- 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>
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