1 14:36:50 <API> #startmeeting
   2 14:36:50 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Jun 23 14:36:50 2011 UTC.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 14:36:50 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 14:37:06 <API> so as we don't have subtopics here
   5 14:37:07 <API> AFAIK
   6 14:37:22 <API> #topic 1.1 Testing. Better way to keep on top of changes? (e.g.gnome-contacts)
   7 14:37:36 <API> joanie, I think that you added this point
   8 14:37:40 * joanie nods
   9 14:38:20 <joanie> #info The other day Matthias happened to mention in #a11y that the gnome-contacts contact list had been redone with new custom widgets and that we should test it.
  10 14:38:53 <joanie> #info Joanie thinks we need a way better system than relying upon the kindness of Matthias to give us such head-up pings.
  11 14:39:01 <joanie> So... I dunno what the right answer is
  12 14:39:02 * API I don't use gnome-contacts at all ...
  13 14:39:07 <joanie> but I think we should find one
  14 14:39:18 <joanie> Well, I'm still fighting with getting it to build
  15 14:39:21 <joanie> and I will test it
  16 14:39:25 <API> well, as usually this lead to some kind of testing framework
  17 14:39:27 * clown is gnome-contacts an app?
  18 14:39:29 <joanie> but it is more the general issue
  19 14:39:35 <API> and a lot of examples using it
  20 14:39:43 <API> I mean
  21 14:39:52 <API> and a lot of use cases filling it
  22 14:39:54 <joanie> a11y breaks and we don't know it and the module maintainers don't know it
  23 14:39:58 <API> it seems that bnitz is not here
  24 14:40:08 <API> well, ideally
  25 14:40:29 <API> as I said, it would be good to have something like a automatic a11y tests
  26 14:40:34 <API> and run them
  27 14:40:35 * joanie nods
  28 14:40:36 <API> http://build.gnome.org/
  29 14:40:41 <joanie> that's the long range idea
  30 14:40:46 <API> and if a error happens, a mail is sent to a list
  31 14:40:58 * API still have on todo the mail configuration
  32 14:41:06 <joanie> but in the short run...
  33 14:41:15 <joanie> What do we do about this general issue?
  34 14:41:18 <API> #info long term solution: a11y test suit, executed on build.gnome.org, mail sent on any error
  35 14:41:32 <joanie> Can we delegate this to someone or someones?
  36 14:41:49 <joanie> make a list of core gnome apps
  37 14:41:56 <prlw1> I think bnitz was going to even associate the error with the commit, so the developer responsible for the commit gets the email.
  38 14:42:02 <joanie> and test them for a11y -- functional testing until we have something automated in place
  39 14:43:09 <joanie> But do we know where bnitz is w.r.t. these tools?
  40 14:43:24 <joanie> Last time I checked, he was saying Oracle doesn't ship GNOME 3
  41 14:43:35 <joanie> so I'm not sure that he will be our best resource on this front
  42 14:43:40 <joanie> though I could be wrong
  43 14:43:55 <API> joanie, about that delegation thing
  44 14:43:58 <API> what do you mean?
  45 14:44:10 <API> are you talking about manual testing?
  46 14:44:22 <joanie> I mean that someone (other than joanie and api) do manual testing of the *core* gnome apps
  47 14:44:29 <joanie> until we have a better system in place
  48 14:44:52 <joanie> where gnome == gnome 3 ;-)
  49 14:44:56 <joanie> and not gnome 2
  50 14:45:18 <joanie> And Aline isn't here either
  51 14:45:25 <API> well, as usual I only see an option here
  52 14:45:29 <joanie> I was thinking this might be a neat task for her
  53 14:45:42 <API> and its the current state,
  54 14:45:52 <API> developers detecting heavy changes
  55 14:46:00 <API> and notify gnome a11y lists asking for testing
  56 14:46:13 <joanie> actually that just gave me an idea
  57 14:46:24 <API> I'm not sure if asking people to do smoketesting of all the plattform each X days viable
  58 14:46:40 <joanie> we could subscribe and better monitor the commit ml
  59 14:46:55 * API btw, still pending a platform a11y smoketesting after vuntz suggestion
  60 14:47:23 * prlw1 thinks that bnitz has solved what you are thinking about
  61 14:47:32 <joanie> really?
  62 14:47:44 <joanie> prlw1: mind elaborating with an #info
  63 14:47:50 <joanie> so I can follow up with him later
  64 14:48:29 <prlw1> or maybe just get it from the horses mouth?
