Friday, 31 March 2017
- RE: A test for Color. Please comment.
- Re: A test for Color. Please comment.
- Re: A test for Color. Please comment.
- RE: A test for Color. Please comment.
- A test for Color. Please comment.
- Funka next week
- Re: AGWG meeting April 4, 2017
- AGWG meeting April 4, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting April 5, 2017
- Focus for the week
- AGWG meeting April 5, 2017
- New verse for WCAG Theme Song
- Dealing with member/public comments
- Keeping SC Managers page up to date
Thursday, 30 March 2017
- Re: Updating the Issues
- RE: Do we have a call today?
- RE: Do we have a call today?
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- RE: Do we have a call today?
- Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0
- RE: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Changes to Editor's draft require CFCs
- Re: Do we have a call today?
- Re: New Proposed SC Language for Support Personalization - Issue 6
- Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0
- Re: Do we have a call today?
- Re: Do we have a call today?
- Re: Do we have a call today?
- Re: Do we have a call today?
- Do we have a call today?
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: Can we merge task completion and accessible authentication
- Can we merge task completion and accessible authentication
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0
- Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0
- CFC: Publication of FPWD for Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules Format 1.0
- CFC: Changes to Editor's draft require CFCs
- CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: Comments will be late
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
Wednesday, 29 March 2017
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Issue 10 UI Interface contrast
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- RE: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Issue 10 UI Interface contrast
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Comments will be late
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 29 March 2017
- Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
Tuesday, 28 March 2017
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- RE: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Scribes for April
- New Proposed SC Language for Support Personalization - Issue 6
- RE: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Re: CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- CFC: Standing consent to publish working drafts on monthly schedule
- Thursday call agenda items
- Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Re: Very large print = refresh-able braille
- Very large print = refresh-able braille
Monday, 27 March 2017
- RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- divide SC 23, Accessible Authentication, into 2 SC?
- Re: To include or not include "A mechanism is available" language for the Adapting Text SC
- To include or not include "A mechanism is available" language for the Adapting Text SC
- RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- RE: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- RE: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 28th, 2017
- Re: What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1
Sunday, 26 March 2017
- Re: What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1
- Re: What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1
- What repository collects global responses to WCAG 2.1
- Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
Saturday, 25 March 2017
Friday, 24 March 2017
- Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
Thursday, 23 March 2017
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 22 March 2017
- Thursday call minutes
- Minutes: AG call 23 March 2017
- Re: adapting-text SC rewrite
- Re: adapting-text SC rewrite
- Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC appliesbroadly
- Re: adapting-text SC rewrite
- RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC appliesbroadly
- Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
- WCAG Thursday call
- adapting-text SC rewrite
- RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- RE: Updating the Issues
- Re: Updating the Issues
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
- Re: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- RE: Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- Re: Terminology for personalisation (and stuff)
- Terminology for personalisation (and stuff)
- Updating the Issues
- March 21 Minutes
- WCAG-ACTION-337: Work on a definition of the a/aa/aaa levels
- Re: ACT Framework Editor's Draft
- Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
- Proposal: We need to identify whether a proposed SC applies broadly
- Re: Questions about SC 1.4.11 - Resize content
- Re: Questions about SC 1.4.11 - Resize content
- Re: Call for Review: COGA candidate FPWDs
- Re: Call for Review: COGA candidate FPWDs
- Questions about SC 1.4.11 - Resize content
- RE: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
- Call for Review: COGA candidate FPWDs
- Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
Monday, 20 March 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
- RE: mock u[p page for issue tracking
- RE: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 21, 2017
- Re: Overlaps in SC
- Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking
Sunday, 19 March 2017
Friday, 17 March 2017
Thursday, 16 March 2017
- RE: Overlaps in SC
- RE: mock u[p page for issue tracking
- Overlaps in SC
- Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking
- Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking
- Thursday call minutes, March 16, 2017
- Re: mock u[p page for issue tracking
- mock u[p page for issue tracking
- RE: Thursday call Agenda - note time information due to US time change
- Re: Thursday call Agenda - note time information due to US time change
- Re: Proposal for managing GitHub issues & comments
Wednesday, 15 March 2017
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 15 March 2017
- Apollogy
- Re: New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction?
- Second task for SC Managers
- Re: New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction?
- Task for SC managers
- Restored URIs Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- RE: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Thursday call Agenda - note time information due to US time change
- Issue 33 Confirm Important Information (Was Error Prevention)
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics
- Re: New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction?
- Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- New wording for clear controls - is this the right direction?
