- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 07:44:20 -0500
- To: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
- Cc: Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
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