Re: APA and COGA

+1

This message was Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typographic errors.

On Feb 1, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:


I agree with Lisa and do not see why the COGA Task Force positioning should change either.

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect

Senior Product Manager/Compliance/Accessibility SME,
Core Merchant Framework UX, Clover

W3C Advisory Committee Member and Representative for Knowbility


WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

Cell: 703-371-5545<tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> | Seneca, SC | LinkedIn Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.






On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:25 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca<mailto:john@foliot.ca>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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