Tuesday, 14 March 2017
- RE: Proposal for managing GitHub issues & comments
- Discriminatory Convensions and Aesthetics
- Proposal for managing GitHub issues & comments
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- minutes from today's AG call (14/3/2017)
- Minutes from March 14 call
- RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- WebEx info for Thursday AG call, 11:30 am Boston time
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- RE: AGWG meeting March 14, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 14, 2017
Monday, 13 March 2017
- RE: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Re: Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- Proposal for WCAG 2.1 editing / review process
- AGWG meeting March 14, 2017
Sunday, 12 March 2017
Thursday, 9 March 2017
Wednesday, 8 March 2017
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- RE: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- RE: Support as an SC prefix?
- RE: Support as an SC prefix?
- RE: Support as an SC prefix?
- RE: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- Visual Presentation SC missing from WCAG 2.1
- RE: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- RE: Minutes AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- Re: Support as an SC prefix?
- RE: Support as an SC prefix?
- Support as an SC prefix?
Tuesday, 7 March 2017
- Re: Minutes AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- Minutes AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
Monday, 6 March 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- RE: Question: Enough time guideline
- Fwd: Daylight Saving Time change –first half of 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
- RE: Manual testing processes
- RE: AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
Sunday, 5 March 2017
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- RE: Manual testing processes
- AGWG meeting March 7, 2017
Saturday, 4 March 2017
Thursday, 2 March 2017
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
- RE: Question: Enough time guideline
- Re: Question: Enough time guideline
- Re: Question: Enough time guideline
Tuesday, 28 February 2017
- Re: Question: Enough time guideline
- Question: Enough time guideline
- Call for Exclusions: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1
Monday, 27 February 2017
- Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep
- Re: Minutes AGWG call Feb 21
- RE: No meeting next week
- Re: Minutes AGWG call Feb 21
Sunday, 26 February 2017
Saturday, 25 February 2017
- Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep
- Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep
Friday, 24 February 2017
- Re: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep
- RE: Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep
- No meeting next week
- Editorial updates in WCAG 2.1 publication prep
- 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 2017
- 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
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- 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
- 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
- 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
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 23 February 2017
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- 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 2017
- RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: FPWD 1.4.11
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 22 February 2017
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 16 February 2017
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- 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
- 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
- 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
- RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users
- Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users
- Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
- Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
- RE: AGWG meeting February 21, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting February 21, 2017
- Minutes AGWG call Feb 21
- RE: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description
- Re: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description
- Re: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description
- Re: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description
- RE: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description
- can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description
- Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users
- FW: Draft checklist for accessibility of technology, comment by 17 March
- Re: User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users
Monday, 20 February 2017
- User Agent Switcher for Firefox to make GH easier to read for LV users
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: Suggested wording for SCs that do not meet all the requirements
- RE: Suggested wording for SCs that do not meet all the requirements
- Suggested wording for SCs that do not meet all the requirements
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: omissions and mistakes in the draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: Where should WG participants comment on closed GitHub SCs whose related pull request has also been closed?
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Where should WG participants comment on closed GitHub SCs whose related pull request has also been closed?
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- omissions and mistakes in the draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: Are ther 8 Sc for coga in the editors draft
- Re: Current wording for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- RE: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Are ther 8 Sc for coga in the editors draft
- Re: important decisions need to have an explicit and new subject line. - was -- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Current wording for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- important decisions need to have an explicit and new subject line. - was -- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Updated my spreadsheet of all proposals
- I will vote against WCAG 2.1 Draft
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- RE: Test of the SC
- Re: Test of the SC
Sunday, 19 February 2017
- Re: Test of the SC
- RE: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
- Re: Test of the SC
- Test of the SC
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- proposed change for simple words in labels etc.
Saturday, 18 February 2017
Friday, 17 February 2017
- RE: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions"
- Re: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions"
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifying the debate)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifying the debate)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions"
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Plain language - mandating active voice
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- trying to address the needs of web evaluators with the language SC
- Re: Linearization
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
Thursday, 16 February 2017
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- 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)
- Re: Linearization
- Re: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions"
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: UA tools & adaptation, was: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions"
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- 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)
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Linearization
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- 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)
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- 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)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- RE: Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Publishing FPWD - immediate response needed.
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Feel free to dial in - Re: Language SC , Help and Personalization
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Are we modifying WCAG 2.0 SC's in our WCAG 2.1 SC proposals?