  65 14:48:56 <joanie> What did he solve?
  66 14:50:17 <joanie> or to put it another way prlw1, what are you talking about when you said 'what you are thinking about'?
  67 14:50:21 <joanie> who is you
  68 14:50:28 <joanie> and several of us shared thoughts
  69 14:50:35 <prlw1> nevermind
  70 14:50:49 <API> anyway, we have been in this point about 20 minutes
  71 14:50:54 * joanie nods
  72 14:50:56 <joanie> sorry
  73 14:50:57 <API> so a conclusion is required, taking into account
  74 14:51:03 <API> that we have other points
  75 14:51:10 <API> probably a "ask bnitz"
  76 14:51:35 <prlw1> correct
  77 14:51:43 <API> #info Joanie ask if it would be possible if someone (other than joanie and api) do manual testing on the core gnome apps
  78 14:51:57 <API> #info API says that we would require to do manual testing for a while
  79 14:52:11 <API> #info Patrick comments that Brian Nitz have something solving those issues
  80 14:52:34 <API> #info Brian is not here, so this is postponed, further investigation required
  81 14:52:37 <API> anything else?
  82 14:52:45 <joanie> nah
  83 14:52:49 <API> ok
  84 14:52:50 <API> so
  85 14:53:10 <API> #topic 1.2 Testing. Gtk A11y dump tool
  86 14:53:16 <API> http://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?id=b2cfbd0de9e4306ff65a8f9171ecc795b055d16a
  87 14:53:29 <API> it seem that Company started a kind of function a11y testing
  88 14:53:38 <API> joanie, do you have more details?
  89 14:53:50 * joanie defers to Company if he is around
  90 14:53:52 * API as Company already said that he will be busy in other meeting
  91 14:54:05 <Company> not started yet
  92 14:54:21 <Company> so i'll just talk here until it happens
  93 14:54:45 <Company> so I did this tool that takes a ui file created in glade
  94 14:55:07 <Company> grabs its accessible and dumps everything from it into a file
  95 14:55:24 <Company> see the link from API for more details
  96 14:55:29 * clown sounds nifty.
  97 14:55:38 <clown> Company:  is the output plain text?
  98 14:55:47 <Company> clown: lemme find links to an example
  99 14:56:01 <Company> so a glade file like this: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/tree/tests/a11y/hello-world.ui?id=a11y
 100 14:56:17 <Company> which is just a button saying "Hello World"
 101 14:56:20 <clown> right
 102 14:56:31 <Company> generates something like this: http://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/tree/tests/a11y/hello-world.txt?id=a11y
 103 14:57:02 <Company> the idea for this kind of test is to do 3 things:
 104 14:57:12 <Company> 1) regression-test
 105 14:57:32 <Company> we want to notice if we messed something up while refactoring etc
 106 14:57:37 <Company> 2) crash-test
 107 14:58:00 <Company> if we can make a weird combination of widgets crash, just make a glade file that exposes it, and put it there
 108 14:58:02 <API> well, orca has already several regression tests, so
 109 14:58:14 <API> will this one replace orca ones?
 110 14:58:23 <API> or can we have both?
 111 14:58:31 <Company> i have no idea what orca tests
 112 14:58:44 <API> joanie, ^
 113 14:58:48 <Company> this is strictly for GTK's implementation of a11y
 114 14:58:57 <API> but for example, it has a lot of firefox tests
 115 14:59:00 <joanie> we can have both
 116 14:59:04 <API> and I think that it have a lot of gtk tests
 117 14:59:15 <joanie> Orca is designed to be sure that changes to Orca don't break access to, say, gtk
 118 14:59:26 <joanie> that's independent of what Company is doing/talking about
 119 14:59:53 <Company> anyway, point 3 and the most important one:
 120 14:59:59 <joanie> s/Orca is/Orca tests are/
 121 15:00:13 <Company> 3) specifying the intended behavior for GTK
 122 15:00:29 <Company> so we want to create a ui file and the text file manually
 123 15:00:43 <Company> and then make sure that the gtk implementation actually conforms to it
 124 15:01:13 <Company> to take the treeview atktable example we discussed an hour ago: if we say we want row items in treeviews
 125 15:01:24 <Company> we'll create a glade file with a treeview
 126 15:01:49 <Company> and a text file that says "here are row objects, they have this role, implement these states and interfaces etc"
 127 15:02:00 <API> Company, it is gtk specific? it could be easy to have something similar on clutter/st? I see the problem on those glade files
 128 15:02:07 <API> and with this specific example of tables
 129 15:02:12 <Company> and then we'll go and change the GailTreeView implementation
 130 15:02:21 <API> it would be good to have something similar also on webkitgtk or mozilla
 131 15:02:42 <Company> and this is what I told joanie about is what i need from a11y people
 132 15:03:33 <Company> i need an idea of how you would like the output of gail to look for certain widgets/ui files
 133 15:03:39 <joanie> This might have some implication for our ATK prioritizations
 134 15:03:40 <Company> so we can make that happen
 135 15:03:51 <joanie> for instance, today there is no such thing as ATK_ROLE_TABLE_ROW. But there will be
 136 15:04:09 <API> Company, so you will provide glade files and a11y guys should say if the output is correct or not?
