public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org from September 2016 by date

Thursday, 29 September 2016

• Re: task-completion SC approval Thad C

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

• Re: CSUN Kurt Mattes
• RE: CSUN Rochford, John
• Re: CSUN Thad C
• CSUN lisa.seeman
• task-completion SC approval lisa.seeman
• accessible-authentication approval lisa.seeman
• making the case for each SC lisa.seeman

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

• RE: Are you on schedule? lisa.seeman
• Re: IBM Content Clarifier Steve Lee

Monday, 26 September 2016

• RE: Timed Events SC For Review Michael Pluke
• IBM Content Clarifier Kurt Mattes
• Minutes from today's call lisa.seeman
• RE: Timed Events SC For Review Michael Pluke
• RE: Timed Events SC For Review lisa.seeman
• RE: Are you on schedule? Michael Pluke
• Re: Regrets Steve Lee
• RE: Timed Events SC For Review Michael Pluke
• Regrets Rochford, John
• RE: Are you on schedule? lisa.seeman
• RE: Minimize user errors Michael Pluke
• RE: Are you on schedule? Michael Pluke
• RE: voice menu systems Michael Pluke
• RE: Minimize user errors EA Draffan
• RE: Minimize user errors Rochford, John
• RE: voice menu systems EA Draffan
• Re: Minimize user errors Thad C
• RE: Minimize user errors EA Draffan
• RE: Timed Events SC For Review EA Draffan
• RE: The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -Monday, 26 September 2016 Deborah Dahl

Sunday, 25 September 2016

• Timed Events SC For Review lisa.seeman
• Re: Minimize user errors Thad C
• Minimize user errors lisa.seeman
• voice menu systems lisa.seeman
• Are you on schedule? lisa.seeman
• tracking table of the Success criteria here lisa.seeman
• The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -Monday, 26 September 2016 lisa.seeman
• commenting on W3C process and where they are hard lisa.seeman

Thursday, 22 September 2016

• Re: Minutes from TPAC Thad C
• Minutes from TPAC lisa.seeman
• Fwd: Re: testability lisa.seeman
• I've been meaning to send you these videos of "disability etiquette gone wrong" Deborah Dahl
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. Thad C
• Re: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. John Foliot
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. Michael Pluke
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. EA Draffan
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. Milliken, Neil
• call is set up lisa.seeman
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. Thad C

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. Michael Pluke
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. lisa.seeman
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. Deborah Dahl
• RE: Where is w3c stuff too hard.. Rochford, John
• Where is w3c stuff too hard.. lisa.seeman

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

• Re: Call in now Thad C
• Re: Call in now lisa.seeman
• no call in for the rest of the afternoon lisa.seeman
• Re: Call in now Thad C
• Call in now lisa.seeman
• RE: proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables EA Draffan
• Potentially useful article Steve Lee

Monday, 19 September 2016

• RE: proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables Deborah Dahl
• RE: Calling in tomorow lisa.seeman
• RE: proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables Rochford, John
• RE: Calling in tomorow Rochford, John
• Re: proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables Rich Schwerdtfeger
• Re: proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables Thad C
• Re: proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables Steve Lee
• Re: Calling in tomorow Mary Jo Mueller
• Article on coga design Steve Lee

Sunday, 18 September 2016

• Re: proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables Michael Pluke
• proposal to publish it the gap analysis/roadmap with the improved tables lisa.seeman
• more example SC lisa.seeman
• Calling in tomorow lisa.seeman

Saturday, 17 September 2016

• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Thad C
• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke

Friday, 16 September 2016

• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Thad C
• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• rewording lisa.seeman

Thursday, 15 September 2016

• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Thad C
• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• RE: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• Re: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) lisa.seeman
• Re: Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) lisa.seeman
• Re: Tracking Success Criteria Progress (LVTF Table) steve@opendirective.com
• Re: Tracking Success Criteria Progress (LVTF Table) Mary Jo Mueller
• Re: Tracking Success Criteria Progress (LVTF Table) Thad C
• Re: Tracking Success Criteria Progress (LVTF Table) lisa.seeman
• Tracking Success Criteria Progress (LVTF Table) Rochford, John
• Re: clear-purpose.htm Thad C
• Re: clear-purpose.htm lisa.seeman
• are any more sc almost ready? lisa.seeman
• Re: clear-purpose.htm Steve Lee
• clear-purpose.htm lisa.seeman
• Re: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

