1 (15:05:09) API: well, we gave 5 gentle minutes
   2 (15:05:16) API: I think that we can start the meeting
   3 (15:05:21) ***clown waves
   4 (15:05:25) API: agenda here:
   5 (15:05:27) API: http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Meetings
   6 (15:05:30) ***slee thumbs up
   7 (15:05:44) API: first item
   8 (15:05:47) API: 641869
   9 (15:05:57) API: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=641869
  10 (15:06:06) ***clown reads
  11 (15:06:09) API: mgorse, I guess that this is your point
  12 (15:06:41) ***slee still waiting for bug to load
  13 (15:07:30) mgorse: ok
  14 (15:07:52) mgorse: So in at-spi2 we've had an --enable-relocate option, to allow AT-SPI and AT-SPI2 to co-exist
  15 (15:08:09) mgorse: and the version of at-spi could be switched with a gconf option
  16 (15:08:35) mgorse: and pyatspi would load the alternate version of pyatspi of the relocated version was in effect, and GTK_PATH would be set
  17 (15:08:54) fregl [~gladhorn@eckhart-woerner.de] entered the room.
  18 (15:09:05) mgorse: Apparently setting GTK_PATH was causing problems. It may have been some transitional issue with upgrading a package in Fedora. I'm not sure.
  19 (15:09:34) mgorse: Either way, it was intended to be there temporarily to help people test AT-SPI2, so I propose to remove it if no one objects
  20 (15:09:52) joanie: +1
  21 (15:09:56) mgorse: It would allow some gconf-related code to be removed, and I think it would generally make things less confusing
  22 (15:09:57) fer: +1
  23 (15:10:09) mgorse: I've talked with TheMuso and sshaw, and they seem okay with it
  24 (15:10:11) API: mgorse, that would be remove the relocate stuff from both, right?
  25 (15:10:17) API: I mean, from at-spi and at-spi2 too
  26 (15:10:27) fer: yeah, and I guess that most people did for testing: at-spi1 on /usr from their distro, and at-spi2 on /opt from sources
  27 (15:10:45) mgorse: API: That was my next question really. Do people think it is important to preserve the --enable-relocate behavior in AT-SPI?
  28 (15:10:56) API: hmm
  29 (15:11:00) API: well, as you said
  30 (15:11:06) API: most of the people
  31 (15:11:07) mgorse: AT-SPI-CORBA I mean
  32 (15:11:09) API: AFAIK
  33 (15:11:14) API: were not using the relocate thing
  34 (15:11:22) API: (not sure if this is a pity or not)
  35 (15:11:35) API: IMHO, it would be better to remove it from both
  36 (15:11:45) API: and as you said, make things simpler
  37 (15:12:43) mgorse: okay. I'll plan on just removing from both then, since no one is objecting / feeling like it's important to keep it around
  38 (15:12:49) slee: +1 having old options around is only confusing - especially for newcomers
  39 (15:13:27) fer: I know that F14 installed both at-spi and at-spi2, but I don't really know why
  40 (15:13:31) mgorse: so the packages will just conflict with each other
  41 (15:13:39) API: fer, really ?
  42 (15:13:48) fer: yeah, pretty weird
  43 (15:13:53) API: but I guess that one compiled with relocate, right?
  44 (15:13:55) ***joanie chuckles
  45 (15:13:58) fer: yes
  46 (15:14:00) mgorse: unless we made --enable-relocate always-on with AT-SPI (which would mean preserving some code in AT-SPI2 to ensure that it's disabled when necessary)
  47 (15:14:02) API: although thiis is a good point
  48 (15:14:14) fer: there was something depending on at-spi2 package, let me check it
  49 (15:14:14) API: removing relocate would make installing both incompatible
  50 (15:14:35) fer: but I don't know the rationale for having at-spi2 on GNOME2 on F14 :)
  51 (15:14:38) fer: mclassen should know
  52 (15:15:35) fer: oh, at-spi2-core in F14 is a dependency for orca and pyatspi :)
  53 (15:15:58) fer: maybe it was because they picked up a recent version of pyatspi doing the gconf relocation check?
  54 (15:17:33) fer: ok
  55 (15:17:58) fer: <mclasen> because we were aiming to have gnome3 in f14
  56 (15:17:58) fer: <mclasen> and then gnome3 got delayed and we had to quickly shift gears
  57 (15:17:58) fer: <fer> so just a preview, ok
  58 (15:17:58) fer: * _ke se ha marchado (umount /mnt/me)
  59 (15:17:58) fer: <mclasen> and leave behind a few useless packages...