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Coping with Accessibility Non-Support of Zoom
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
- Re: Language SC , Help and Personalization
- RE: Manual testing processes
- Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Are we modifying WCAG 2.0 SC's in our WCAG 2.1 SC proposals?
- Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- RE: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 15 February 2017
- Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: Language SC
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: Language SC
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- clarifing the debate
- Re: User-adaptations in SCs
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: User-adaptations in SCs
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: User-adaptations in SCs
- Re: User-adaptations in SCs
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- RE: User-adaptations in SCs
- Responses to Adapting Text SC survey comments
- Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: LVTF question
- User-adaptations in SCs
- RE: Language SC
- Language SC
- Discussing Help and Personalisation on a call
- Re: LVTF question
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- RE: Manual testing processes
- Re: Manual testing processes
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: Updated spreadsheet of SCs with PR#s
- AGWG Meeting February 14, 2017 - minutes
- RE: Updated spreadsheet of SCs with PR#s
- Updated spreadsheet of SCs with PR#s
- RE: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017
- Re: LVTF question
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: Re: LVTF question
- RE: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: LVTF question
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- RE: LVTF question
- Re: LVTF question
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: LVTF question
- RE: LVTF question
- Some new survey items on todays survey
- RE: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: LVTF question
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- RE: CFC: Manual testing processes
- RE: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017
- RE: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: CFC: Manual testing processes
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- CFC: Manual testing processes
Monday, 13 February 2017
- Re: LVTF question
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: LVTF question
- minutes from today's call
- LVTF question
- Re: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- "help" on this weeks survey
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: process for second pull request
- Re: process for second pull request
- Re: process for second pull request
- Re: AGWG meeting February 14, 2017
Sunday, 12 February 2017
- Re: What is the deadline for pull requests for FPWD consideration?
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
Saturday, 11 February 2017
- Re: What is the deadline for pull requests for FPWD consideration?
- AGWG meeting February 14, 2017
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Friday, 10 February 2017
- What is the deadline for pull requests for FPWD consideration?
- on low quality success criteria and adding all TF approved SC to the
- Device Sensors SC
- Re: Graphics contrast updates
- Re: process for second pull request
- Re: process for second pull request
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
Thursday, 9 February 2017
- Re: process for second pull request
- RE: Change in process?
- Re: process for second pull request
- Re: process for second pull request
- RE: A testability example
- RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- Re: process for second pull request
- Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- RE: A testability example
- process for second pull request
- Re: MATF SCs I think we can ensure have pull requests for FPWD
- MATF SCs I think we can ensure have pull requests for FPWD
- Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- Re: New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- RE: Change in process?
- Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- New SCs for survey - Feb 14th
- Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- Re: Change in process?
- Re: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- Re: A testability example
- Re: Change in process?
- RE: Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- Timing Adjustable: does it apply to timeout from inactivity (no mouse, keyboard activity)
- RE: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: Change in process?
- Re: Change in process?
- RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Change in process?
- Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- A testability example
- Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: Graphics contrast updates
- RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- RE: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Responses to animation from interactions SC survey comments.
- Re: Graphics contrast updates
- Re: Graphics contrast updates
- Re: Graphics contrast updates
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 8 February 2017
- Re: Graphics contrast updates
- how to make changes to timed events a stand alone
- Re: Free Chrome extension for personalization
- Free Chrome extension for personalization
- RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Graphics contrast updates
Tuesday, 7 February 2017
- Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Re: how to submit a revised SC?
- Re: How do we bring wcag up to speed on coga?
- Re: Length of line
- RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- How do we bring wcag up to speed on coga?
- Re: Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Re: Length of line
- Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Re: how to submit a revised SC?
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Re: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- Coga SC inclusion in wcag 2.1
- RE: leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- leaving SC out of the draft - this is an issue that must get consensus
- RE: Length of line
- RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- RE: We should not separate out at risk SC
- Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: how to submit a revised SC?
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Meeting Minutes 7 Feb 2017
- Re: how to submit a revised SC?
- RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC
- RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC
- Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- RE: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- RE: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- Re: how to submit a revised SC?
Monday, 6 February 2017
- does anyone currently fail colour contrast for text in timed media
- RE: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- Re: Sampling for Testability
- how to submit a revised SC?
- RE: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- Re: Sampling for Testability
- Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support
- Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.
- RE: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.
- Re: Sampling for Testability
- Re: SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65
- Re: SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65
- Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.
- Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.
- Re: Sampling for Testability
- Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- Re: Sampling for Testability
- RE: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.
- Sampling for Testability
- Re: Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.
