call for Review: COGA candidate FPWDs (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Monday, 13 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Sunday, 5 March)
• CFC: Manual testing processes (Saturday, 4 March)
• Re: Minutes AGWG call Feb 21 (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Suggested wording for SCs that do not meet all the requirements (Monday, 20 February)
• Suggested wording for SCs that do not meet all the requirements (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Are ther 8 Sc for coga in the editors draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Current wording for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• Updated my spreadsheet of all proposals (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Linearization (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Do we choose to be a vetting committee was ..Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: User-adaptations in SCs (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Updated spreadsheet of SCs with PR#s (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: MATF SCs I think we can ensure have pull requests for FPWD (Thursday, 9 February)
• MATF SCs I think we can ensure have pull requests for FPWD (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Sampling for Testability (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD. (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Sampling for Testability (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD. (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD. (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65 (Monday, 6 February)
• Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD. (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Length of line (Saturday, 4 February)
• Sign me up to manage COGA #22 additions to 4.1.2 (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input) (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: SC Managers - ready for survey? (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: SC Managers - ready for survey? (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Resize content (#77) (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Regarding merging overlapping SCs (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Retiring issue 57 line length (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line & Resize & Reflow. (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Length of line (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Research on frequency and severity of failures (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Monday, 9 January)
• i'll be leaving early from Jan 10 meeting (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: SC Managers - any items ready for review? (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 7 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 7 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: requirement 8 (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Discussion on SC numbering (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Denis Boudreau (Deque)

• Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Monday, 27 March)
• Questions about SC 1.4.11 - Resize content (Tuesday, 21 March)

Detlev Fischer

• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Plain language - mandating active voice (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

EA Draffan

• Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Wednesday, 29 March)
• RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Saturday, 25 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Monday, 20 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Friday, 17 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 14, 2017 (Tuesday, 14 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 21, 2017 (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Friday, 3 February)
• RE: Progressing SC work (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Tuesday, 10 January)

Eric Eggert

• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)

Erich Manser

• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Progressing SC work (Thursday, 2 February)
• Issue 74 Text Color (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Issue 76 Printing Customized Text (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

Geoff Freed

• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)

Glenda Sims

• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Progressing SC work (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Regarding merging overlapping SCs (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: FW: Discussion on SC numbering (Tuesday, 3 January)

Gregg C Vanderheiden

• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Comments will be late (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• Re: What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1 (Sunday, 26 March)
• Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Sunday, 26 March)
• Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: Terminology for personalisation (and stuff) (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking (Thursday, 16 March)
• Re: New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction? (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction? (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Thursday, 9 March)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Sunday, 5 March)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Test of the SC (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Sunday, 19 February)
• Test of the SC (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifying the debate) (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Sampling for Testability (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD. (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Length of line (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Friday, 3 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1? (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input) (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input) (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Sunday, 29 January)
• Re: W3C membership and Director have approved the re-charter of the WCAG Working Group (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Members, Invited Experts, and Team *must* rejoin Working Group (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Interruptions (issue 47) (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Resize content (#77) (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: requirement 8 (Thursday, 5 January)
• Re: requirement 8 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Discussion on SC numbering (Wednesday, 4 January)

Gregg Vanderheiden RTF

• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Success Criterion #32 - Help (Thursday, 26 January)

Hakkinen, Mark T

• Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Glossary entry for Essential. WAS: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)

James Nurthen

• RE: A test for Color. Please comment. (Friday, 31 March)
• RE: A test for Color. Please comment. (Friday, 31 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• RE: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• RE: Overlaps in SC (Thursday, 16 March)
• Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users (Tuesday, 21 February)

Jan McSorley

• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016 (Monday, 2 January)

Jeanne Spellman

• Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Tuesday, 21 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Minutes of AGWG teleconference of 31 January 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Update from Silver TF of 10 January 2016 (Tuesday, 10 January)

Jim Allan

• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Minutes: AG call 23 March 2017 (Thursday, 23 March)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: Graphics contrast updates (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Graphics contrast updates (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Fwd: Horizontal Scrolling for Reading Text: Why it doesn't work. (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)

John Foliot

• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction? (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Wednesday, 15 February)
• "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Change in process? (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Graphics contrast updates (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Graphics contrast updates (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: additions to the acceptance criteria (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: additions to the acceptance criteria (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

john.foliot

• RE: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)

