Re: APA and COGA

One activity that we are discussing was updating the gap analysis (it was finished years ago) and addressing known missing areas such as mental health issues. Then rolling the updates into the next update of content usable. From my personal perspective, I believe COGA needs to engage broadly across the WAI area to help groups  better address cognitive and learning disabilities and I think regular APA engagement is important to that.

I think we are looking at long term engagement - 2024 seems reasonable to me.
On Feb 1, 2021, 6:26 PM -0500, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, wrote:
> It's a fair point that user needs and gap analysis are typical APA
> activities and analysis I insisted was important to the future of COGA
> uptake across W3C specs. The MAUR is APA's classic example, and our RQTF
> is producing the RAUR and XAUR for similar reasons right now.
>
> But, does COGA see this work continuing into 2024? It was my
> understanding that content usable is coming to a successful conclusin.
>
> The point of the draft APA Charter is work beginning August 2021 and
> scoped through July 2024.
>
> Best,
>
> Janina
>
> Lisa Seeman writes:
> > Originally, Janina participated in the COGA coordination calls. She would
> > bring up any joint issues. In fact the gap analisis, user needs and
> > examples of the current document were at her encouragement of what was
> > needed from a w3c perspective. Our issue papers, which are the basis of
> > content usable, are typically more APA then AG. They look at technologies
> > or horizontal issues, where they are and where they create problems,
> > potential solutions etc. Examples include personalization, wayfinding,
> > VoiceXML and the web authentication spec. If we leave APA they may become
> > out of scope.
> > We had understood that working on these papers and the gap analisis etc
> > counted as part of our APA contribution.
> > Personalization (and aria when it was a taskforce) did work related to APA
> > but not reviewing specification as part of APAs core work. That seems ok,
> > and normal. A task force focuses on some tasks but not the full work of the
> > group. Removing us because we are not doing enough reviews of
> > specifications would be a new reason to remove a task force.
> >
> > Admittedly , since Janina stopped joining our coordination calls we need
> > to have coordination some other way. We thought we would discuss and
> > decide how to do this after content useable V1 is published but this
> > communication seems to have been confused. However even if we do leave
> > there would be a lot of issues to be worked out first. If we leave APA,
> > then the work from our gap analisis (scheduled for this year) maybe should
> > move? If so, where to, and what would be the impact of separating the group
> > in two? Maybe COGA should become its own WG. I certainly do not think it
> > is a simple decision, it could brake things that are currently working and
> > I do not see a good enough reason for it.
> >
> > All the best
> > lisa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 10:03 PM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
>
> --
>
> 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
>