1 16:06:44 <API> #startmeeting
   2 16:06:44 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Jan 31 16:06:44 2013 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 16:06:44 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:06:59 <API> #topic GtkOverlay, GtkLevelBar, and egg-list-box
   5 16:07:20 <API> #info Matthias Clasen has pinged recently about some new gtk widgets GtkOverlay and GtkLevelBar
   6 16:07:41 <API> #info their accessibility status is unknown at the moment
   7 16:08:00 <API> #info for GtkOverlay Gtk includes a demo, he was not sure about GtkLevelBar
   8 16:08:27 <API> #info he asked if a11y team could made a review, at least a quick "this is not working/this is working" review
   9 16:08:53 <API> #info he also pointed a bug related to the lack of accessibility for egg-list-box, that seems that it is used on some modules
  10 16:09:12 <API> #info on the bug is also pointed that egg-list-box is just a subclass of a gtkwidget with proper a11y support
  11 16:09:17 <API> (done)
  12 16:09:25 <API> joanie, did I forget something?
  13 16:09:44 <joanie> #action Joanie will finish setting up her jhbuild environment and test those new widgets.
  14 16:09:50 <joanie> I don't believe so
  15 16:09:53 <mgorse> I made a patch a while ago for GtkLevelBar, mostly to add AtkValue support, but I think we need a new role (I have an unreviewed patch on bug 651343 to add one)
  16 16:09:53 <tota11y> 04Bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651343 enhancement, Normal, ---, jdiggs, REOPENED, New ATK Roles
  17 16:10:20 * joanie looks at the patch
  18 16:10:41 <joanie> makes sense to me
  19 16:10:43 <joanie> API?
  20 16:10:56 <API> joanie, I¡m opening that bug
  21 16:10:57 <API> a mon pelase
  22 16:11:00 <API> *please
  23 16:11:16 <mgorse> although I haven't tested my patch outside of writing an AtkValue test in gtk, so it could use testing anyhow
  24 16:11:28 <API> hmm, I missed that bug
  25 16:11:38 <API> not sure if it was because it was a reopened instead a new one
  26 16:11:55 <API> anyway, and about the question of a new role or using a new one
  27 16:12:02 <mgorse> oh; I'd kind of forgotten about it. I should have just pinged you
  28 16:12:07 <API> why info_bar doesn't fit here?
  29 16:12:14 <joanie> because it's not an info bar
  30 16:12:15 <joanie> ;)
  31 16:12:27 <API> well info_bar description is really general
  32 16:12:28 <API> imho
  33 16:12:29 <joanie> an info bar are those things like "do you want to remember your password"
  34 16:12:45 <API> and what shows level bar?
  35 16:12:48 <joanie> and I believe there is even a GtkInfoBar
  36 16:12:49 <API> I thought that was somethign like
  37 16:12:56 <joanie> password is weak
  38 16:12:58 <joanie> ok
  39 16:12:58 <joanie> strong
  40 16:12:59 <API> "your password is crap" or something
  41 16:13:03 <joanie> yeah
  42 16:13:12 <joanie> but it's an AtkValue representation
  43 16:13:18 <API> isn't that an info?
  44 16:13:21 <API> ah, ok
  45 16:13:21 <joanie> not a mere text notification
  46 16:13:24 <API> it is not a message
  47 16:13:31 <API> but those bar with colors and stuff
  48 16:13:32 <joanie> any more than a progress bar is a message
  49 16:13:50 <joanie> it's a value along a continuum
  50 16:13:58 <API> ok, sorry, I didn't check any app using it
  51 16:14:15 <API> I thought that it included text with that message
  52 16:14:20 <joanie> it might
  53 16:14:28 <joanie> but that doesn't make it an info bar
  54 16:14:38 <joanie> that means atk value needs to support non numeric stuff ;)
  55 16:14:41 <joanie> like a description
  56 16:14:44 <joanie> for which I think we have a bug
  57 16:14:48 <joanie> but that's a deep dive
  58 16:15:11 <joanie> i'm in favor of adding the new role to atk
  59 16:15:15 <API> well, /me just wondering if it make sense to have so many _BAR roles
  60 16:15:17 <joanie> then to at-spi2
  61 16:15:19 <joanie> and then Orca
  62 16:15:26 <API> but if it adds value, I'm ok with adding that new role
  63 16:15:35 <joanie> pun intended? :)
  64 16:15:46 <API> hmm no
  65 16:15:51 <mgorse> I think atk does support non-numeric values in theory, since it returns a gvalue, but AT-SPI assumes that it will be a number
  66 16:15:52 <joanie> :)
  67 16:15:53 <API> if that was a pun, was a really bad pun
  68 16:16:07 <joanie> (It was a good pun)
  69 16:16:17 <API> mgorse, yes in theory on atkvalue you could add whatever you want
  70 16:16:32 <API> but as you say at-spi is waiting for a number
  71 16:16:36 <joanie> but having a number one can reliably get is nice too
  72 16:16:49 <joanie> I'd rather see a description
  73 16:17:23 <joanie> anyhoo, API action to review the patch and mgorse to commit it and make corresponding changes in AT-SPI2?
