Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD

Congratulations everyone...

There were a lot of human hours put into the FPWD.

Let's see what our Stakeholders say...

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> AGWG’ers,
>
> As we have received only positive feedback leading up to this CfC and no
> negative responses during it, this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion
> of the working group.
>
> This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 13:26
> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday February 23th at 1:30pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group discussed the latest editor’s draft of WCAG 2.1 (
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html) and
> basedon a survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results)
> and a Working Group call (http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html)
> where the majority of comments were
> resolved and no blocking issues remained.
>
> On the call people believed that we had reached a consensus position that
> the Working Group should publish the Editor's Draft as the First Publish
> Working Draft (FPWD). This will allow the group to meet its charter
> deadline. The Working Group included several SC that do not have Working
> Group consensus, but the Working Group did have consensus that publishing
> was valuable in order to get additional feedback from the public, and notes
> were included in the draft to point out aspects that do not have consensus
> at this time.
>
> 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,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>