Jonathan Avila

• RE: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Question: Enough time guideline (Monday, 6 March)
• Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep (Saturday, 25 February)
• RE: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep (Friday, 24 February)
• FW: Draft checklist for accessibility of technology, comment by 17 March (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Device Sensors SC (Friday, 10 February)
• RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: Length of line (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted (Tuesday, 31 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Sunday, 29 January)
• RE: Resizing examples (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: Resizing examples (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• RE: Mechanism Disclaimer (Saturday, 21 January)
• RE: Mechanism Disclaimer (Saturday, 21 January)
• RE: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017 (Tuesday, 17 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Monday, 16 January)
• RE: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Friday, 13 January)
• RE: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

josh@interaccess.ie

• WCAG meeting January 17, 2017 (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Retiring issue 57 line length (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re[2]: SC Managers - any items ready for review? (Monday, 9 January)
• Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re[2]: requirement 8 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Joshue O Connor

• Dealing with member/public comments (Friday, 31 March)
• Keeping SC Managers page up to date (Friday, 31 March)
• RE: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Thursday call agenda items (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Tuesday, 28 March)
• AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Saturday, 25 March)
• Re: Overlaps in SC (Monday, 20 March)
• Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: omissions and mistakes in the draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Where should WG participants comment on closed GitHub SCs whose related pull request has also been closed? (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: Language SC (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Some new survey items on todays survey (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Monday, 13 February)
• AGWG meeting February 14, 2017 (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Saturday, 11 February)
• New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Change in process? (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: how to submit a revised SC? (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65 (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65 (Monday, 6 February)
• SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65 (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: SC Managers - ready for survey? (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: I cannot participate in the GLWAI Guidelines WG list. I make too many reading mistakes. (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: Progressing SC work (Saturday, 4 February)
• Zoom Vs Wordwrap (Saturday, 4 February)
• Progressing SC work (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: ACT Framework update (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: SC Managers - ready for survey? (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Members, Invited Experts, and Team *must* rejoin Working Group (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: SC Managers - ready for survey? (Friday, 27 January)
• WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Friday, 27 January)
• SC Managers - ready for survey? (Friday, 27 January)
• WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)

Kathy Wahlbin

• RE: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Monday, 20 March)
• RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)

Katie Haritos-Shea

• Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: Test of the SC (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 7 January)

Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL

• RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• RE: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: CFC: Manual testing processes (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Updated spreadsheet of SCs with PR#s (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Thursday, 2 February)
• RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Thursday, 2 February)
• RE: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation) (Friday, 27 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Monday, 23 January)
• RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• RE: Regarding merging overlapping SCs (Tuesday, 17 January)
• RE: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 7 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• RE: Discussion on SC numbering (Wednesday, 4 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Today would have been William Loughborough's 100 and something-kth birthday (Tuesday, 3 January)

kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com

• RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Wednesday, 22 March)
• RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Wednesday, 22 March)
• Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Tuesday, 21 March)
• RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: We should not separate out at risk SC (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)

Laura Carlson

• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: To include or not include "A mechanism is available" language for the Adapting Text SC (Monday, 27 March)
• To include or not include "A mechanism is available" language for the Adapting Text SC (Monday, 27 March)
• adapting-text SC rewrite (Wednesday, 22 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Re: Minutes AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Where should WG participants comment on closed GitHub SCs whose related pull request has also been closed? (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Responses to Adapting Text SC survey comments (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: What is the deadline for pull requests for FPWD consideration? (Sunday, 12 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Sunday, 12 February)
• What is the deadline for pull requests for FPWD consideration? (Friday, 10 February)
• Responses to animation from interactions SC survey comments. (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: how to submit a revised SC? (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: SC Managers - ready for survey? (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: Progressing SC work (Thursday, 2 February)
• Ability to Override SC merges issues 79, 78, and 74 (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 23 January)
• New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Friday, 20 January)
• Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• WCAG WG Meeting Minutes January 17, 2017 (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

