Re: APA and COGA

Katie writes:

> ...for the reasons it was placed as a joint TF in the first place

Respectfully Katie, could you share that with this list again please?
If, as Janina has suggested, the 'goal' of that construct has been
satisfied (delivered), then what further value will it add going forward?

>...to do some particular thing. COGA has delivered on that expectation...


As an active member at APA, I concur with Janina's conclusion. Not trying
to pick a fight, trying to understand the justification, is all.

Thanks.

JF

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:22 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

> I understand what is being suggested as a change to the joint placement of
> COGA. I see the value in it staying right where it is, for the reasons it
> was placed as a joint TF in the first place. End articulation.
>
> ** 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 2:51 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>