- Re: SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65
- Language to attach to SCs that are not mature yet for FPWD.
- SC Managers needed for Pointer SCs 61/65
- RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC
- RE: We should not separate outt at risk SC
Sunday, 5 February 2017
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- We should not separate outt at risk SC
- Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- Re: AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
- AGWG meeting February 7, 2017
Saturday, 4 February 2017
- Re: Length of line
- Re: SC Managers - ready for survey?
- Re: I cannot participate in the GLWAI Guidelines WG list. I make too many reading mistakes.
- Re: Progressing SC work
- Zoom Vs Wordwrap
- Re: SC Managers - ready for survey?
- Re: SC Managers - ready for survey?
Friday, 3 February 2017
- New IRC channel #ag for AG WG
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
Thursday, 2 February 2017
- RE: Progressing SC work
- Re: Progressing SC work
- Re: Progressing SC work
- Re: Progressing SC work
- Re: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted
- I cannot participate in the GLWAI Guidelines WG list. I make too many reading mistakes.
- Re: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted
- RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Sign me up to manage COGA #22 additions to 4.1.2
- RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Progressing SC work
- Fwd: Horizontal Scrolling for Reading Text: Why it doesn't work.
- Re: Scribes
- Scribes
- Re: ACT Framework update
- ACT Framework update
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
- Understanding Levels of Conformance
- Fwd: Accessible authentication and my 2 cents...
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Ability to Override SC merges issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- RE: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Important proposed change in our surveys
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Re: Resize content (#77)
- Re: Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- Important proposed change in our surveys
- Accessible authentication and we need a fundamental change
- RE: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input)
- Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1?
Tuesday, 31 January 2017
- Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1?
- Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input)
- Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1?
- Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1?
- Re: Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1?
- Issue 59: not for WCAG 2.1?
- Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input)
- Minutes of AGWG teleconference of 31 January 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input)
- RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input)
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- RE: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted
- RE: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- RE: new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted
- new coga SC #31 ready to be submitted
- SC #62 Keyboard with AT (that remaps key input)
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
Monday, 30 January 2017
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- personalization as a technique - was Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- RE: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
Sunday, 29 January 2017
- RE: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
Saturday, 28 January 2017
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Re: Automated and manual testing process
- Automated and manual testing process
- RE: W3C membership and Director have approved the re-charter of the WCAG Working Group
- Re: W3C membership and Director have approved the re-charter of the WCAG Working Group
- Re: SC Managers - ready for survey?
- SC - Consistent Navigation - #29
- SC - Familiar design (Enhanced) #35
Friday, 27 January 2017
- Re: Members, Invited Experts, and Team *must* rejoin Working Group
- Re: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation)
- Re: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation)
- Re: SC Managers - ready for survey?
- Re: SC Managers - ready for survey?
- Re: SC Managers - ready for survey?
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Re: Members, Invited Experts, and Team *must* rejoin Working Group
- Re: WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- Members, Invited Experts, and Team *must* rejoin Working Group
- RE: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation)
- WCAG meeting January 31st 2017
- SC Managers - ready for survey?
- Re: Video of My talk at UX India a few months ago is now available - Impact of Inclusive Design
- FW: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation)
- Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Revised Charter Approved; join the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (Call for Participation)
- Video of My talk at UX India a few months ago is now available - Impact of Inclusive Design
Thursday, 26 January 2017
- RE: Interruptions (issue 47)
- RE: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors
- RE: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors
- Re: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors
- Re: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors
- RE: rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors
- Re: Interruptions (issue 47)
- RE: Interruptions (issue 47)
- RE: Success Criterion #32 - Help
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 25 January 2017
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Success Criterion #32 - Help
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
- Success Criterion #32 - Help
- Re: Interruptions (issue 47)
- Interruptions (issue 47)
- rewording issue 13 - minimize user errors
- SC - Consistent Navigation #29
- SC - Familiar Design (Minimum) #49
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- SC manager question on the github branch
Tuesday, 24 January 2017
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Success Criterion #6 - Personalization
- Re: Resizing examples
- Re: Resize content (#77)
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- RE: Resizing examples
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Resizing examples
- Re: Resize content (#77)
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- RE: Resizing examples
- Re: Resize content (#77)
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Backwards compatibility
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017, MINUTES ATTACHED
- Re: Resizing examples
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- RE: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- RE: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- RE: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Resize content (#77)
