W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > February 2021

Re: APA and COGA

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 14:24:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxzowGB-zxLsbHi3Jm5ZftKN30EkJ=GR=d4DgQrhfjCxqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Hi Lisa,

While I certainly do believe that having voices representing the
communities of users with cognitive disabilities being represented during
APA discussions is important, that in no way also requires that the COGA
Task Force be a joint TF between the *actual* parent Working Group (AG) and
APA. In fact, I cannot think of another activity under the WAI umbrella
that operates as such (perhaps Accessible CSS?).

So, if you truly believe that the perspective of COGA needs to be at APA,
please come and join those calls - the more the merrier. But a formal
"joint task-force"? I'm struggling to see the value add there.

JF

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:42 PM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
> I have no problem with the other task forces joining APA. Maybe they
> should.
> The plan was for us to explore and discuss this after our publication. I
> would like to keep to that plan. If the time table is to long, we should be
> told what the time table is etc.
> COGA and APA need to integrate our work better.
> For COGA, we sometimes spin off ideas - such as personalization. APA
> reviews and work also needs to incorporate the COGA perspective. How this
> is done and how we work together is something we should explore in detail
> and with consideration for  the good of accessibility.
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 7:12 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lisa,
>>
>> COGA is (was?) a *joint* task force between APA and AG Working Groups,
>> and I neither see nor hear a proposal to eliminate COGA, only to no longer
>> make it a joint TF with APA.
>>
>> From my perspective, APA and AG WG will continue to coordinate and work
>> together, and so I am wondering if you can articulate specific reasons for
>> keeping the joint relationship active, versus allowing COGA to remain a TF
>> of AG WG.
>>
>> I note that there are other Task Forces under AG WG that do not have a
>> joint partnership structure (Low Vision, "mobile"/touch interfaces, XR) and
>> so I'd like to understand why you feel COGA should be treated differently
>> than those other Task Forces? What advantages are gained by remaining a
>> joint Task Force?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> JF
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:58 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I strongly feel that APA and COGA must have a formal relationship and an
>>> improved process of working together that means ApA's work will includ COGA
>>> concerns.
>>> I object to a charter that does not include this and removes coga as a
>>> task force.
>>>
>>> As you know we have an important publication this month. It was on COGAs
>>> time table (as agreed) as the first item after our publication to work with
>>> the co-chairs to improve this process.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Lisa Seeman
>>>
>>
Received on Monday, 1 February 2021 19:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:07 UTC