1 16:06:12 <API> #startmeeting
   2 16:06:12 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Nov  8 16:06:12 2012 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 16:06:12 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:06:32 <API> #topic FoG update
   5 16:06:36 <API> joanie, ?
   6 16:06:41 <joanie> hey
   7 16:06:44 * joanie infos
   8 16:07:00 <joanie> #info Joanie pinged Bastien about the proposals but got no reply.
   9 16:07:22 <joanie> #info Joanie pinged Karen to see if she would resume this task and she said she would share it with Bastien.
  10 16:07:32 <joanie> #info Joanie forwarded the original proposals to the Board list.
  11 16:08:08 <joanie> #info Karen initially responded, stating that we'd discuss these proposals on the Board list and/or the upcoming meeting.
  12 16:08:17 <joanie> so slooooooooow progress
  13 16:08:18 <joanie> questions?
  14 16:09:01 <jjmarin> maybe next week :-)
  15 16:09:15 <joanie> next week?
  16 16:09:41 <jjmarin> I guess there will be more infor for questions
  17 16:09:54 <joanie> perhaps; perhaps not
  18 16:10:01 <joanie> we meet every two weeks
  19 16:10:09 <joanie> due to Sandy we got off by a week
  20 16:10:13 <joanie> our last meeting was Tuesday
  21 16:10:13 <API> tuesdays?
  22 16:10:17 <joanie> yup
  23 16:10:32 <joanie> hopefully there will be some list discussion
  24 16:10:46 <joanie> but my money (so to speak) is on it being an agenda item
  25 16:10:51 <clown> so, Tue Nov 20 is the next meeting?
  26 16:10:55 <joanie> yes
  27 16:10:59 <clown> gotcha
  28 16:12:07 <jjmarin> so then, presumably there won't be any update till that date :-/
  29 16:13:09 <API> jjmarin, I think so
  30 16:13:15 <API> so more questions, doubts?
  31 16:13:16 <API> moving?
  32 16:14:55 <joanie> sitting still?
  33 16:14:58 <API> nobody asking so miving
  34 16:15:00 <API> moving too
  35 16:15:01 <clown> twiddling thumbs.
  36 16:15:11 <API> GNOME 3.6.2 and/or 3.8 updates
  37 16:15:13 <API> ups
  38 16:15:16 <clown> (actually reading email — oh the guilt)
  39 16:15:19 <API> #topic GNOME 3.6.2 and/or 3.8 updates
  40 16:15:33 * joanie cheers for Python 3
  41 16:15:48 <API> #info Finally dash support on orca was accepted, and included both on master and gnome-3-6 branch
  42 16:16:04 <API> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=686583
  43 16:16:04 <tota11y> 04Bug 686583: normal, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, RESOLVED FIXED, Regression: Dash item labels fail to report accessible names
  44 16:16:19 <API> #info if nothing strange happens it will be available on 3.6.2 next week
  45 16:16:35 <jjmarin> API: well done !
  46 16:17:00 <clown> does "Dash" == "Dasher"?
  47 16:17:12 <clown> or, what's Dash?
  48 16:17:18 <API> #info finally I agreed with Rui Matos and Daiku to have a 3.6.2 release with the most critical stuff
  49 16:17:26 <jjmarin> clown: dash is the gnome 3 dock
  50 16:17:27 <API> clown, the dash is this column at the left
  51 16:17:29 <API> at the overview
  52 16:17:39 <clown> API, I"m on a Mac :-)
  53 16:17:46 <API> some people call it the "Favourites"
  54 16:17:54 <clown> But, I know what you mean.
  55 16:17:58 <clown> coolness...
  56 16:18:15 <API> joanie, for minutes sake
  57 16:18:29 <API> s/Daiku/Daiki Ueno
  58 16:18:40 <API> and done
  59 16:18:40 <joanie> k
  60 16:18:42 <API> next?
  61 16:18:50 <clown> I have a 2 things...
  62 16:19:30 <clown> #info Joseph explored the re-entrancy problem in gnome-shell and the JavaScript focus tracker.
  63 16:19:50 <clown> #info he discovered a couple of other reasons that do not solve the problem.
  64 16:20:11 <clown> #info He will summarize these findings in the relevant bugzilla
  65 16:20:18 * clown looks up the bugzilla...
  66 16:20:59 <clown> #info https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=681276
  67 16:20:59 <tota11y> 04Bug 681276: normal, Normal, ---, liyuan, UNCONFIRMED, Reentrancy problems on gnome-shell.
  68 16:21:22 <clown> that was the first one.  questions before I go on?
  69 16:21:54 <joanie> I don't get your statement
  70 16:22:01 <joanie> he discovered a couple of other reasons that do not solve the problem.
  71 16:22:15 <clown> okay, let me clarify that.
  72 16:23:05 <clown> background:  the problem occurs for any method call on the accessible in the event object.  E.g., accessible.get_name() causes the problem.
  73 16:23:43 <clown> I thought that if I these methods were called in a deferred way, that might solve the problem.
  74 16:24:22 <clown> I tried both an timeout_add() and and idle_add() on the main loop.
  75 16:24:30 <clown> that did not solve the problem.
  76 16:25:03 <clown> in a sense, I know where the problem does *not* lie.  Not as good as knowing where the problem does lie...
  77 16:25:14 <joanie> aha
  78 16:25:15 <clown> does that make things clearer?
  79 16:25:16 <joanie> gotcha
  80 16:25:19 <joanie> a bunch
  81 16:25:20 <joanie> thanks!
  82 16:25:32 <clown> you're welcome!
  83 16:25:45 <API> well, in that case more that "discovered reasons" is more like "discarded hypothetical solutions"
  84 16:25:47 <API> right?
  85 16:25:58 <API> or discarded reasons
  86 16:26:03 <clown> right
  87 16:26:27 <clown> should I re-info that?
  88 16:26:40 <joanie> sure
  89 16:27:37 <clown> #info Joseph discounted hypothetical solutions to the problem by trying to execute the functions in a deferred (asynchronous) way using the main loop.
  90 16:27:52 * clown really tried to use as much jargon as possible...
  91 16:28:06 <joanie> :)
  92 16:28:24 <clown> any other questions on this issue?
  93 16:28:49 * jjmarin brainstorms this thought: AFAIK the notification API is going to be redesigned. I think it good idea to be around to be sure that this new API produce accessible notification
  94 16:29:14 <jjmarin> sorry clown
  95 16:29:25 <clown> no problem jjmarin.
  96 16:29:34 <jjmarin> I only read other questions :-)
  97 16:29:35 <clown> shall I go onto my second 3.6 related topic?
  98 16:29:35 * API propose to talk about that notification thing at misc time
  99 16:29:42 <API> clown, go on please
 100 16:29:53 <clown> Okay, more background:
 101 16:30:17 <clown> I was setting up a demo machine to show off the latest magnifier functions, and the interim focus tracking.
 102 16:30:48 <clown> the focus tracking was only partially working — it worked fine for GNOME Shell widgets, and I believe with gedit.
 103 16:31:03 <clown> But, when I tried FF or LibreOffice, nothing was tracked.
 104 16:31:29 <clown> I went on to make sure that Orca was installed and working — I launched it and tried a few things.
 105 16:31:43 <clown> Then I quit Orca, and went back to looking at the focus tracker.
 106 16:31:58 <clown> Suddenly everything was working fine in that regard.
 107 16:32:05 <joanie> what version of gnome?
 108 16:32:25 <clown> It *looks* like Orca does some extra setup of accessibility?  Is that possible?
 109 16:32:32 <joanie> not setup
 110 16:32:38 <joanie> it checks if it is enabled
 111 16:32:41 <joanie> and if not, it enables it
 112 16:32:43 <clown> re:  Gnome version — I think it was 3.6.5
 113 16:32:51 <joanie> there is no 3.6.5
 114 16:32:57 <clown> I'd have to go get the demo machine and fire it up.
 115 16:33:06 <clown> 3.6.3?
 116 16:33:25 <clown> it was a F18 alpha with all the latest updates as of last Fri.
 117 16:33:33 <joanie> 3.6.1
 118 16:34:02 <joanie> perhaps accessibility always on isn't always on for Gecko or VCL
 119 16:34:05 <joanie> is my guess
 120 16:34:39 <API> yeah probably they didn't update that yet, and they are still using gnome2 procedures
 121 16:35:05 <API> I didn't take a look to the last stuff they have
 122 16:35:25 <API> anyway, if orca is running
 123 16:35:29 <API> and after that you run ff
 124 16:35:33 <API> that should work
 125 16:35:36 <API> in that senes
 126 16:35:44 <API> clown, when you made that focus tracking test
 127 16:35:44 <clown> no, API, the sequence was:
 128 16:35:50 <API> you were trying it with orca?
 129 16:35:56 <joanie> clown: Orca doesn't turn OFF a11y
 130 16:36:10 <API> in the sense of discard if were working with orca but not with the focus tracking?
 131 16:36:20 <clown> 1. launch focus tracker.  2. launch FF, 3. launch Orca, 4. quit Orca.  Focus tracker works in FF.
 132 16:36:32 <joanie> 16:35:55 <@joanie> clown: Orca doesn't turn OFF a11y
 133 16:36:44 <joanie> It does turn it on if it's not already on
 134 16:37:02 <API> clown, and what happened at 3.5?
 135 16:37:13 <API> without quitting orca focus tracking was working or not?
 136 16:37:58 <clown> API, to the best of my recollection, it always worked.  But, I was really looking that closely at it then.
 137 16:38:31 <clown> btw, I went the machine.  it is 3.6.1
 138 16:39:02 <clown> joanie, re:  it does turn it on if it's not already on.  Well, before launching orca, there was some focus tracking.
 139 16:39:12 <joanie> in gtk
 140 16:39:16 <mgorse> Ideally, Firefox and LibreOffice should handle a11y similarly to gtk (ie, have it always enabled and create accessibles lazily), so maybe it's worth filing bugs against them. For the time being, the caret focus tracker could enable the a11y setting if it isn't already enabled, to work around it
 141 16:39:19 <joanie> because a11y is always on
 142 16:39:31 <clown> Ah, I get it now.
 143 16:39:38 <clown> thanks mgorse and joanie
 144 16:39:54 <joanie> gnome-shell should also be fine
 145 16:40:06 <clown> yes, joanie gs was fine.
 146 16:40:14 <API> joanie, gnome-shell already made the move to use the last changes on a11y initialization
 147 16:40:23 <joanie> i know
 148 16:40:26 <joanie> this is why it should be fine
 149 16:40:28 <joanie> ;)
 150 16:40:30 <API> as I said not sure if ff did that
 151 16:40:31 <joanie> it's the outsiders
 152 16:40:41 <API> anyway, clown could you send a mail to the list
 153 16:40:49 <API> probably with the last version of your focus tracking
 154 16:40:55 <API> so anyone could test a little
 155 16:41:10 <clown> so, another test would be, say, epiphany?  (is that the name of the insider web browser?)
 156 16:41:12 <API> hopefully someone like alexander surkov
 157 16:41:17 <API> or trevor would be listening
 158 16:41:32 <API> clown, yes it would a good thing to test epiphany too
 159 16:41:57 <clown> API,  that's a good start (an email to the list).  Which list?  a11y-devel?
 160 16:42:05 <API> clown, yep
 161 16:42:14 <clown> okay.
 162 16:42:31 <API> clown, anything else?
 163 16:42:34 <clown> that's all my "updates" with respect to 3.6/3.8.
 164 16:43:01 <API> ok, thanks
 165 16:43:07 * joanie has hers pretyped
 166 16:43:12 <API> so anyone else wants to add any update ?
 167 16:43:20 <joanie> #info An ugly Gtk+ crasher was found by a user and is now fixed by Cosimo (yay!) Should be included in GNOME 3.6.2. (See bug 687872.)
 168 16:43:21 <tota11y> 04Bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687872 major, Normal, ---, gtk-bugs, RESOLVED FIXED, Segfault when attempting to get character extents for GtkTextCellAccessible objects
 169 16:43:23 <joanie> #info Joanie did a small-but-big performance improvement for Orca's flat review which will be included in GNOME 3.6.2.
 170 16:43:26 <joanie> #info Python 3 has been approved GNOME 3.8.
 171 16:43:29 <joanie> #info Orca's been ready since before the 3.6 release, though I'm still finding and fixing the occasional bug.
 172 16:43:31 <joanie> #info Speech-dispatcher and liblouis seem to be ready to go.
 173 16:43:34 <joanie> #info BrlApi is still being tested by Joanie. She submitted a tiny patch to the BrlTTY folks and is testing and bug fixing in Orca.
 174 16:44:09 <joanie> jhernandez: when will you have your Python 3 work done?
 175 16:44:49 <joanie> (it would also be worth testing in 3.3 as I am finding issues which were not present in 3.2)
 176 16:44:55 <jhernandez> joanie: ASAP
 177 16:45:22 <jhernandez> I was waiting for the acceptation as an official Goal
 178 16:45:56 <joanie> jhernandez: many of the patches are python 2 safe
 179 16:45:57 <jhernandez> it's on top of my accerciser's TODO list
 180 16:46:04 <joanie> and clearly marked as such if memory serves me
 181 16:46:58 <jhernandez> great!
 182 16:48:13 <API> ok, someone else?
 183 16:48:58 <API> ok, lets move
 184 16:49:10 <API> #topic Closer ties with standards-writing groups (e.g. W3C)
 185 16:49:12 <API> joanie?
 186 16:49:27 <joanie> ok, she says looking at clown ;)
 187 16:49:34 <joanie> so I've been thinking....
 188 16:49:39 <clown> and what does she see?
 189 16:49:40 * joanie infos
 190 16:49:45 <joanie> (a red nose)
 191 16:49:52 <clown> lol
 192 16:50:00 * clown doesn't drink that much.
 193 16:50:30 <joanie> #info Joanie has been thinking for a while now that it would be good if the standard-definers/writers and the standard-implementors interacted more so that they each knew what the other was doing.
 194 16:51:02 <joanie> #info Joanie (and other developers here) lacks the time to be "members in good standing" in W3C groups.
 195 16:51:19 <joanie> #info Joanie would like to find some other way to coordinate better and share information.
 196 16:51:29 <joanie> #info Joanie notes that Joseph is here each week. ;)
 197 16:51:48 <joanie> #info and he serves on several(?) W3C groups.
 198 16:51:57 <clown> two
 199 16:52:06 <jjmarin> wow
 200 16:52:18 <joanie> So I'm wondering if perhaps like the weekly marketing updates, we have weekly W3C updates
 201 16:52:30 <joanie> that would "force" (air quotes) us to talk each week about this stuff
 202 16:52:37 <joanie> so that we keep each other in the loop
 203 16:53:39 <clown> I think the idea of the standards groups working with implementors is a great idea.
 204 16:53:51 <joanie> (yay)
 205 16:54:51 <clown> I know that recently working with mozilla (Alex and David) regarding ARIA has resulted in some surprises.
 206 16:55:07 <clown> And the main complaint is that the W3C is not transparent enough.
 207 16:55:30 <API> clown, so some info to include today, or you are still recovering from the surprise?
 208 16:55:36 <clown> note that David is a member of the ARIA group as ell.
 209 16:55:39 <clown> "well".
 210 16:56:05 <jjmarin> Does he surprise himself ? :-)
 211 16:56:07 <clown> API, I'm just not sure what to report on.
 212 16:56:18 <clown> jjmarin, every time he looks in a mirror.
 213 16:56:27 <jjmarin> :-)
 214 16:56:39 <joanie> report on each week you mean?
 215 16:56:39 <clown> let's try this...
 216 16:56:55 <jjmarin> clown: In which groups are you ?
 217 16:56:55 <API> well, as joanie said, some kind of short note about what happened on last meeting
 218 16:57:09 <clown> no joanie.  API was suggesting "some info to include today".
 219 16:57:18 <joanie> aha
 220 16:57:20 <clown> okay, here. goes.
 221 16:57:59 <clown> #info the last ARIA meeting involved a group (of about 4 participants) working through the set of test cases.
 222 16:58:23 <clown> #info the point was to determine if the test cases were valid, fix them if there were not, and execute the test.
 223 16:59:15 <clown> #info "execute the test" means loading the test file into a browser, and running an accessibility inspector to see if the predicted result matched the actual a11y tree.
 224 16:59:42 <clown> #info browers include FF, IE, Chrome, and Safari.
 225 17:00:07 <clown> #info (detail) Josepoh is concentrating testing FF on GNOME. (AT-SPI).
 226 17:00:20 <clown> s/Josepoh/Joseph.
 227 17:00:29 <clown> s/Josepoh/Joseph/
 228 17:00:53 * API wonders if would make sense to propose to include epiphany on the tests ...
 229 17:01:15 <joanie> latest unstable as well since API and I are hacking on it
 230 17:01:36 <joanie> we could see what's missing in the implementation
 231 17:01:39 <API> I also wonder what kind of tests
 232 17:01:47 <API> that test file is an html file I guess
 233 17:02:08 <clown> makes sense, but we need a tester (and I would have to lobby for that person to have access to the test cases).
 234 17:02:30 <clown> API, here is the structure:
 235 17:02:46 <joanie> which gets back to my belief that there is a wall between those determining standards and those implementing them
 236 17:02:47 <clown> A test case includes a testable statement, and expected result, and a test file.
 237 17:03:14 <clown> the test file is html, and is representative of the testable statement.
 238 17:04:58 <API> well it is similar to what webkit have
 239 17:05:04 <clown> You get around the wall partially by joining the W3C.  So, businesses (IBM, Apple, Google), and Universities and other stake holders send representatives.
 240 17:05:06 <API> webkit has thousands of tests
 241 17:06:43 <clown> I wonder how many "GNOME" people have joined the W3C.
 242 17:07:05 <clown> they do constitute a stake holder.
 243 17:07:17 <API> clown, well most businesses related to GNOME are small companies, except Red Hat
 244 17:07:35 <clown> API, you don't have to be a business.
 245 17:08:44 <clown> actually, Janina is a member.
 246 17:09:00 <joanie> I think I'll raise this with the Board
 247 17:09:16 <joanie> #action Joanie will talk to the Board about GNOME joining the W3C
 248 17:09:22 <clown> Janina is somehow associated with GNOME.
 249 17:09:30 <joanie> really??
 250 17:09:42 <clown> yes, but I'm not sure how.
 251 17:09:54 * joanie grins
 252 17:09:58 <clown> her email is 'rednote.net'.  Is that clue?
 253 17:10:19 <joanie> I love fedora but fedora ain't gnome if that is your point
 254 17:10:45 <joanie> anyway, my action item still stands
 255 17:10:46 <clown> turns out rednote.net is her own web site.
 256 17:11:06 <joanie> anyway, deep dive
 257 17:11:16 <clown> no, I had no point about fedora.
 258 17:11:18 <joanie> clown: so you are cool with a weekly agenda item?
 259 17:11:30 <clown> sure.
 260 17:11:30 <joanie> so test access or not, we can stay in the loop?
 261 17:11:35 <joanie> thanks!
 262 17:12:02 <clown> is what I info'ed above the right kind of detail?
 263 17:12:09 <joanie> yup
 264 17:12:15 <joanie> depending on the topic
 265 17:12:39 <joanie> if there are specific ARIA things worth looking at (e.g. in WebKitGtk) I'd love to know what they are
 266 17:12:43 <joanie> if that is not super-secret
 267 17:12:57 <joanie> pending my getting GNOME as a member (assuming I can)
 268 17:13:44 <clown> okay.