• RE: what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• what is the consensus? was RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) lisa.seeman
• RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) lisa.seeman
• RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) lisa.seeman
• RE: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• Re: Testability Thad C
• calling in for TPAC lisa.seeman
• Re: Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) lisa.seeman

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

• Argument to revert my "User authentication methods" success criteria to the pre-5th Sept COGA call version (with a small mod) Michael Pluke
• RE: timeline EA Draffan
• Re: timeline Rich Schwerdtfeger
• RE: timeline Rochford, John
• Re: timeline John Kirkwood
• Re: timeline Steve Lee
• Re: timeline Ayelet Seeman
• Re: timeline Thad C
• timeline lisa.seeman
• Testability lisa.seeman
• Re: Online Safety SC lisa.seeman
• How to do the benefits section lisa.seeman

Monday, 12 September 2016

• Re: Online Safety SC lisa.seeman
• minutes from today lisa.seeman
• Online Safety SC Rochford, John
• Timed Events SC For Review Thad C
• RE: The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, September 12, 2016 Deborah Dahl
• Navigation and GPS lisa.seeman
• Re: Clarification on Minimize User Errors and Associated SC lisa.seeman

Sunday, 11 September 2016

• Re: Clarification on Minimize User Errors and Associated SC Thad C
• RE: Online Safety Success Criteria lisa.seeman
• Re: Clarification on Minimize User Errors and Associated SC lisa.seeman
• The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, September 12, 2016 lisa.seeman
• Clarification on Minimize User Errors and Associated SC Thad C

Friday, 9 September 2016

• volunteer needed lisa.seeman
• Re: Any more SC's ready? lisa.seeman
• Re: Any more SC's ready? Thad C
• Any more SC's ready? lisa.seeman

Thursday, 8 September 2016

• RE: Approving SC by email -3.1 Mary Jo Mueller
• SC updates lisa.seeman
• RE: Online Safety Success Criteria Rochford, John
• Re: Online Safety Success Criteria lisa.seeman
• Online Safety Success Criteria Rochford, John
• RE: Approving SC by email -3.1 Rochford, John
• Fwd: Coga disability guide Steve Lee
• Re: Approving SC by email -3.1 Thad C

Wednesday, 7 September 2016

• Re: Approving SC by email -3.1 John Foliot
• Re: Success Criterion Proposal and Re: The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, August 29, 2016 Steve Lee

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

• RE: Approving SC by email -3.1 Rochford, John
• RE: Thurdays in october EA Draffan
• Re: Approving SC by email -3.1 Kurt Mattes
• Re: Thurdays in october Kurt Mattes
• Re: Approving SC by email -3.1 Steve Lee

Monday, 5 September 2016

• schedules lisa.seeman
• clear-purpose success cryteria lisa.seeman
• Approving SC by email -3.1 lisa.seeman
• minutes from todays call lisa.seeman
• RE: The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, September 5, 2016 ding c. (cd8e10)
• Re: Draft SC for Obvious purpose Steve Lee
• RE: Success Criterion Proposal and Re: The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, August 29, 2016 Michael Pluke
• Re: Draft SC for Obvious purpose lisa.seeman
• Re: Draft SC for Obvious purpose Steve Lee
• RE: Thurdays in october Michael Pluke
• Re: Success Criterion Proposal and Re: The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, August 29, 2016 lisa.seeman
• Thurdays in october lisa.seeman

Sunday, 4 September 2016

• Re: Are there more SC ready to review? Thad C
• Are there more SC ready to review? lisa.seeman
• RE: The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, September 5, 2016 EA Draffan
• The Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference - Monday, September 5, 2016 lisa.seeman

Friday, 2 September 2016

• some more changes lisa.seeman

Thursday, 1 September 2016

• Re: captions and complex images Thad C
• captions and complex images lisa.seeman

Last message date: Thursday, 29 September 2016 14:30:37 UTC