  60 (15:17:58) fer: <fer> is it safe for F15 to remove relocation and at-spi1, right?
  61 (15:18:01) fer: <mclasen> yes, should be
  62 (15:18:30) mgorse: ok
  63 (15:19:50) API: well, so concluding ...
  64 (15:20:04) mgorse: so I'll plan on just removing it. Seems not worth keeping around if most people weren't using it anyhow
  65 (15:20:23) API: well, and in some place it would be required to say that both are incompatible
  66 (15:20:31) API: both at the same time I mean
  67 (15:20:42) API: unless you still plan to maintain relocate stuff on at-spi2
  68 (15:20:43) API: sorry
  69 (15:20:46) API: at-spi1
  70 (15:21:21) fer: we can just add it to the NEWS file
  71 (15:22:01) bnitz: fer:Just a context question here, F14, F15? Are you referring to builds?
  72 (15:22:14) fer: like "at-spi2-*" is incompatible with at-spi, so packagers can notice it and mark their at-spi2 packages with Obsoletes: at-spi
  73 (15:22:24) fer: Fedora 14, Fedora 15
  74 (15:22:26) fer: releases
  75 (15:22:28) clown: bnitz, I think they are release versions of Fedora
  76 (15:22:35) bnitz: That would have been my second guess, thanks!
  77 (15:22:42) mgorse: 15 is the up-coming release
  78 (15:23:32) API: well, anything else in this point?
  79 (15:26:34) API: I guess that the silence means "no" ;)
  80 (15:26:41) API: lets move to the next point
  81 (15:26:43) bnitz: Listinging to John Cage 4'33.
  82 (15:26:48) ***API looking
  83 (15:26:59) API: FOSDEM summary (What was cool? What did those not in attendance miss?) 
  84 (15:27:08) API: well, I was on FOSDEM
  85 (15:27:17) slee: bnitz: that's a bit to repetitive for me
  86 (15:27:20) API: fer planned to go, but I guess that he didn't go
  87 (15:27:38) fer: yup, had to do some stuff here in madrid :(
  88 (15:27:41) ***slee is keen to hear about FOSDEM
  89 (15:27:46) ***joanie too
  90 (15:27:59) API: well, I guess that it is my point
  91 (15:28:00) bnitz: did anyone go?
  92 (15:28:03) API: me
  93 (15:28:08) API: <API> well, I was on FOSDEM
  94 (15:28:13) joanie: :-)
  95 (15:28:21) API: so, there was a devroom about accessibility
  96 (15:28:27) slee: API: one man show?
  97 (15:28:32) API: I missed some of then
  98 (15:28:46) slee: Someone told me about the room
  99 (15:28:46) joanie: slee: aleiva and others were there
 100 (15:28:50) API: and although we have some public
 101 (15:29:04) API: it is clear that we weren0't the most popular devroom
 102 (15:29:08) slee: joanie: thanks
 103 (15:29:22) API: Mario couldn't go there, so they replace him with a 
 104 (15:29:27) API: talk by 
 105 (15:29:28) API: hmm
 106 (15:29:31) joanie: Malte
 107 (15:29:34) API: Openoffice accessibility guy?
 108 (15:29:37) API: yes, that one ;)
 109 (15:29:47) API: explaining more or less the status
 110 (15:29:58) API: and there were some people asking questions
 111 (15:30:03) joanie: Which is what? (the status)
 112 (15:30:06) API: so at least some people get interest
 113 (15:30:16) API: joanie, well, it is more about what they did
 114 (15:30:18) slee: questions are good
 115 (15:30:19) API: and some plans
 116 (15:30:21) API: like IA2
 117 (15:30:25) API: well, yes, but in my case
 118 (15:30:30) API: one guy asked if 
 119 (15:30:38) API: instead of work on specific 
 120 (15:30:42) API: window managers
 121 (15:30:49) API: if it would have sense to directly 
 122 (15:30:55) API: add some a11y support on X
 123 (15:31:12) API: and forgot the specific bits
 124 (15:31:15) API: anyway
 125 (15:31:24) API: I talked with Malte there about the hackfest
 126 (15:31:25) ***slee wishes life was that simple
 127 (15:31:31) API: and he said 
 128 (15:31:42) API: that the atk/at-spi2 hackfest is interesting
 129 (15:31:48) API: but right now he is not sure
 130 (15:31:56) API: if he could go
 131 (15:32:02) API: due company politics
 132 (15:32:12) API: I was also on the LibreOffice presentation
 133 (15:32:16) API: by Michael Meeks
 134 (15:32:25) API: on the question turn, I asked about a11y
 135 (15:32:31) ***clown brb
 136 (15:32:34) API: in summary, OpenOffice has 
 137 (15:32:37) API: a11y support
 138 (15:32:42) API: so LibreOffice also have
 139 (15:32:53) API: "if you are interested in improve it, join us!"