- Re: WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- WCAG meeting January 24, 2017
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
Monday, 23 January 2017
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- RE: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: first working draft question
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- first working draft question
- Re: New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: additions to the acceptance criteria
- New Wiki page with SC text proposals to combine issues 79, 78, and 74
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
Sunday, 22 January 2017
- RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
Saturday, 21 January 2017
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- RE: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- RE: Mechanism Disclaimer
- RE: Mechanism Disclaimer
Friday, 20 January 2017
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Combine 79, 78, and 74 SCs? (was Re: Mechanism Disclaimer)
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- RE: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Accessibility and Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
- Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
Thursday, 19 January 2017
- Re: Accessibility and Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
- Mechanism Disclaimer
- Accessibility and Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
- Re: additions to the acceptance criteria
- Re: additions to the acceptance criteria
- Re: additions to the acceptance criteria
- Re: additions to the acceptance criteria
Wednesday, 18 January 2017
- RE: additions to the acceptance criteria
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 18 January 2017
- Re: Issue 74 Text Color
- Issue 74 Text Color
- Issue 76 Printing Customized Text
- RE: Regarding merging overlapping SCs
Tuesday, 17 January 2017
- Re: Regarding merging overlapping SCs
- RE: Regarding merging overlapping SCs
- Regarding merging overlapping SCs
- WCAG WG Meeting Minutes January 17, 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017
- RE: additions to the acceptance criteria
- Re: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017
- RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017
- RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017
- RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017
- RE: WCAG meeting January 17, 2017
- Issue #62: Keyboard with AT - Looking for feedback
- Issue #70: Orientation - Looking for feedback
Monday, 16 January 2017
- additions to the acceptance criteria
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- WCAG 21 Issue 36 Clear controls
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
Sunday, 15 January 2017
Saturday, 14 January 2017
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Font Family failure
- Re: Font Family failure
- Font Family failure
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
Friday, 13 January 2017
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- WCAG meeting January 17, 2017
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- RE: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- UA/platform issues (was Length of line)
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Pixel, Points and Spatial Measures
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
Thursday, 12 January 2017
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Retiring issue 57 line length
- Re: Length of line
- Retiring issue 57 line length
- Re: Length of line
- WCAG-ACTION-336: Do the respec extensions for publication
- WCAG-ACTION-335: See if auto diff generation possible with git
- Re: Sc manager questions
- WCAG-ACTION-334: Ping sc managers on progress and ask them to attend call
- WCAG-ACTION-333: Draft update to wcag 2.1 frontmatter
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line & Resize & Reflow.
- Re: Length of line
- Sc manager questions
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line & Resize & Reflow.
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
- Re: Length of line & Resize & Reflow.
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- RE: Length of line
- The Low Vision Core: Reflow (block level), Line Size, Resize with Word Wrap
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- RE: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- [Minutes] WCAG Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force - Meeting on 11 January 2017
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Length of line
- RE: Length of line
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Length of line
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Length of line
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Testability of Animation from interactions Issue 18
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- RE: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- Update from Silver TF of 10 January 2016
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- Re: Research on frequency and severity of failures
- Re: Research on frequency and severity of failures
- Re: Research on frequency and severity of failures
- Research on frequency and severity of failures
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
Monday, 9 January 2017
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re[2]: SC Managers - any items ready for review?
- Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- Re: WCAG meeting January 10, 2017
- i'll be leaving early from Jan 10 meeting
- Re: SC Managers - any items ready for review?
- Re: SC Managers - any items ready for review?
- Re: SC Managers - any items ready for review?
- SC Managers - any items ready for review?
Sunday, 8 January 2017
Saturday, 7 January 2017
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
Friday, 6 January 2017
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- RE: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re[2]: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Re: Should we require labels to be always visible?
- Should we require labels to be always visible?
Thursday, 5 January 2017
- Re: requirement 8
- WCAG meeting January 10th, 2017
- Re: requirement 8
- Re: requirement 8
- Re: requirement 8
Wednesday, 4 January 2017
- RE: Discussion on SC numbering
- Re: requirement 8
- Re: Discussion on SC numbering
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Discussion on SC numbering
- Re: Discussion on SC numbering
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
Tuesday, 3 January 2017
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- RE: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Word count of New SC compared to WCAG 2
- Re: FW: Discussion on SC numbering
- MINUTES ATTACHED. Re: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016
- FW: Discussion on SC numbering
- RE: Today would have been William Loughborough's 100 and something-kth birthday
- Today would have been William Loughborough's 100 and something-kth birthday
- Re[2]: requirement 8
- RE: WCAG meeting January 3rd, 2016
- Re: requirement 8