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

Re: APA and COGA

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 14:44:27 -0500
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20210201194427.GF4665@rednote.net>
John,

You were in the process of moving to Canada when the Accessible CSS TF
ceased to be in October. It is now a liaison relationship that's working
brilliantly thanks to consistent attention from Amy Carney.

Just FYI.

Janina

John Foliot writes:
> 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
> >>>
> >>

-- 

Janina Sajka
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Monday, 1 February 2021 19:44:40 UTC

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