 140 (15:32:57) joanie: heh
 141 (15:33:00) joanie: my question is this:
 142 (15:33:15) joanie: Does Michael and crew plan to continue pulling what OOo A11y does?
 143 (15:33:25) joanie: or are these forks truly separate now?
 144 (15:33:52) API: hmm, good question
 145 (15:33:58) slee: good point - were should the effort go?
 146 (15:33:58) API: anyway, as far as I know
 147 (15:34:16) API: LibreOffice doesn't have any problem to get patches from OpenOffice
 148 (15:34:24) API: so
 149 (15:34:31) API: if there are improvements on OpenOffice
 150 (15:34:42) API: I guess that those could be used for LibreOffice
 151 (15:34:57) API: although no idea if someone is willing to do that
 152 (15:35:00) joanie: meaning they will actively look for them or meaning we (a11y team) need to keep up with what Malte's team does and then ping the LO team to include the change?
 153 (15:35:01) mgorse: The licenses don't conflict then?
 154 (15:35:29) API: well, I don't think so
 155 (15:35:47) API: but no idea about the interrelations between both communities
 156 (15:35:57) API: using my ignorance
 157 (15:36:08) joanie: We need to figure out *exactly* what is going on (or not going on).
 158 (15:36:09) API: I don't think that OpenOffice people notifies LO
 159 (15:36:11) API: people
 160 (15:36:17) joanie: :-)
 161 (15:36:54) API: ok, makes sense
 162 (15:36:56) ***joanie sees becoming an active member of the LO community in her future
 163 (15:36:57) joanie: :-/
 164 (15:37:00) ***fer likes forks like Xorg, where the original project just stops, so there is no need to sync patches :)
 165 (15:37:31) ***clown doubts that Ooo is going to just stop.
 166 (15:37:47) joanie: The problem here (beyond what clown just said) is our users expect to be able to use either
 167 (15:37:47) API: I also doubt that
 168 (15:37:59) joanie: and Michael apparently has that 'patch it or shut up' attitude
 169 (15:38:04) ***slee thinks joanie is slacking if not already a member </ducks>
 170 (15:38:08) API: and in fact some distributions started to move to libreoffice
 171 (15:38:09) API: ie
 172 (15:38:10) joanie: which I would agree with if we had tons of resources
 173 (15:38:16) API: natty uses libreoffice by default
 174 (15:38:16) joanie: but we don't
 175 (15:38:23) ***joanie nods re natty
 176 (15:38:35) joanie: the one good thing is that building LO is super easy
 177 (15:38:41) fer: what do we prefer? to keep OOo and LO compatible? or trying to push changes on LO to get a11y improved and then have separate support for them (like orca stuff)
 178 (15:38:43) joanie: much more open
 179 (15:39:10) joanie: fer: I prefer they each are accessible AND that they make them accessible without us having to do the work to contribute patches
 180 (15:39:15) slee: LO are a doign a great community engagement act - so are likely to win form that point of view
 181 (15:39:17) joanie: I don't mind filing bugs
 182 (15:39:32) slee: always be pretty hard to with OOo
 183 (15:39:43) slee: mind you patch it or shut up is not good
 184 (15:40:12) API: well, so trying to get some conclusions
 185 (15:40:13) slee: if LO OOo diverge much dioing both will be huge effort.
 186 (15:40:14) API: summary?
 187 (15:40:15) API: actions?
 188 (15:40:20) slee: might be OK for the short term
 189 (15:40:22) joanie: I'll add LO to my list
 190 (15:40:33) ***joanie looks at her list and sighs
 191 (15:40:41) ***slee pats joanie on her back
 192 (15:40:55) joanie: mind you I already asked in the LO a11y community
 193 (15:41:09) joanie: time for me to become more visible in the non a11y LO communities.
 194 (15:41:31) joanie: API thanks for attending that session and reporting
 195 (15:42:26) API: I will try it again ;)
 196 (15:42:31) API: <API> summary?
 197 (15:42:31) API: <API> actions?
 198 (15:42:36) joanie: Action
 199 (15:42:43) joanie: I will put LO on my list
 200 (15:42:47) joanie: (see above)
 201 (15:43:36) ***joanie wonders what other actions API is looking for?
