Re: plain language success criteria does not look promising from lisa.seeman on 2017-05-16 (public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org from May 2017)

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 20:30:04 +0300
To: "Michael Pluke" <mike.pluke@castle-consult.com>, "Rochford, John" <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15c124d6e65.ecf6769518524.9190165982857938306@zoho.com>

minutes  from todays ag call...  http://www.w3.org/2017/05/16-ag-minutes.html

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:21:11 +0300 &lt;lisa.seeman@zoho.com&gt; wrote ---- 

I just got off the wcag call


The plain language success criteria does not look promising for WCGA 2.1, and the core vocabulary or using more common words on labels is very unlikely to get any-wear. 
John , Mike, accessible authentication was up next. Could we have alternative wording for wcag by Thursday?


Also do we want to revisit trying to get things into WCAG 2.1? 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2017 17:30:37 UTC