Re: CFC: Add Orientation SC to Editor's Draft

-1
Review comments which were made against the previous draft have not been addressed. Why get more external input if it is not being looked at?

Regards,
James

On Jun 8, 2017, 9:21 AM -0700, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends Monday  June 12th at 1:00pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group has reviewed and approved a new Success Criterion for inclusion in the Editor’s Draft: "Orientation" with the goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group.
>
> SC TEXT:
>
> "Content is not locked to a specific display orientation, and functionality of the content is operable in all display orientations, except where display orientation is essential for use of the content."
>
> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/MATF_orientation/
> Call minutes: http://www.w3.org/2017/06/08-ag-minutes.html
> GIT Hub: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/70
>
> The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/orientation_ISSUE-70/guidelines/#orientation
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Joshue O Connor
> Director | InterAccess.ie