 202 (15:43:55) API: well, this "put LO in my list" 
 203 (15:44:00) fer: some guys subscribing to LO mailing list and making noise :)
 204 (15:44:04) API: also include investigate current relation between
 205 (15:44:08) API: LO and OO?
 206 (15:44:11) API: (new code and so on)
 207 (15:44:15) joanie: yes all of the above
 208 (15:44:25) joanie: 1. Making more noise on other LO lists
 209 (15:44:46) joanie: 2. Trying to sort out *exactly* what the relationship between OOo and LO is or is not w.r.t. a11y fixes
 210 (15:45:07) joanie: 3. Trying to sort out the expectations w.r.t. filing a11y bugs (which I assume is file duplicate bugs)
 211 (15:45:21) joanie: 4. Trying to sort out if Michael really does mean patch it or shut up
 212 (15:45:33) joanie: (i.e. what sort of support we can look to from LO)
 213 (15:45:39) joanie: 5. Inform the respective communities
 214 (15:45:56) slee: 6. trying to get them to do the donkey work
 215 (15:46:00) joanie: i.e. if LO's a11y policy is patch it or shut up, that is not consistent with the Ubuntu commitment to a11y
 216 (15:46:11) joanie: aka 'put it on my list'
 217 (15:46:12) joanie: ;-)
 218 (15:46:21) joanie: questions?
 219 (15:46:55) fer: well, I'd like to assume it is "patch it or shut up" for new features, but not for fixing actual bugs on their code :)
 220 (15:47:21) joanie: fer they are ignoring a crasher bug I filed
 221 (15:47:31) ***clown wonders if moving to at-spi2 is a new feature.
 222 (15:47:31) joanie: they responded immediately to say "could not reproduce it"
 223 (15:47:50) joanie: and then when I reopened having built LO from master and provided a stack trace
 224 (15:48:00) joanie: they couldn't be bothered to respond
 225 (15:48:11) ***bnitz likes 5, would be great if "a11y support is too hard to do by yourself" is the catalyst to end the stalemate. 
 226 (15:49:02) API: ok, a lot of conclusions ;)
 227 (15:49:03) API: thanks
 228 (15:49:08) API: lets move
 229 (15:49:20) API: 3. a11y testing towards GNOME3 using Fedora test day approach? ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-02-03_GNOME3_Alpha ) 
 230 (15:49:27) API: joanie, I guess that you added this point
 231 (15:49:35) joanie: not I
 232 (15:49:37) fer: no, I did
 233 (15:49:46) ***joanie doesn't care what fedora does
 234 (15:49:47) joanie: ;-)
 235 (15:49:51) fer: ahaha
 236 (15:49:54) fer: it's not about fedora
 237 (15:50:01) fer: it's about the approach for testing
 238 (15:50:16) fer: like having this kind of old bug days but for testing
 239 (15:50:18) joanie: fer I know. I was being snarky
 240 (15:50:20) API: well, yes I agree
 241 (15:50:21) API: I mean
 242 (15:50:33) API: that at least they provide a "gnome 3 compliant" distribution
 243 (15:50:39) API: we can't say that from ubuntu natty
 244 (15:50:45) API: that it is still a mixed thing
 245 (15:50:51) API: it would be good to test
 246 (15:50:54) API: a gnome 3 distribution
 247 (15:51:00) API: and check that a11y is working
 248 (15:51:02) joanie: and they are doing it strictly out of selfless motives, no doubt. :-P
 249 (15:51:13) API: ie: I fear that all this gconf/gseetings thing creates some nightmares
 250 (15:51:22) API: selfless motives?
 251 (15:51:30) API: I thought that this was extinct ;)
 252 (15:51:35) joanie: sorry snark again
 253 (15:51:36) fer: probably try to run a a11y testing day would be hard, but we can try to add a11y testcases to Fedora testing days :)
 254 (15:51:38) ***joanie behaves
 255 (15:51:50) mgorse: gnome-shell a11y is still a work in progress, so I don't know how that effects things. We might have to test the "fallback mode" if anything
 256 (15:52:29) API: mgorse, well, some patches related to gnome-shell a11y
 257 (15:52:32) API: are now on the master
 258 (15:52:37) API: although without solving this
 259 (15:52:40) API: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=640057
 260 (15:52:42) ***bnitz wonders how to test gnome-shell magnification.
 261 (15:52:45) API: it is still not really testable
 262 (15:52:51) ***clown hides
 263 (15:53:08) API: bnitz, well right now on gnome-shell you can activate magnification
 264 (15:53:12) API: but you can't configure it :P
 265 (15:53:27) API: at least without orca, although I didn't test it
 266 (15:53:28) bnitz: API:I was wondering about automating that test.