lisa.seeman

• Re: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• Do we have a call today? (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Can we merge task completion and accessible authentication (Thursday, 30 March)
• Can we merge task completion and accessible authentication (Thursday, 30 March)
• RE: mock u[p page for issue tracking (Sunday, 19 March)
• Overlaps in SC (Thursday, 16 March)
• mock u[p page for issue tracking (Thursday, 16 March)
• New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction? (Wednesday, 15 March)
• RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Tuesday, 14 March)
• minutes from today's AG call (14/3/2017) (Tuesday, 14 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description (Tuesday, 21 February)
• omissions and mistakes in the draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Are ther 8 Sc for coga in the editors draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Current wording for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• important decisions need to have an explicit and new subject line. - was -- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Sunday, 19 February)
• proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Friday, 17 February)
• trying to address the needs of web evaluators with the language SC (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Do we choose to be a vetting committee was ..Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Feel free to dial in - Re: Language SC , Help and Personalization (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Language SC , Help and Personalization (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Wednesday, 15 February)
• clarifing the debate (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Language SC (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Discussing Help and Personalisation on a call (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: Re: LVTF question (Tuesday, 14 February)
• minutes from today's call (Monday, 13 February)
• LVTF question (Monday, 13 February)
• "help" on this weeks survey (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Monday, 13 February)
• on low quality success criteria and adding all TF approved SC to the (Friday, 10 February)
• RE: Change in process? (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: A testability example (Thursday, 9 February)
• process for second pull request (Thursday, 9 February)
• Change in process? (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Thursday, 9 February)
• A testability example (Wednesday, 8 February)
• how to make changes to timed events a stand alone (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Free Chrome extension for personalization (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Wednesday, 8 February)
• How do we bring wcag up to speed on coga? (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Monday, 6 February)
• We should not separate outt at risk SC (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Important proposed change in our surveys (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Interruptions (issue 47) (Thursday, 26 January)
• RE: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors (Thursday, 26 January)
• Re: Interruptions (issue 47) (Thursday, 26 January)
• Interruptions (issue 47) (Wednesday, 25 January)
• rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors (Wednesday, 25 January)
• SC manager question on the github branch (Wednesday, 25 January)
• first working draft question (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: additions to the acceptance criteria (Monday, 23 January)
• RE: additions to the acceptance criteria (Wednesday, 18 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017 (Tuesday, 17 January)
• additions to the acceptance criteria (Monday, 16 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Sunday, 15 January)
• Sc manager questions (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: SC Managers - any items ready for review? (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)

Léonie Watson

• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: process for second pull request (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: Change in process? (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.

• Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Comments will be late (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)

Marc Johlic

• Re: AGWG meeting April 4, 2017 (Friday, 31 March)
• Re: CFC: Changes to Editor's draft require CFCs (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 (Thursday, 30 March)
• Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Tuesday, 14 March)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input) (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Issue #62: Keyboard with AT - Looking for feedback (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Issue #70: Orientation - Looking for feedback (Tuesday, 17 January)

Marla Runyan

• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Sunday, 8 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 7 January)

Mary Jo Mueller

• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)

McSorley, Jan

• Re: New Proposed SC Language for Support Personalization - Issue 6 (Thursday, 30 March)
• New Proposed SC Language for Support Personalization - Issue 6 (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017 (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Success Criterion #32 - Help (Wednesday, 25 January)
• Success Criterion #6 - Personalization (Tuesday, 24 January)

Michael Cooper

• Restored URIs Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• WebEx info for Thursday AG call, 11:30 am Boston time (Tuesday, 14 March)
• Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Monday, 13 March)
• Minutes AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• Fwd: Daylight Saving Time change –first half of 2017 (Monday, 6 March)
• Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep (Monday, 27 February)
• Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: Glossary entry for Essential. WAS: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: FPWD 1.4.11 (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• New IRC channel #ag for AG WG (Friday, 3 February)
• Members, Invited Experts, and Team *must* rejoin Working Group (Friday, 27 January)

Michael Gower

• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017, MINUTES ATTACHED (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Research on frequency and severity of failures (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Research on frequency and severity of failures (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Monday, 9 January)
• Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Monday, 9 January)
• Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate? (Monday, 9 January)
• MINUTES ATTACHED. Re: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Michael Pluke

• RE: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Tuesday, 28 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• RE: Manual testing processes (Monday, 6 March)
• RE: Question: Enough time guideline (Wednesday, 1 March)
• RE: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Do we choose to be a vetting committee was ..Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017 (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• RE: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

