Friday, 29 February 2008
- Need Bullets for Educational Testing Situations WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
- a small usability enhancement to the guidelines document Patrick H. Lauke
Friday, 15 February 2008
- Progress Bar WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Saturday, 9 February 2008
- Re: EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0 Wayne Dick
- Re: EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0 Wayne Dick
Thursday, 7 February 2008
- Re: EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0 Loretta Guarino Reid
- Re: EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0 Loretta Guarino Reid
- Re: EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0 Loretta Guarino Reid
- Re: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 1: H34 example source direction Loretta Guarino Reid
- Re: HTML Version of Understanding WCAG with semantic classes and IDs Michael Stenitzer
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
- Is \"Prior warning\" really OK here? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Monday, 4 February 2008
- Programmatically determine the role not explained WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Failure does not fail in Firefox WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Technique also works in Firefox WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Version numbers should be added for Firefox WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Hard to accomplish the examples in 3 seconds WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Mouse hover and focus not equivalent WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Links ot ARIA out of date WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Example Doc is XHTML, not HTML WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Updated testing to allow Dojo WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Links to How to Meet SC WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Re: WCAG 2.0: Accessibility supported technologies Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Not testable WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- RE: headings and which SC? Patrick Lauke
Saturday, 2 February 2008
- Change \"accessibility supported\" to \"accessibility-supporting\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Add header to first page WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Add header to first page WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- \"Item Number\': Abstract. clarify with commas WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Link \'metadata\' WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Remove rationale from Guideine 1.1 text WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Clarify what \'which is optional\' applies to WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- changes of context definition WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Typos in Programmatically determiend WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- List all contributors to WCAG 2.0 WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Consider title change WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Allow users to filter out HTML techniques WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Introduction, second part, trim wording WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Introduction, first part, trim wording WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- web page example 4 WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- user interface component - missing comma WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- viewport - awkard WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- synchronised media - awkard WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- supplemental content WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- set of Web pages - unnecessarily convoluted WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- set of Web pages - clarify WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- role WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- real-time event WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- programmatically determiend - typo WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- programmatically determined / programmatically determinable WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- non-text content WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- non-text content WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- navigated sequentially WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- general flash and red threshold - confusing jargon? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- flash WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- extended audio - clarification in note WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- contrast ratio - generalised copy WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- How to create the documented lists WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 80 characters WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Text of Image WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Visually customizable text WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- WCAG 2.0 should advance to Candidate Recommendation WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Friday, 1 February 2008
- I think I may have answered my own question... WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Can \"conforming alternate versions\" be objects on a page? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Suggestions to clarify \"media alternatives to text\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Comments from Eric Hansen on the 17 Dec 2007 draft of WCAG 2.0 Hansen, Eric
- Failure F70 Does not Prohibit Duplicate Attributes Christophe Strobbe (on behalf of BenToWeb)
- SC 3.3.1: Providing client-side validation and adding error text via the DOM (future technique ) Christophe Strobbe (on behalf of BenToWeb)
- SC 3.1.3: Glossary without Links Should Fail? Christophe Strobbe (on behalf of BenToWeb)
- Language Subtags (Techniques H57 and H58) Christophe Strobbe (on behalf of BenToWeb)
- contrast algorithm for 1.4.3: Contrast (Minimum) Christophe Strobbe (on behalf of BenToWeb)
- G14: Does example 2 fail the success criterion? Christophe Strobbe (on behalf of BenToWeb)
- H36: Using alt attributes on images used as submit buttons Christophe Strobbe (on behalf of BenToWeb)
- Consistent Presentation (SC 3.2.3) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- G 3.1 covers perceivability as well as understandability WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- section headings (SC 2.4.10) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- descriptive labels (SC 2.4.6) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- purpose of each link (SC 2.4.4) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- descriptive titles (SC 2.4.2) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- understand the speech (SC 1.4.7) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- understand the speech output (SC 1.4.2) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- usable default presentation (G 1.4) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- meaningful sequence (SC 1.3.2) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- a voice easy to understand (G 1.1) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- clarification of the term \'understandable\' WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- clarification of the term \'perceivable\' WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- conforming alternative version - awkward wording WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- captions - awkward wording WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- blink vs flash WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- assistive technology - stray word WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- activity where moving, blinking... WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- accessibility supported - users\' assistive technologies WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- stray word in accessibility supported WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- immediately? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- both cases - awkward WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- abbreviation refers to \"organization\"? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- awkward phrasing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Contrast ratio (on text edges) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Accessibility supported (lists of Web technologies) WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Conformance and use of accessibility-supported tehcnologies in a non-conforming way WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Use of roles with current technologies WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Sections Headings conformance level WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Sequential navigation and meaning WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- User agents\' incorrect behaviour while navigating sequentially WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Criteria to evaluate essential things WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Concerns about text resizing requirements WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Conformance level too low WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Concerns about 80 characters width limit WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- non w3c techiques have to be named with clear examples WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- non w3c techiques have to be named with clear examples WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 2.4.10 aa instead of aaa WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 2.4.8 AA instead of AAA WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 2.2.2 - how to handle advertisements WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 1.4.4 - 200% is too high WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 1.4.3 - 5:1 too high WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 1.2 exceptions needed WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 1.2 - terminology not clear WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 1.2.2 not realistic WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 1.2.1 not realistic WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- It is unclear if this SC is testable. WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Several Success Criteria include specific values WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- clarify keyboard shortcut WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- add image map example WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Add image map example WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Image map text alternative WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Add image map example WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Level A for low or no-contrast content WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Optional components and the hint of metadata WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- \"Awkward wording WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Sufficient techniques seems to contradict other areas and principles. WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- \"well formed\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- ambiguous if not clear from context already? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- so headings are optional then at anything below AAA? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- dependent on UA? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- sweeping generalisation? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- flashing dependent on size? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- flashing dependent on size, but not specified! WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- arbitrary values? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- \"with disabilities\", take two WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- \"with disabilities\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- what if it\'s not the author\'s fault? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- line spacing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- aligned on both left and right WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 80 characters? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Clarification of advisory techniques WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Clarification of note / awkward phrasing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Awkward wording WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Add reference to 1.4.1 WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Add reference to 1.2.1 WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Missing full stop WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Missing full stop WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Metadata sentence right at the end WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- \"Webmasters\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Combine \"usable in general\" and \"older individuals\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Last message date: Friday, 29 February 2008 22:22:59 UTC