 267 (15:53:34) API: ah ok
 268 (15:53:40) clown: bnitz, there is a patch for a GUI testing various mag settings...
 269 (15:53:58) clown: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622414
 270 (15:53:59) bnitz: clown:Good thanks.
 271 (15:54:10) clown: but, right, that doesn't do auto testing. 
 272 (15:54:17) API: fer, anywat that link was for a testing day on 03-02
 273 (15:54:21) API: I guess that we are late
 274 (15:54:26) API: or I'm missing something?
 275 (15:54:28) clown: bnitz, is there a framework to hook automatic testing into?
 276 (15:54:34) fer: API: it was an example
 277 (15:54:51) bnitz: clown:I'm building one based on mago. 
 278 (15:55:02) API: so your proposal is?
 279 (15:55:07) API: fer, so your proposal is?
 280 (15:55:24) clown: bntiz ETA? (no pressure, but I'm getting some from AEGIS/Peter to hook into your framework).
 281 (15:55:29) bnitz: Right now it can use accerciser plugins and a few tests I've written. I think magnifier would have to be tested by comparing screenshots which mago can do.
 282 (15:55:33) fer: not proposing anything, just asking you guys if you think it is a good idea to try to get some a11y related testcases there
 283 (15:56:24) bnitz: clown:Planning for april but since my platform is on GNOME 2, I'm not focused on testing gnome 3 features such as gnome-shell mag.
 284 (15:56:48) API: fer, for the next one?
 285 (15:56:50) clown: bnitz, well I have toyed with the idea of unit tests like -- setting one of the mag settings, and then reading it back to see if it "took". Of course, that doesn't show one what actually happend on screen.
 286 (15:57:10) fer: API: if we add them now, they would be tested on any future testing day, I guess
 287 (15:57:24) clown: bnitz, good to know re: GNOME3 vs. GNOME2
 288 (15:57:26) clown: thanks
 289 (15:57:27) API: imho it makes sense
 290 (15:57:29) API: but
 291 (15:57:35) API: who have time to track this?
 292 (15:58:01) joanie: and would the Fedora people actually be responsive
 293 (15:58:02) ***fer hides
 294 (15:58:14) fer: redhat people don't care about it
 295 (15:58:21) fer: but community does
 296 (15:58:22) ***clown sees fer behind that tree over there...
 297 (15:58:43) API: well, the issue is that it would not be really "polite"
 298 (15:58:44) fer: I could try to poke someone to check if they are positive about this
 299 (15:58:53) API: to add a a11y thing
 300 (15:59:00) joanie: personally I think that this would be a model to follow for 3.2
 301 (15:59:00) API: and then
 302 (15:59:02) joanie: and beyond
 303 (15:59:06) API: not to test that by ourselves
 304 (15:59:20) joanie: and through some other mechanism than piggy backing onto what Fedora is doing
 305 (16:00:06) joanie: For this cycle I think we might be stuck with testing on our own. But that's just my opinion.
 306 (16:00:34) fer: it makes sense
 307 (16:00:43) fer: as that kind of testing is more focused on regressions
 308 (16:00:44) joanie: For instance, partnering with the Vinux folks might make sense
 309 (16:00:51) fer: rather than "this is not working yet" :)
 310 (16:00:58) API: well, yes, but as say, having a "GNOME 3 compliant" distribution would make our live easier
 311 (16:01:16) API: but, afaik, vinux are still based on ubuntu
 312 (16:01:29) API: see above this "mixture gnome2 and gnome3" thing
 313 (16:01:29) joanie: yup
 314 (16:01:38) fer: what about OpenSuSE?
 315 (16:01:42) joanie: See above the 3.2 reference
 316 (16:02:17) mgorse: 11.4 isn't going to ship GNOME 3. I think there will be an external repository to get it, and there's a GNOME 3 livecd for it
 317 (16:02:30) mgorse: but its release schedule is going to miss GNOME 3
 318 (16:02:34) joanie: mgorse: really re live CD?
 319 (16:02:42) joanie: is it available externally yet?
 320 (16:02:53) joanie: I pulled the dev CD a couple of weeks ago
 321 (16:03:17) mgorse: joanie: I'm not sure off-hand. I'll need to look. I just know that it gets built, since I was asking a question the other day and someone mentioned it
 322 (16:03:28) joanie: the other possibility might be Foresight
 323 (16:03:44) joanie: but I cannot get that to install completely 
 324 (16:03:52) joanie: (not that I've dug into it yet)
 325 (16:04:29) joanie: anyhoo, since API is going to ask for summary and actions soon. :-P
 326 (16:04:35) API: well, 5 minutes over time, so, could we try to 
 327 (16:04:36) API: yep
 328 (16:04:38) API: ;)
 329 (16:04:42) joanie: I propose we add this sort of organized testing to the Roadmap
 330 (16:04:46) API: get some summary, conclusions and actions
 331 (16:04:59) joanie: i.e. to have our own sort of Fedora testing day (but without Fedora, necessarily)
 332 (16:05:01) API: this roadmap?