 269 17:13:46 <joanie> otherwise, there will just be more suprises and/or standards that are not implemented
 270 17:14:10 <clown> for the record:
 271 17:14:29 <joanie> and no feedback about alternatives (i.e. personally, I think there are many things about the Gecko a11y implementation that are not ideal)
 272 17:14:30 <clown> a W3C standard is not declared a standard until it can show it has at least two implementations.
 273 17:14:39 <joanie> right
 274 17:14:49 <joanie> and then it becomes a standard
 275 17:14:55 <joanie> and then officially it trickles down to us
 276 17:15:02 <joanie> and then we say "wtf, why??"
 277 17:15:08 <clown> and, that's what the current testing effort is about — showing that ARIA has at least two implementations in browsers.
 278 17:15:11 <joanie> and by then it's too late
 279 17:15:19 <jjmarin> I guess marketing team  would love to know that GNOME join W3C :-)
 280 17:15:28 <joanie> we haven't joined yet
 281 17:15:41 <jjmarin> just in case I mean
 282 17:15:54 <joanie> if we join, Karen will no doubt tell the marketing team
 283 17:16:01 <jjmarin> sure
 284 17:16:06 <clown> another tidbit of into, for those who don't know.  W3C works by consensus.
 285 17:16:31 <joanie> of the invited
 286 17:16:55 <API> so ... taking into account that we all agreed here, and we are over time ... moving to next topic?
 287 17:17:03 * joanie nods
 288 17:17:16 <API> so moving
 289 17:17:27 <API> #topic Marketing
 290 17:17:29 <API> jjmarin, ?
 291 17:19:41 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo has started a thread in the gnome accessibility mailing list to discuss about how to update the accessibility information from the GNOME web pages. https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-accessibility-list/2012-November/msg00003.html
 292 17:20:04 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo will write an article for the GNOME annual 2011 about the FoG Accessibility Campaign
 293 17:20:07 <jjmarin> done !
 294 17:20:16 <jjmarin> questions ?
 295 17:21:25 <clown> jjmarin, did you see Jan's reply regading the documentation I wrote on the zoom options control center?
 296 17:22:01 <jjmarin> I´ve got the time to read the email yet
 297 17:22:44 <clown> okay.  my question was: is this along the lines of what you are looking for?
 298 17:22:55 <clown> let me know when you've had a chance to read it.
 299 17:23:38 <jjmarin> no, it wasn´t. I guess we can include a section about the zoom options in the User Guide
 300 17:24:16 <clown> okay
 301 17:24:41 <API> so moving?
 302 17:25:18 <API> #topic Reminder: Q3's
 303 17:25:20 <API> this is easy
 304 17:25:35 <API> #info please update your Q3 report with your information
 305 17:25:36 <API> thanks
 306 17:25:44 <API> #topic misc time
 307 17:25:52 * API rushing as we are 25 over time
 308 17:25:58 <API> something to add not scheduled?
 309 17:26:00 <clown> regarding Janina's affiliation:  it's not GNOME.  It's the Linux Foundation.  (Slightly broader, I suppose).
 310 17:26:05 <clown> she lists herself as "Chair, Accessibility Workgroup, Free Standards Group", but the link goes to:
 311 17:26:11 <clown> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/accessibility
 312 17:26:13 <clown> (done).
 313 17:28:54 <clown> didn't jjmarin have a brainstorm earlier?
 314 17:28:57 <clown> ah, he left...
 315 17:29:05 <clown> never mind :-)
 316 17:29:20 * joanie pokes API
 317 17:29:30 <API> as nobody else added anything
 318 17:29:37 <API> it is a good moment to close the meeting
 319 17:29:40 <API> thanks everybody
 320 17:29:44 <clown> thanks API
 321 17:30:15 <API> sorry if someone of you have a bad surprise on these 30 minutes extra
 322 17:30:17 <API> was not planned :P
 323 17:30:19 <API> #endmeeting