Re: APA and COGA

Hi Janina,

Thanks for this - I think it also serves to illustrate that other working
relationships can exist to mutual benefit without the formal moniker of
"Joint Task Force"

JF

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:44 PM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>