Mike Elledge

• Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Monday, 20 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 March)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: AGWG meeting February 21, 2017 (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Updated spreadsheet of SCs with PR#s (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Monday, 23 January)
• Re: Accessibility and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) (Friday, 20 January)
• Accessibility and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Milliken, Neil

• Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Monday, 20 March)
• Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep (Friday, 24 February)
• RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Wednesday, 22 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Fwd: Accessible authentication and my 2 cents... (Wednesday, 1 February)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Regarding merging overlapping SCs (Wednesday, 18 January)
• WCAG 21 Issue 36 Clear controls (Monday, 16 January)

Moe Kraft

• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017 (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: Research on frequency and severity of failures (Tuesday, 10 January)

Patrick H. Lauke

• Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Re: Question: Enough time guideline (Wednesday, 1 March)
• Re: Question: Enough time guideline (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• Understanding Levels of Conformance (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1? (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Re: Accessibility and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18 (Tuesday, 10 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 7 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

Pietro

• Re: AGWG meeting April 5, 2017 (Friday, 31 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Tuesday, 28 March)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)

Repsher, Stephen J

• RE: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Thursday, 30 March)
• RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Wednesday, 29 March)
• RE: mock u[p page for issue tracking (Monday, 20 March)
• RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• RE: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Proposal for managing GitHub issues & comments (Tuesday, 14 March)
• RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Tuesday, 14 March)
• RE: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• Visual Presentation SC missing from WCAG 2.1 (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Minutes AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)

Rochford, John

• divide SC 23, Accessible Authentication, into 2 SC? (Monday, 27 March)
• how to submit a revised SC? (Monday, 6 February)
• RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC (Monday, 6 February)

Sailesh Panchang

• Re: Question: Enough time guideline (Wednesday, 1 March)
• Question: Enough time guideline (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: A testability example (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Length of line (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Length of line (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Saturday, 28 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)

Shadi Abou-Zahra

• Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 (Thursday, 30 March)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 29 March 2017 (Wednesday, 29 March)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 22 March 2017 (Thursday, 23 March)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 15 March 2017 (Wednesday, 15 March)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 23 February 2017 (Thursday, 23 February)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 22 February 2017 (Wednesday, 22 February)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 16 February 2017 (Wednesday, 22 February)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 15 February 2017 (Wednesday, 15 February)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 8 February 2017 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 25 January 2017 (Thursday, 26 January)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 18 January 2017 (Wednesday, 18 January)
• [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 11 January 2017 (Wednesday, 11 January)

Shawn Lauriat

• Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Monday, 20 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 6 January)

shilpi

• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)

Shilpi Kapoor

• Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Manual testing processes (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Sunday, 29 January)

Shwetank Dixit

• Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)

shwetank@barrierbreak.com

• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)

Smith, Jim

• RE: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017 (Monday, 27 March)
• RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Friday, 24 March)
• RE: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017 (Tuesday, 21 March)
• RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• RE: Language SC (Wednesday, 15 February)
• RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Monday, 6 February)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017 (Tuesday, 24 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016 (Sunday, 1 January)

Steve Faulkner

• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)

Steve Lee

• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted (Tuesday, 31 January)

Thaddeus .

• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th (Saturday, 11 February)
• Re: Change in process? (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: how to submit a revised SC? (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: How do we bring wcag up to speed on coga? (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: how to submit a revised SC? (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: SC Managers - ready for survey? (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• SC - Consistent Navigation - #29 (Saturday, 28 January)
• SC - Familiar design (Enhanced) #35 (Saturday, 28 January)
• SC - Consistent Navigation #29 (Wednesday, 25 January)
• SC - Familiar Design (Minimum) #49 (Wednesday, 25 January)
• RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017 (Tuesday, 17 January)

Vivienne Conway

• RE: Updating the Issues (Wednesday, 22 March)
• RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Wednesday, 8 February)

