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 15:03:02 -0500
To: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20210201200302.GG4665@rednote.net>
The APA timeline to finish its new Charter draft has been end of January
2021 since we first started work last summer.


Also, I don't believe there's a W3C process by which task forces "join"
a Working Group. The usual course is that working groups spawn task
forces (or Community Groups / Interest Groups) to do some particular
thing. COGA has delivered on that expectation in the form of the
normative specification work emerging from the Personalization TF.

The argument that other TF, like the AGWG Low-Vision TF should somehow
also come under APA's umbrella is a reasonable question, but it should
be raised at the Judy level, i.e. in the WAI CC. Were such a thing to
occur, I would have the same expectations I outlined in a related thread
today:

*	Joint parent WG for any TF means the TF will address interests
*	of each of its parent TFs. It's a both/and proposition, not an
*	either/or.

At a minimum I believe APA would expect regular participation in
horizontal review of W3C specifications and any resulting triage. To me
that's a baseline expectation of APA.

Best,

Janina

Lisa Seeman writes:
> 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 20:03:16 UTC

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