 137 15:04:51 <Company> API: either that, or you guys can create glade files and say "it should look like this"
 138 15:05:34 <API> aha
 139 15:05:47 <Company> API: and about being gtk specific - the way the test is set up is very gtk specific (glade files etc), but the actual dumping of the accessible is not so much
 140 15:06:01 <API> yes, this is the reason I asked
 141 15:06:10 <Company> API: there are some things we don't dump (like the stuff that says "omitted") or component bounds
 142 15:06:13 <API> as it would be good to have this in other places
 143 15:06:24 <Company> because those things are very specific to the gtk theme you are using etc
 144 15:06:52 <clown> Company, the dump shows ATK info, right?  As opposed to AT-SPI info.
 145 15:07:01 <Company> clown: yes
 146 15:07:22 <clown> Company:  ok, thanks.
 147 15:07:26 <Company> clown: the dump currently just takes the AtkObject of the toplevel window and dumps it and its children
 148 15:08:06 <Company> clown: i might in the future write a version that goes over dbus, and dumps the AT-SPI objects, too, just to see if they are equivalent
 149 15:08:16 <clown> cool...
 150 15:08:43 <clown> although that's kind of what accerciser does (in a gui).
 151 15:08:52 <Company> yeah
 152 15:09:19 <API> well, not sure if anything else is missing in this topic
 153 15:09:22 <Company> i currentlt do not care a lot about the at-spi layer, but more about the GAIL layer
 154 15:09:29 <API> makes sense
 155 15:09:30 <Company> so that's what these tests focus on
 156 15:09:41 <Company> but improving on that would be great
 157 15:09:58 <Company> most of all: please write tests for us so we can fix things
 158 15:10:09 <clown> sure.  it's targetted at ATK developers as way for them to make sure what they did is coming out right wrt ATK.
 159 15:10:48 <API> and this goes again to "people are really busy" these days ..
 160 15:10:58 <joanie> Company: what is the best way to get you tests? bugzilla patches?
 161 15:11:30 <joanie> API yeah, but I really want to see if we can pitch in here. I'm hoping next week to dive in
 162 15:11:37 <Company> joanie: as that ison a branch anyway, so just ping on irc + fpaste is fine usually
 163 15:11:47 <joanie> k
 164 15:11:55 <Company> joanie: i probably wouldn't even mind if you just committed them :)
 165 15:12:14 <joanie> :-) After you see one or two and we're on the same page, absolutely!
 166 15:12:47 <Company> and i'm off to the rh meeting now
 167 15:12:55 <joanie> thanks Company!!
 168 15:13:06 <API> well, this was  long point
 169 15:13:11 <joanie> but a good one
 170 15:13:15 <API> so it doesn't make sense to make #info points
 171 15:13:17 <API> so
 172 15:13:19 <API> joanie
 173 15:13:25 <API> what about a action item
 174 15:13:30 <API> ?
 175 15:13:33 <joanie> :-)
 176 15:13:40 <API> #action joanie will summarize 1.2 topic
 177 15:13:50 <API> well, lets try to at least finish this point
 178 15:14:17 <API> #topic 1.3 Testing. Testing Distro update?
 179 15:14:26 <API> well, jhernandez is not here
 180 15:14:28 <API> clown, ?
 181 15:14:38 <API> I saw a lot of activity in your bugs these days
 182 15:14:47 <API> any relation with the testing distro
 183 15:14:53 <clown> indeed.
