Re: Need Clarification on #170

Hi Makoto,

Like all of the SC, they require a "champion" to stay on top of progress
and ensure that the SC moves forward. If your colleague believes this is
important, you might consider encouraging them to get more directly
involved. After all, we'll likely start work on WCAG 2.2 later this
summer...

JF

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. <
makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Thank you so much for your response. I'll let him know the situation the
> WG had.
>
> Best regards,
> Makoto
>
>
>
> 2018-01-10 0:53 GMT+09:00 Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>:
> > Makoto,
> > We had hoped to get to this, but with all of the other proposals no one
> moved this one forward so it didn’t get adopted. We have ideas that were
> raised well before this one, but if the WG wasn’t able to agree that it was
> ready to move into the editor’s draft by August 22 then they were not able
> to get into WCAG 2.1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > AWK
> >
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> > Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> > Adobe
> >
> > akirkpat@adobe.com
> > http://twitter.com/awkawk
> >
> > On 1/9/18, 10:47, "Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc." <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear Andrew and Joshue,
> >
> >     There was a proposed SC which was presented on 23 Mar 2017. I happend
> >     to find this #170 a few weeks ago.
> >
> >     New SC proposal: Harmonization with other newer specifications #170
> >     https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F170&
> data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C152d65969e83420f36ea08d557785064%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511096619710193&sdata=
> uLgLTT3ZXboOC4vBinOsJPB51XcJs1Cz968E0tzcQW8%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >     This proposal was not accepted. I'd like to confirm the reason.
> >
> >     The reason was desribed on GitHub saying that "it hasn't been adopted
> >     by the Working Group in time for the August 22 deadline for new SC in
> >     WCAG 2.1 so we are deferring it for consideration in future
> releases."
> >
> >     This explanation is not acceptable because he made the proposal in
> >     March. It means the working group had six months. Was it simply due
> to
> >     the schedule?
> >
> >     I think that the working group should explain the reason why the
> >     proposed SC was not adopted in more detail so that he can understand
> >     it. He didn't satisfied with the response from the working group and
> >     still remains unconvinced.
> >
> >     Could you please clarify the reason for him? Thank you in advance
> for your time.
> >
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >     Makoto
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion