1 15:09:34 <API> #startmeeting
   2 15:09:34 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Feb  2 15:09:34 2012 UTC.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 15:09:34 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 15:09:50 <API> #topic Hackfest Summary
   5 15:10:16 <API> #info API made two posts with a summary of the hackfest
   6 15:10:21 <API> http://blogs.igalia.com/apinheiro/2012/01/19/atkat-spi2-hackfest-2012-day-1/
   7 15:10:26 <API> http://blogs.igalia.com/apinheiro/2012/01/24/atkat-spi2-hackfest-2012-days-2345/
   8 15:10:48 <API> #info but being really short
   9 15:11:00 <API> #info this time was more balanced between discussion and hacking
  10 15:11:06 <API> #info although still more discussion
  11 15:11:31 <API> #info still a lot of questions, mostly from Benjamin side, as he wants to change a lot of things, but not sure about the way to do that
  12 15:11:46 <API> #info one of the main conclusions is going to have accessibility enabled by default
  13 15:11:56 <API> #info more testing, from the early stages, etc
  14 15:12:14 <API> #info and the first step of that plan, stop to use atk-bridge as a module/plugin
  15 15:12:26 <API> #info still not clear specific implementation:
  16 15:12:41 <API> #info a library? => new dependencies to gtk, cluttter etc
  17 15:13:01 <API> #info introduce it into atk => atk will be bigger, will have a dependency with at-spi2-core
  18 15:13:19 <API> #info gtk talking directly on the BUS => only benjamin likes that idea
  19 15:13:55 <API> #info the idea would be talk about that now, and start it at the beginning of 3.6 cycle
  20 15:13:59 <API> done
  21 15:14:06 <API> other wants to share any summary of the hackfesT?
  22 15:15:35 <jjmarin> gtk talking directly on the BUS means removing atk ?
  23 15:16:32 <API> jjmarin, imho, just for gtk
  24 15:16:48 <API> I don't see any reason to do the same for clutter, for example
  25 15:16:51 <mgorse> I guess gtk wouldn't use it at least; it's an open question as to what FF/LibreOffice/Clutter would do
  26 15:16:58 <API> taking into account current clutter requirements
  27 15:18:43 <clown> what does talking directly on the BUS mean? how does it by-pass atk? isn't atk just a set of interfaces?
  28 15:19:20 <API> clown, right now atk-bridge
  29 15:19:27 <API> uses atk
  30 15:19:28 <mgorse> clown: It's a set of interfaces, but we have atk-bridge that exposes a11y over d-bus via atk
  31 15:19:33 <API> atk objects and signals
  32 15:19:59 <Company> clown: yes, atk is just a set of interfaces - but it's not the interfaces that are used by at-spi, just a rough match
  33 15:20:03 <clown> so, we aren't talking about removing atk, but removing or replacing atk-bridge.
  34 15:20:29 <clown> or replacing atk interfaces with at-spi interfaces  (?)
  35 15:20:31 <API> clown, we aren't talking about removing or replacing atk-bridge
  36 15:20:34 <Company> clown: and the question remains: what's the purpose of ATK when what really matters is the dbus interface
  37 15:20:44 <API> just that this is and option still in consideration for gtk
  38 15:20:55 <Company> clown: also, qt doesn't use atk either
  39 15:21:14 <API> Company, but they have their own accessibility interfaces
  40 15:21:25 <API> not ATK, but sill, accessibility interfaces
  41 15:21:39 <Company> yes
  42 15:21:56 <clown> 'one interface to rule them all, one interface to bind them'  :-)
  43 15:22:10 * joanie laughs
  44 15:22:16 <Company> but the question is: why have an intermediate step with ATK?
  45 15:22:25 <Company> just to make mordor jokes? :p
  46 15:22:29 <jjmarin> :-)
  47 15:22:54 <API> Company, to avoid having a gtk-bridge, a clutter-bridge, a firefox-bridge, etc.
  48 15:23:08 <clown> the point behind the mordor joke was "we" need an interface.  There's ATK, there's AT-SPI, there's IA2, etc...
  49 15:23:13 <API> replace bridge for dbus calls if you want
  50 15:23:20 <Company> but we have that
  51 15:23:21 <clown> one common interface would be nice.
  52 15:23:28 <Company> we currently have a bridge to atk everywhere
  53 15:23:38 <Company> it's called gail
  54 15:23:42 <Company> or cally
  55 15:23:56 <clown> i thought you said qt doesn't use it.