 333 (16:05:04) API: http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/Roadmap
 334 (16:05:12) joanie: but emulate their techniques/approach
 335 (16:05:14) joanie: yessir
 336 (16:05:18) joanie: re that roadmap
 337 (16:05:22) mgorse: joanie: http://blog.crozat.net/2011/01/gnome-3-live-cd-usb-test-image.html
 338 (16:06:04) joanie: mgorse: ah thanks. 
 339 (16:07:12) API: ok, makes sense
 340 (16:07:15) API: sooo
 341 (16:07:21) API: as we are over time
 342 (16:07:26) API: can we conclude the meeting
 343 (16:07:35) API: or someone requires miscellaneous time?
 344 (16:07:45) joanie: no. the meeting must continue into perpetuity
 345 (16:07:53) clown: API, I had an agenda item...
 346 (16:07:53) joanie: oops. behaving NOW.
 347 (16:07:54) ***slee just come back at the end
 348 (16:08:17) API: clown, column thing?
 349 (16:08:21) clown: yes.
 350 (16:08:25) fer: yeah
 351 (16:08:29) API: well....
 352 (16:08:31) fer: and I have also an issue
 353 (16:08:40) API: this seems too long for miscellaneous time
 354 (16:08:49) API: lets place that as the first item on the next meeting
 355 (16:08:49) bnitz: In case anyone is interested in a11y testing code within the mago framework, here is the latest: https://code.launchpad.net/~brian-nitz/+junk/a11ytesting 
 356 (16:09:13) clown: API, the working group who asked the question wanted the answer by next Mon...
 357 (16:09:19) fer: well, quick info: about WAI User agent guidelines, some guy from IBM asked me to do a review of it regarding atk
 358 (16:09:29) bnitz: It allows event-triggered running of some of the tests in Accerciser's basic validation plugin.
 359 (16:09:29) clown: but, we don't have to do it now; we can discuss in the #a11y channel.
 360 (16:09:51) clown: fer -- sounds like the issue they asked me.
 361 (16:09:54) joanie: clown: Quick summary?
 362 (16:10:08) joanie: (for the purpose of minutes)
 363 (16:10:13) ***slee waves
 364 (16:10:23) clown: joanie -- look at this table: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_role_table
 365 (16:10:27) fer: clown: the many of us looking at it, the better the guide would be
 366 (16:10:40) clown: should the column labelled "ATK" be labelled "AT-SPI" instead?
 367 (16:10:42) joanie: oh yeah, that came up in open a11y too
 368 (16:10:46) fer: well, they asked me about progressbar and so on, but I spoted some bugs there
 369 (16:10:48) clown: or ATK/AT-SPI?
 370 (16:11:08) API: fer, well that table already have a ATK column
 371 (16:11:10) clown: and, does the at-spi-corba vs. at-spi-dbus have any relevance here?
 372 (16:11:12) API: so whats missing?
 373 (16:11:17) fer: the ATK / AT-SPI thing is tricky, because sometimes it is not 1 to 1 map
 374 (16:11:41) API: well, in that case, it would make sense two columns
 375 (16:11:43) API: I guess
 376 (16:11:51) API: or a ATK/AT-SPI column
 377 (16:11:58) API: and explain the differences if neccesary
 378 (16:12:31) fer: yup
 379 (16:12:44) fer: example, look at aria-checked (state)="false" / "true" / "mixed"
 380 (16:12:46) clown: API, the question is as a browser developer or an AT developer, what a11y interface(s) should I consult when developing on GNOME with respect to ARIA
 381 (16:12:49) clown: ?
 382 (16:12:55) fer: ATK column
 383 (16:13:15) API: well clown 
 384 (16:13:16) fer: it says nothing about setting/clearing ATK_STATE_CHECK
 385 (16:13:33) API: you mean if you should check ATK or AT-SPI?
 386 (16:13:38) fer: and says Expose ATK_STATE_INDETERMINATE/STATE_SYSTEM_MIXED, and we don't have such a MIXED state
 387 (16:13:41) API: where check==consult
 388 (16:14:25) API: hmm, yes it is true
 389 (16:14:29) clown: API, right -- what GNOME (linux?) documentation/libraries should I look at?
