Re: APA and COGA

Hi Janina
Our priorities from 2020 are at Priorities,_schedules_and_Wor
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Priorities,_schedules_and_Wor>k
. They are based on a table at spreadsheets
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YH4YETBmAdhfL9p8FK5ATUiXDGibeJh66psQCSUAvLQ/edit#gid=0>.
Key items for this year ( year 2) s gap analysis and glossary; and for year
3 is to update core research

as soon as  content useable is released,  we intend to update our
priorities  for 2021 as well as work on coordination and participation with
parent and other groups . You are more then invited to participate in that
conversation and ensure the priorities are addressed.

FYI, we already have drafts on additional issue papers for a next version
of both the gap analisis and content useable.
Hope it helps
Lisa

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:26 AM 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
>
>