  56 15:24:10 <Company> no, qt bridges to dbus directly
  57 15:24:36 <clown> but, if I want to call something to say, get the accessible name in a qt environment, what do I call?
  58 15:24:38 <API> Company, as far as I understood what I asked to frederik on the hackfest
  59 15:24:47 <API> they also have that accessibility interfaces
  60 15:25:05 <Company> yes
  61 15:25:13 <API> in that sense, they could write a qt-bridge based on CORBA and reusing they accessibility interface implementation
  62 15:25:18 <API> as GNOME did in the past
  63 15:25:25 <Company> there is a qt a11y abstraction
  64 15:25:37 <Company> interestingly, both webkit and mozilla have that, too
  65 15:26:04 <Company> and while the browsers chose to bridge that to atk, fregl chose to bridge qt's interfaces to dbus directly
  66 15:26:36 <frederik> hi
  67 15:27:01 <fregl> hm, I keep on losing my nick
  68 15:27:20 <API> Company, because after all, bridging to atk would mean that you wouldn't need to worry about DBUS, as this was managed by atk-bridge
  69 15:27:26 <API> is like webkitgtk folks decided
  70 15:27:39 <Company> yes, you have to worry about atk instead
  71 15:27:40 <API> that it would be easier to bridge to atk than write a new bridge
  72 15:27:54 <clown> API: are you worried that DBUS may someday go away?
  73 15:28:11 <API> decisions decisions, life is full of decisions ;)
  74 15:28:12 <clown> that would be a reason to have some intermediate layer.
  75 15:28:19 <API> clown, not really, that would be really unlikely
  76 15:28:29 <API> but yes is a reason to maintain the bridge
  77 15:28:47 <API> but it is not the only reason, IMHO
  78 15:28:59 <Company> ATK has all the benefits and drawbacks that abstraction layers tend to have
  79 15:29:07 <API> I still think that it is easier to implement ATK
  80 15:29:10 <API> Company, exactly
  81 15:29:18 <Company> they shield you from the pain of the underlying system
  82 15:29:25 <Company> but also from the benefits
  83 15:29:27 <API> I know that choosing one or the other can be tricky
  84 15:29:42 <API> but I still think that at this moment it would be easier and more efficient
  85 15:29:49 <API> to improve ATK and the bridge
  86 15:30:00 <API> to get what we lack right now
  87 15:30:13 <API> instead of do a new bridge
  88 15:30:22 <API> but as Im saying, just my opinion
  89 15:30:57 <API> anyway, I'm the evil entity in chair of this meeting
  90 15:31:05 <API> I think that this is not the place to go so deep
  91 15:31:14 <API> so unless someone want to add something else
  92 15:31:19 <API> I will go on with the meeting
  93 15:31:19 <Company> yeah, #a11y is open for these questions all week :)
  94 15:31:41 <API> I will take that as a "go on"
  95 15:31:50 <API> #topic 3.4 features update
  96 15:32:01 <API> clown, last week we didn't have meeting
  97 15:32:12 <API> so you can provide a summary of your features now
  98 15:32:18 <clown> so I didn't miss it afternall?
  99 15:32:25 <clown> "after all"
 100 15:32:26 <API> no, lack of people
 101 15:32:29 <clown> sure, API.
 102 15:32:47 <clown> this is in regards to 3.4 features...
 103 15:32:55 <clown> #info Zoom Options Dialog, launched from control centre's Universal Access Panel
 104 15:33:01 <clown> #info https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointThree/Features/ZoomOptionsDialog
 105 15:33:09 <clown> #info Merged into master as of 21 Jan 2012.
 106 15:33:15 <clown> #info https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643086#c46
 107 15:33:15 <tota11y> 04Bug 643086: normal, Normal, ---, control-center-maint, RESOLVED FIXED, Universal access:  add dialog for zoom options
 108 15:33:22 <clown> #info note: one minor change made by Bastien before committing:  he made the dialog modal.
 109 15:33:28 <clown> #info I'm not sure about that, but it's not enough of an issue to argue.
 110 15:33:34 <clown> #info Probably to be consistent with other control centre dialogs.
 111 15:33:52 <clown> #info Lightness inversion, brightness, and contrast effects
 112 15:34:01 <clown> #info https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointThree/Features/LightnessBrightnessContrastEffects
 113 15:34:26 <clown> #info Settled on new algorithm for brightness/contrast -- the one that GIMP uses (as earlier suggested by Neil).
 114 15:34:34 <clown> #info Have patched clutter-1.8 with the new code, and uploaded to bug (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=656156#c26)
 115 15:34:34 <tota11y> 04Bug 656156: enhancement, Normal, ---, clutter-maint, UNCONFIRMED, Add lightness, brightness, and contrast effects
 116 15:34:52 <clown> #info clutter-1.8 branch because that is what GNOME Shell jhbuild does, according to its wiki docs.
 117 15:35:03 <clown> #info Can compile and link with clutter master.
 118 15:35:24 <clown> #info Still need to test master branch version.
 119 15:35:31 <clown> #info but, ... ebassi has suggested using the new CoglSnippet API to implement all three effects.
 120 15:35:37 <clown> #info see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=656156#c24
 121 15:35:37 <tota11y> 04Bug 656156: enhancement, Normal, ---, clutter-maint, UNCONFIRMED, Add lightness, brightness, and contrast effects
 122 15:35:43 <clown> #info I will investigate this technique.
 123 15:36:02 <clown> #info and, I hope to have a new patch for master branch by tomorrow.
 124 15:36:07 <clown> #info Focus/caret tracking
 125 15:36:14 <clown> #info https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointThree/Features/FocusCaretTracking
 126 15:36:20 <clown> #info no progress due partly to other obligations (the above, my aria work).
 127 15:36:31 <clown> #info also, the IDRC (my employer) is reluctant to proceed without funding.
 128 15:36:43 <clown> #info I have suggested to exchange another magnifier feature for the focus work.
 129 15:36:51 <clown> #info for example, one of the features was to support multiple monitors.
 130 15:37:02 <clown> #info so: consider delaying multiple monitor support until after focus tracking (possibly need to clear this with AEGIS).
 131 15:37:26 <clown> #info will likely proceed to this work after finishing up the inversion, brightness, and contrast effects.
 132 15:37:31 * clown done (whew!)
 133 15:37:37 <API> whew :P
 134 15:37:42 <API> probably the longest summary
 135 15:37:51 <API> clown, do you plan to update the wiki, right?
 136 15:38:01 <clown> stretching the definition of "summary"...
 137 15:38:11 <clown> the 3.4 feature list, API?
 138 15:38:15 <API> yes
 139 15:38:20 <clown> I have made some mods since last week.
 140 15:38:38 <clown> I will update the colour effects after I get a new patch attached.
 141 15:38:43 <API> clown, ok, thanks
 142 15:38:48 <clown> no problem., API
 143 15:38:51 <API> so, joanie ?
 144 15:38:54 <API> about dots?
 145 15:39:17 <joanie> #info Joanie did much of the work on the Dots introspection (still in her sandbox). BUT has had to focus on Orca.
 146 15:39:34 <joanie> #info Joanie really and truly hopes to finish the introspection work soon and get a patch to Fer.
 147 15:39:36 <joanie> (done)
 148 15:39:44 <joanie> (and sorry for getting tied up with Orca)
 149 15:40:07 <API> ok, anyway, it would be good if you also update the wiki
 150 15:40:22 <API> clown, joanie and as it is about 3.4 features
 151 15:40:40 <API> it would be good to say something like "it will/it will not be ready for 3.4" or something
 152 15:41:38 <API> so as no other one here has any 3.4 feature in his plate I will move to  next topic
 153 15:41:40 <clown> gotcah
 154 15:41:47 * clown can't type.
 155 15:41:47 <API> #topic Q4's are due
 156 15:42:25 <API> #info Emily Chen sent the usual "GNOME teams needs to write what they did on Q4"
 157 15:42:25 <joanie> #info Your notes go here: https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2011/Q4
 158 15:42:37 <API> perfect timing ;)
 159 15:42:40 <joanie> #info Piñeiro and I will write up and submit the final report.
 160 15:42:43 <joanie> (done)
 161 15:42:44 <jjmarin> hehe
 162 15:42:46 <API> I think that this is easy
 163 15:42:50 <API> any questions or doubts?
 164 15:43:10 <clown> any link to the last one Q3?
 165 15:43:27 <joanie> https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/QuarterlyReports/2011/Q3
 166 15:43:30 <joanie> and....
 167 15:43:32 <clown> right.