 390 (16:14:32) API: that state is put there
 391 (16:14:33) joanie: but we do have STATE_INDETERMINATE. Where did MIXED come from?
 392 (16:14:50) API: in my opinion at-spi2
 393 (16:14:52) clown: joanie, I know the ARIA motivation for mixed.
 394 (16:14:52) fer: ia2 copys / paste bug probably
 395 (16:15:02) API: hmm
 396 (16:15:04) joanie: clown: not asking about motivation
 397 (16:15:05) clown: API does at-spi2 == at-spi-dbus?
 398 (16:15:07) API: a question
 399 (16:15:08) joanie: asking who put it there
 400 (16:15:09) joanie: ;-)
 401 (16:15:22) API: this table is a guide for browser developers, right?
 402 (16:15:29) clown: joanie -- that may be lost to history ;-)
 403 (16:15:32) fer: conclusion: the whole document
 404 (16:15:32) API: in that case, for GNOME
 405 (16:15:32) clown: aaron?
 406 (16:15:36) API: ATK
 407 (16:15:40) API: as the browsers
 408 (16:15:45) API: would implement ATK roles/states
 409 (16:15:50) clown: API this is a guide for browser AND AT developers.
 410 (16:15:51) API: not at-spi roles/states
 411 (16:15:56) API: urgh
 412 (16:16:02) API: well, in this case
 413 (16:16:03) clown: AT developers since they are using the a11y API.
 414 (16:16:08) API: both
 415 (16:16:26) API: and stating that ATK is for the browser developers and at-spi API is for the AT tools
 416 (16:16:28) fer: yeah, but they implement that trough atk, instead of directly talking to at-spi
 417 (16:17:06) ***clown likes API's "stating that ATK is for the browser developers and at-spi API is for the AT tools".
 418 (16:17:31) joanie: although that won't apply in the Qt world
 419 (16:17:38) ***clown notes that browser write to the a11y API, and ATs read from it (at a first approximation).
 420 (16:17:38) API: well
 421 (16:17:52) API: joanie, right now there isn't a11y support on the Qt world
 422 (16:18:02) joanie: it's coming though. 
 423 (16:18:06) clown: joanie, yes, QT/KDE is another wrinkle.
 424 (16:18:25) fer: what api should linux Qt based browsers use?
 425 (16:18:29) joanie: And documents should, when possible, be flexible enough to continue to be relevant in the near future
 426 (16:18:40) clown: but where there is an a11y api (atk or atk/at-spi) that should be noted.
 427 (16:18:42) API: I mean that we should worry about Qt when we have something to check
 428 (16:18:55) API: in the case of Qt, if the qt-bridge is finished
 429 (16:19:02) API: it would be just about at-spi
 430 (16:19:05) joanie: right
 431 (16:19:10) API: afaik, and after my conversations with fregl
 432 (16:19:21) API: they are not using the internal qt bits related to ia2 or msaa
 433 (16:19:28) API: they are directly using qt api
 434 (16:19:28) joanie: my point is, I'm not suer that we should state explicitly what ATK is for versus what AT-SPI is for
 435 (16:19:36) joanie: do a 'ATK/AT-SPI' and be done with it
 436 (16:19:45) API: why not?
 437 (16:19:50) joanie: if the implementors don't know which is which we have a bigger problems
 438 (16:20:01) joanie: because Qt won't implement ATK
 439 (16:20:03) joanie: (right?)
 440 (16:20:14) clown: joanie, dunno
 441 (16:20:26) joanie: thus your dichotomy would fall apart in that case
 442 (16:20:41) clown: to be really concrete what would Qt use for an aria role of, say "alert"?
 443 (16:20:47) fer: but would QT expose directly at-spi bits? or their own QAccessible classes?
 444 (16:20:49) joanie: if Qt implements AT-SPI
 445 (16:21:06) joanie: I *assume* (always a bad idea) AT-SPI
 446 (16:21:12) joanie: rather than some sort of QAccessible
 447 (16:21:21) ***joanie pokes fregl
 448 (16:21:28) API: yes, AFAIU
 449 (16:21:37) API: qt-bridge is literally that
 450 (16:21:51) API: without a QAccessible implementing any accessibility API
 451 (16:21:58) API: anyway, I think that we are losing the focus
 452 (16:22:06) joanie: therefore, the way to make this document continue to apply is to NOT specify the aforementioned differences between ATK and AT-SPI
 453 (16:22:07) API: as clown initially asked about GNOME world
 454 (16:22:15) ***joanie shuts up
 455 (16:22:17) clown: API, right
 456 (16:22:35) API: well, joanie, IMHO yes
 457 (16:22:42) API: ATK/AT-SPI for GNOME
 458 (16:22:50) API: Qt/AT-SPI for KDE or whatever
 459 (16:23:16) fer: at-spi should be hidden by toolkit bridges
 460 (16:23:29) fer: and toolkit should expose only Atk or QAccessible or whatever
 461 (16:23:57) clown: here was a question posed at the teleconference:
 462 (16:24:28) clown: if I use Accerciser to look at the a11y info, am I seeing ATK info? or more than ATK?
