Re: APA and COGA

Hi, Lisa:

Lisa Seeman writes:
> 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

This is giving me a 404 right now ...

About the rest -- Sorry. I can't deal with Google Docs without first
converting it to something in Ms Office. No time for that this morning.

Talk soon.

Janina

> . 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
> >
> >

-- 

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 Tuesday, 2 February 2021 12:44:37 UTC