Wayne Dick

• Re: A test for Color. Please comment. (Friday, 31 March)
• A test for Color. Please comment. (Friday, 31 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille (Wednesday, 29 March)
• Very large print = refresh-able braille (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Re: What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1 (Sunday, 26 March)
• What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1 (Sunday, 26 March)
• Apollogy (Wednesday, 15 March)
• Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics (Tuesday, 14 March)
• Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Tuesday, 14 March)
• Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017 (Monday, 6 March)
• Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: important decisions need to have an explicit and new subject line. - was -- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• How I use Linearization (Saturday, 18 February)
• Re: Linearization (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Linearization (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: CFC: Manual testing processes (Thursday, 16 February)
• Coping with Accessibility Non-Support of Zoom (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: User-adaptations in SCs (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: LVTF question (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Meeting Minutes 7 Feb 2017 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Sampling for Testability (Monday, 6 February)
• Sampling for Testability (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• Re: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• I cannot participate in the GLWAI Guidelines WG list. I make too many reading mistakes. (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation) (Friday, 27 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Saturday, 21 January)
• Re: Mechanism Disclaimer (Friday, 20 January)
• Mechanism Disclaimer (Thursday, 19 January)
• Re: Issue 74 Text Color (Wednesday, 18 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Font Family failure (Saturday, 14 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures (Friday, 13 January)
• Re: Length of line (Thursday, 12 January)
• Re: Length of line (Wednesday, 11 January)
• The Low Vision Core: Reflow (block level), Line Size, Resize with Word Wrap (Wednesday, 11 January)
• Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker

• WCAG-ACTION-336: Do the respec extensions for publication (Thursday, 12 January)
• WCAG-ACTION-335: See if auto diff generation possible with git (Thursday, 12 January)
• WCAG-ACTION-334: Ping sc managers on progress and ask them to attend call (Thursday, 12 January)
• WCAG-ACTION-333: Draft update to wcag 2.1 frontmatter (Thursday, 12 January)

White, Jason J

• RE: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels (Monday, 27 March)
• RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly (Tuesday, 21 March)
• RE: mock u[p page for issue tracking (Thursday, 16 March)
• RE: Proposal for managing GitHub issues & comments (Tuesday, 14 March)
• RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process (Monday, 13 March)
• RE: Manual testing processes (Sunday, 5 March)
• RE: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• RE: Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Thursday, 23 February)
• RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Wednesday, 22 February)
• RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: Suggested wording for SCs that do not meet all the requirements (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc. (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Test of the SC (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifying the debate) (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Do we choose to be a vetting committee was ..Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed. (Thursday, 16 February)
• RE: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Wednesday, 15 February)
• RE: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate) (Wednesday, 15 February)
• RE: User-adaptations in SCs (Wednesday, 15 February)
• RE: CFC: Manual testing processes (Tuesday, 14 February)
• RE: A testability example (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Change in process? (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity) (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1 (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization (Thursday, 9 February)
• RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Wednesday, 8 February)
• RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media (Tuesday, 7 February)
• RE: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support (Monday, 6 February)
• RE: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD. (Monday, 6 February)
• RE: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD. (Monday, 6 February)
• RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC (Monday, 6 February)
• RE: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• RE: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• RE: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• RE: Length of line (Friday, 3 February)
• RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Thursday, 2 February)
• RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change (Wednesday, 1 February)
• RE: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input) (Wednesday, 1 February)
• RE: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted (Tuesday, 31 January)
• RE: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted (Tuesday, 31 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• RE: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors (Thursday, 26 January)
• RE: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors (Thursday, 26 January)
• RE: Interruptions (issue 47) (Thursday, 26 January)
• RE: Success Criterion #32 - Help (Thursday, 26 January)
• RE: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74 (Monday, 23 January)
• RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer) (Sunday, 22 January)
• RE: additions to the acceptance criteria (Tuesday, 17 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)
• RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible? (Friday, 13 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Wednesday, 4 January)
• RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2 (Tuesday, 3 January)
• RE: Today would have been William Loughborough's 100 and something-kth birthday (Tuesday, 3 January)

Wilco Fiers

• Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0 (Thursday, 30 March)
• RE: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule (Tuesday, 28 March)
• Minutes AGWG call Feb 21 (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Are we modifying WCAG 2.0 SC's in our WCAG 2.1 SC proposals? (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Scribes (Thursday, 2 February)
• ACT Framework update (Thursday, 2 February)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017 (Tuesday, 31 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: Automated and manual testing process (Monday, 30 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017 (Tuesday, 17 January)
• Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017 (Tuesday, 10 January)

Work

• Re: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)
• RE: Support as an SC prefix? (Wednesday, 8 March)

Xueyuan Jia

• Call for Exclusions: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (Tuesday, 28 February)

Last message date: Friday, 31 March 2017 21:32:17 UTC