Thursday, 31 January 2008
- Information on current location conformance level change WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- HTML Version of Understanding WCAG with semantic classes and IDs WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Provide a quick reference for web designer WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- lists for accessibility supported technologies WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Example \"A help dialog ...\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Making links visually distinct WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- scaling of line-height and containers-heights WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- When is a change of content a change of context WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- paragraph spacing is larger than line spacing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 200% seems too ambitious WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Cross reference for SC of different conformance level WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Refering to \"users\" vs. \"users with disabilities\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Refering to \"users\" vs. \"users with disabilities\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 1.4.5 wording can use some improvement WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Is it proven that the new algorithm for calculating brightness is superior to the old one? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Why the exception for proper names and technical terms? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Currently not addressed: Background images disappear with user-specific colors WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Why do contrast requirements not apply to lines in diagrams and such? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Minimum contrast needed for default layout in case 1.4.3 is met via a contrast control WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Step backwards from WCAG 1.0? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- The subject here does not affect an content author. WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Unnecessary extra Principle 4 WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- How to decide wether it is \"large scale text\" or not WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Use of \"disability\" instead of \"impairment\". WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 20 hour exception is too long for secure sessions dealing with identification and financial information and services WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
- Drafting of SC does not convey intent. Not clear. WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Components do not have \"sensory\" characteristics but just attributes or characteristics. WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Missing Success Criteria - Acronyms WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Additional failure technique needed WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Bypass Blocks confusing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Reference to \"users with disabilities\" in appropriate WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Conformance Level wrong WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Word \"Essential\" is confusing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Word \"limited\" is confusing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Technique G142 Insufficient WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Additional requirement for contrast controls WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Conformance Level wrong WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Additional failure technique needed WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Geberal Advice is listed as a failure WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Unclear wording of Sufficient Technique H73 WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- accessibility supported definition and concept is confusing WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Concern about providing an alt version of readable content WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
- SC 1.4.5 unclear Sailesh Panchang
Monday, 28 January 2008
- Absence of mention of XHTML whenever HTML is used for referring to Web page markup WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Absence of success criterion for markup/properties that prevent configuring pages/interfaces to meet accessibility needs WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Absence of success criterion for deprecated and obsolete features WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Absence of a success criterion that covers the absence of support for scripting or programmatic objects WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Potential consequences of success criterion 3.2.5 are too severe for \"AAA\" WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Space missing in \"visuallycustomized\" of the \"Customizable\" list item. WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- About unique link names Sailesh Panchang
Saturday, 26 January 2008
- double negative in the essential exception WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
- provide greater support for people with cognitive, language or reading difficulties WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- labels and headings definition not sufficient WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Change SC level for flashing content WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Changing SC for re-authentication after time limit expiration WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Essential Exception WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Provide no keyboard trap information in context WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- Media exemption to 1.1.1 WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- meaning of accessibility supported unclear WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- meaningful and logical sequence WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Monday, 21 January 2008
- accessibility of social networking site content WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Saturday, 12 January 2008
- problem with example of change of context WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- technical terms definition and example WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- achieving all or one ? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- alternative to text with external text ? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Friday, 11 January 2008
- Re: EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0 Shawn Henry
Saturday, 5 January 2008
- WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- block sizing with absolute unit and text sizing with relative unit WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- contrast control available on or from the page WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- 5 is too much and miss of exceptions WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- color and pattern for background-image too ? WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- missing situation WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
- very similar in color to the body text condition WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Thursday, 3 January 2008
- Test WCAG 2.0 Comment Form
Last message date: Thursday, 31 January 2008 21:50:14 UTC