 168 15:43:41 <joanie> https://live.gnome.org/GnomeMarketing/QuarterlyReports/2011/Q3
 169 15:43:50 <joanie> basically, it's always the same
 170 15:43:56 <joanie> just change the numbers
 171 15:44:48 <API> ok, no questions
 172 15:44:49 <API> lets move
 173 15:44:53 <API> #topic Marketing and Fundraising
 174 15:44:55 <API> jjmarin, ?
 175 15:45:20 <jjmarin> hi !
 176 15:46:09 <jjmarin> #info GNOME was submitted to the The Computerworld Honors Program with special remark about accessibility
 177 15:46:51 <jjmarin> #info the Friend of GNOME progress bar has been put in www.gnome.org
 178 15:47:30 <jjmarin> #info By now we have US$ 4263
 179 15:48:32 <jjmarin> #info A piece of news about the a11y hackfest is in the GNOME news queue
 180 15:48:40 <jjmarin> and I think is all
 181 15:48:59 <API> ok thanks
 182 15:49:17 <API> anyone has some questions or doubts about marketing?
 183 15:49:48 <jjmarin> I want to push to put the progress bar in pgo and friend of gnome, but with many people in FOSDEM will be difficult
 184 15:51:44 <API> ok, thanks
 185 15:51:49 <jjmarin> I think we can move on :-)
 186 15:51:54 <API> taking into account that there are no more questions
 187 15:51:55 <API> yes
 188 15:52:00 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
 189 15:52:05 <API> I will start
 190 15:52:16 <API> #info API will go this weekend to FOSDEM
 191 15:52:39 <API> #info he will have a talk about accessibility
 192 15:52:41 <API> done
 193 15:56:28 * jjmarin realises that keyboard navigation of gnome-shell is not quite good
 194 15:56:49 <jjmarin> do you know if there is any action to improve this ?
 195 15:57:10 <API> to improve what specifically?
 196 15:57:17 <API> why do you say that it is  not quite good?
 197 15:57:31 <API> in my case, I don't like too much
 198 15:57:44 <API> need to press up and down to move to the left and right on the overview
 199 15:57:57 <API> but it is just about taste
 200 15:58:12 <API> did you find something more else¿
 201 15:58:46 <clown> can one use accerciser to test keyboard a11y support?
 202 15:59:19 <clown> if so, could one use it to evaluate gnome-shell?
 203 15:59:31 <API> clown, well, you can start to use keyboard, and see if accerciser is receiving any event
 204 15:59:40 <API> but again, jjmarin
 205 15:59:54 <API> why do you say that gnome-shell key nab is not good¿
 206 15:59:56 <API> ?
 207 16:00:14 <jjmarin> For example I don't understand why I can't use they key when I go to the apps view and start using the keyboard directly. I have to access the app using the accessibilty switch to start using the keyboard
 208 16:00:55 <API> jjmarin, because default view is search vie
 209 16:00:59 <API> if you press alt+f1
 210 16:01:08 <API> the one that receive the focus is the search entry
 211 16:01:33 <API> so this is not a problem about key nav
 212 16:01:46 <API> it is just that seems that you would prefer a different default view
 213 16:02:01 <API> if you do alt+f1
 214 16:02:01 <fer> joanie, great! If you need some help with it or finishing I can spend some time with it!
 215 16:02:07 <API> entry gets the focus
 216 16:02:09 <fer> (sorry for the delay)
 217 16:02:12 <API> so you can enter text
 218 16:02:20 <API> if you enter text a search starts
 219 16:02:29 <API> and you can use up+down to move on the search
 220 16:02:54 <API> in the same way
 221 16:03:01 <API> a mouse user
 222 16:03:12 <API> needs to use the mouse to click on applications to go to that view
 223 16:03:23 <jjmarin> I think If I go to the apps view if because I want to use the categories. I can use the search from the windows view
 224 16:03:28 <mgorse> Okay; I need to leave. Back later.
 225 16:03:52 <API> jjmarin, but as I said
 226 16:03:58 <API> if a mouse user want to do that
 227 16:04:05 <API> he also needs to use several clicks
 228 16:04:17 <API> key nav allow to do that
 229 16:04:21 <API> so again, why it is wrong?
 230 16:04:51 <API> anyway, we are out of time
 231 16:04:58 <API> and this discussion is too disperse for that
 232 16:05:03 <API> so resuming at #a11y
 233 16:05:05 <jjmarin> yes
 234 16:05:06 <API> and closing the meeting
 235 16:05:10 <API> #endmeeting