W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > August 2017

Re: Re: CFC - Purpose of Controls SC

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:22:05 +0300
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15de6b1e2eb.ca33f7f0200728.8360910146364036419@zoho.com>
Yes, I agree it might get a second chance.But the task force should be aware that if they want these criteria to get though it will be ready helpful if people also respond to the call for consensus (CFC)

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:04:42 +0300 Alastair Campbell&lt;acampbell@nomensa.com&gt; wrote ---- 

      Hi Lisa,
 I’d be careful calling it a vote, it doesn’t depend on what the percentages are, it depends on what the objections are.
 Having lots of positive votes is useful, but doesn’t mean it passes.
 I also wouldn’t call it lost yet, but there are objections to overcome.
  From: "lisa.seeman" 
  as not enoguh people voted for the call for consensus on the wcag list we now lost this sc 
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 16:22:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 August 2017 16:22:31 UTC