 463 (16:24:46) fer: oh, that is a good point
 464 (16:25:08) fer: people using accerciser for testing do see at-spi interfaces
 465 (16:25:16) API: well, but this is again going to the app vs at
 466 (16:25:21) API: accerciser is a AT tool
 467 (16:25:29) API: so it would be looking for at-spi interfaces
 468 (16:25:34) clown: because the browser/AT developers are going to use Accerciser to "test" if things are properly written/read.
 469 (16:25:37) API: but other equivalent question would be
 470 (16:25:50) fer: that is the only thing implementors implementing ATK interfaces can use :)
 471 (16:25:52) API: "if Im implement a11y support of my_browser, am I seeing ATK info"
 472 (16:25:53) ***clown notes that he is echoing fer.
 473 (16:25:55) API: and the answer is yes
 474 (16:26:31) clown: so the column is properly labelled?
 475 (16:26:36) clown: right now it's "ATK".
 476 (16:26:58) fer: and they are filling it based on testing done with accerciser I guess :)
 477 (16:26:58) slee left the room (quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.6.13/20101203075014]).
 478 (16:27:02) joanie: clown: I would (again) call it ATK/AT-SPI
 479 (16:27:06) API: my vote it is still move it to a "ATK/AT-SPI " thing
 480 (16:27:12) joanie: and (again) I would not distinguish what either is for
 481 (16:27:25) clown: joanie, API that's how I'm leaning.
 482 (16:27:33) joanie: I would leave researching that as an exercise for the reader
 483 (16:27:46) fer: and then we have a mess when there is no 1 to 1 map from at-spi and Atk :)
 484 (16:27:58) joanie: fer....
 485 (16:28:01) clown: with a footnote that "AT-SPI" means AT-SPI-2 (Dbus).
 486 (16:28:04) joanie: one of the goals of the hackfest
 487 (16:28:13) joanie: is to bring those two more closely in alignment
 488 (16:28:24) fer: agreed
 489 (16:28:36) joanie: so if we (again) are looking at how to have a document which *remains* relevant for more than 6 months....
 490 (16:29:04) joanie: I don't think that the few differences which currently exist (would be noticed) between the two are all that critical
 491 (16:29:06) joanie: imho
 492 (16:29:54) clown: pardon my ignorance, but why isn't there a 1-to-1 map between at-spi and atk? (perhaps a topic for another time...)
 493 (16:30:12) ***joanie glances sideways at clown and chuckles
 494 (16:30:21) fer: clown: that it the past! look at the future! :)
 495 (16:30:53) clown: fer: the future is all transparent and animated (gnome shell and gnome3).
 496 (16:31:01) joanie: lol
 497 (16:31:07) API: clown, well the easy answer
 498 (16:31:07) API: is
 499 (16:31:13) API: that at-spi
 500 (16:31:19) API: was though to be used not just only with atk
 501 (16:31:26) clown: btw, that raises a related question: what does the ST toolkit a11y publish? ATK info?
 502 (16:31:33) API: so some divergencies were not important
 503 (16:31:40) API: clown, 
 504 (16:31:40) API: yes
 505 (16:31:41) API: ATK
 506 (16:31:53) API: I made some accessibility objects implementing ATK
 507 (16:31:54) clown: API -- good point. at-spi is an a11y broker for any a11y API.
 508 (16:31:56) API: like gail
 509 (16:32:10) API: although it is also true, that right now
 510 (16:32:13) API: due the bonobo thing
 511 (16:32:30) API: ATK is mostly the only "client-side" user of at-spi
 512 (16:32:38) API: although in theory, Qt is near
 513 (16:32:44) fer: dudu, I had almost forgotten about bonobos! those monkeys!
 514 (16:32:45) API: well, 30 minutes over time
 515 (16:32:48) API: something else in this point?
 516 (16:33:14) clown: API, not from me -- I think I have what I need to go back to the aria working group.
 517 (16:33:32) API: well ok
 518 (16:33:35) API: so meeting over