 184 15:15:00 <clown> with respect to the testing distro...
 185 15:15:07 * API in theory the last one of our custom one until we "merge" with fcrozat one
 186 15:15:28 <clown> #info I supplied a patch to Orca to fix the DBus communication with gs-mag ...
 187 15:15:44 <clown> #info joanie reviewed and made some suggestions ...
 188 15:16:01 <clown> #info I'm modifying in light of those suggestions.
 189 15:16:25 <clown> #info and hope to have a new patch by end of today (but probably end of week [tomorrow]).
 190 15:16:33 <clown> done, anything to add joanie?
 191 15:16:59 <joanie> #info Joanie will roll the new tarball for the testing distro
 192 15:17:15 <joanie> (once the new patch is committed)
 193 15:17:57 <API> ok, so we need to talk about anything else in this topic?
 194 15:18:14 <clown> not from me.
 195 15:18:16 <joanie> nope
 196 15:18:48 <API> ok
 197 15:18:55 <API> #topic GNOME 3.2 progress:
 198 15:19:44 <API> #info API strill trying to get some time to work on current St bugs
 199 15:19:59 <API> #info API, not a lot of new here
 200 15:20:01 <API> so people
 201 15:20:03 <API> your turn
 202 15:20:06 <API> ;)
 203 15:20:29 <mgorse> #info mgorse pushed a patch to make atk-bridge not listen for events when no ATs are running
 204 15:20:31 <prlw1> AFAIK dasher works on gnome 3
 205 15:20:48 <prlw1> please let me know if it breaks for you...
 206 15:21:07 <joanie> prlw1: So you've tested it in GNOME 3?
 207 15:21:12 <prlw1> congrats to mgorse!
 208 15:21:25 <joanie> +1 to congrats to mgorse
 209 15:21:59 <API> prlw1, tested on gnome-shell?
 210 15:22:00 <joanie> I wonder how much closer that gets us to the goal of can enable a11y by default?
 211 15:22:17 <mgorse> Not sure. I have no idea if it will noticably improve performance, but it (hopefully) won't hurt
 212 15:22:40 <joanie> What I mean is that we've been told that we cannot enable a11y by default
 213 15:22:50 <joanie> I'm wondering if this means we can
 214 15:23:01 <joanie> i.e. because nothing bad will happen to non AT users
 215 15:23:06 <joanie> API thoughts?
 216 15:23:07 <API> well, we can add a action
 217 15:23:17 <API> investigate if last change on atk-bridge
 218 15:23:24 <API> help on setting a11y by default
 219 15:23:37 <API> s/setting/setting on
 220 15:24:00 <API> well, no sure who should test it
 221 15:24:07 <API> but lets at least add the action
 222 15:24:32 <API> #action check how last mgorse change improve the situation of the performance at the desktop with a11y on and no AT listening
 223 15:25:01 <joanie> mgorse: And if we can get this on by default, you will be the team hero
 224 15:25:06 <joanie> nice job!
 225 15:25:18 <API> well, 5 minutes till the end
 226 15:25:23 <API> anything else in this topic?
 227 15:25:34 <mgorse> Do we know if there are specific performance issues that people are having / what they are? Opening large trees might be one (in Nautilus, for instance; no idea if that's still been an issue with AT-SPI2)
 228 15:25:41 <API> msanchez, is right now
 229 15:25:53 <API> talking so not sure if he can say anything ;)
 230 15:26:02 <API> mgorse, yes, anything related with nautilius
 231 15:26:08 <API> and gtktreeview are required to be tested
 232 15:26:28 <API> so lets set that action
 233 15:26:39 <API> and as no one else is saying anything
 234 15:26:43 <API> 4 minutes till the end
 235 15:26:47 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
 236 15:27:05 <API> do you want so say anything sort not included on the meeting agenda?
 237 15:27:15 <API> s/sort/short
 238 15:28:26 <API> ...
 239 15:28:42 * clown the silence is deafening.
 240 15:29:03 * API is the sound ... of the silence ...
 241 15:29:27 * clown one hand clapping?
 242 15:30:08 <API> ...
 243 15:30:10 * joanie refrains from commenting about people hearing without listening
 244 15:30:11 <API> well
 245 15:30:25 <API> no one used miscellanous time
 246 15:30:26 * clown that's deep
 247 15:30:27 <API> so
 248 15:30:30 <API> meeting over
 249 15:30:33 <API> #endmeeting