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 14:47:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxwXaYYm6vBj5sT82m5i80OwohddDTv3mH0YRZqdTFQmKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Hi Katie,

Can you articulate the value in that? It's a serious question.

Nobody is saying to do away with COGA TF, and frankly many of the COGA
members are present at either the larger AG WG calls (where AG WG and APA
WG have a peer-to-peer relationship, and share a number of participants as
well) or are present at scheduled APA calls, so it's not like issues are
slipping through the cracks or that the COGA perspective is being ignored.

From an organizational perspective, what *additional value* do you see in
continuing to make this TF (one of a number of AG Task Forces) also a joint
TF with APA - especially given none of the other AG TF's are organized that


On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:33 PM 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 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
> <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> 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> 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 19:48:44 UTC

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