  74 16:17:29 <mgorse> Okay; I'll plan on committing that patch then, and adding to AT-SPI2. Would be good to get it in before 3.7.5
  75 16:17:39 <mgorse> oh
  76 16:17:50 <API> well, I have just set the patch to accepted
  77 16:17:55 <joanie> yay
  78 16:17:59 <API> so in any case
  79 16:18:08 <mgorse> #action mgorse will commit a patch to add ATK_ROLE_LEVEL_BAR and make a similar patch for AT-SPI2
  80 16:18:18 <API> mgorse, ok thanks
  81 16:18:23 <API> something else in this point?
  82 16:18:26 <joanie> #action Joanie will add that support into Orca.
  83 16:18:53 <mgorse> Hmm. Anyone know if gtk3-demo has a levelbar?
  84 16:18:55 <joanie> (nothing else from me)
  85 16:19:06 <API> mgorse, I asked the same to mclasen yesterday
  86 16:19:09 <API> he was not sure
  87 16:19:21 <joanie> I'm jhbuilding now
  88 16:19:26 <joanie> but I have a ways to go
  89 16:19:43 <API> ok
  90 16:19:49 <joanie> the color choose might be
  91 16:20:03 <API> mgorse, and as I say, he thought that gtkoverlay has a demo
  92 16:20:04 <joanie> s/choose/chooser/
  93 16:20:13 <API> so seems that it has a specific demo for it
  94 16:20:14 <joanie> so one more thing on this point
  95 16:20:38 * API waiting before move
  96 16:20:40 <joanie> #info At some point, we should make time to be sure for every accessible widget, there is a Gtk3 demo for it.
  97 16:20:43 <joanie> (done)
  98 16:21:22 <API> a king of general gtk3-demo review?
  99 16:21:27 <joanie> yeah
 100 16:21:34 <API> ok. makes sense
 101 16:21:40 <joanie> because if the Gtk devs get into that habit
 102 16:21:40 <API> anyway, moving
 103 16:21:41 <jjmarin> +1
 104 16:21:45 <joanie> and we get into that habit
 105 16:21:53 <joanie> we'll all be on top of this
 106 16:22:12 <API> #topic Clutter-GTK
 107 16:22:23 <API> #info mclasen also asked about the clutter-gtk situation
 108 16:22:34 <API> #info API was busy by other different tasks these days
 109 16:22:51 <API> #info joanie asked him a list of apps using it, and it seems that it is far longer that we expected
 110 16:23:01 * joanie frowns
 111 16:23:30 <API> #action API will try to look to clutter-gtk, probably it is a good moment for another "FOSDEM-effect", using the most of airports and that stuff
 112 16:23:38 <API> questions, doubts?
 113 16:23:41 * jjmarin has notice a Clutter + a11y integration item in the Developer Experience Hackfest https://live.gnome.org/DeveloperExperience/Hackfest2013/Toolkit Is this related ?
 114 16:24:00 <jjmarin> s/notice/noticed/
 115 16:24:19 * API looking
 116 16:24:30 <API> well, related in the sense of "related with clutter"
 117 16:24:43 <API> but on the comments they are talking of GtkClutterActor
 118 16:25:02 <API> one of the problems with clutter-gtk
 119 16:25:07 <API> is that is was already decided his dead
 120 16:25:22 <API> eventually gtk will start to use clutter in order to "do fancy stuff"
 121 16:25:28 <API> making clutter-gtk obsolete
 122 16:25:33 <joanie> and even though it was declared dead, more apps keep using it
 123 16:25:37 <API> GtkClutterActor, AFAIK, is the effort
 124 16:25:44 <API> in their first steps, to do that integration
 125 16:25:59 <API> joanie, well Company was really assertive about that
 126 16:26:13 <API> he thinks that clutter-gtk should be declared totally dead
 127 16:26:13 <joanie> I know. And Matthias then suggested otherwise
 128 16:26:18 <API> and focus on the integration
 129 16:26:34 <joanie> so we need them to make up their minds
 130 16:26:36 <API> well, you know that Company usually forgets the short and medium term ;)
 131 16:26:44 <joanie> heh
 132 16:26:46 <jjmarin> :-)
 133 16:26:46 <API> the fact is that in the short term
 134 16:26:50 <API> clutter-gtk will be there
 135 16:27:18 <API> so any other question, comment on this point?
 136 16:27:33 <jjmarin> I hope you can find the time in FOSDEM to talk about this with our collegues :-)
 137 16:27:49 <joanie> :)
 138 16:27:51 <API> well, afaik, benjamin will not be there
 139 16:27:57 <API> the same with mclasen
 140 16:28:11 <API> although a kind of release team meeting is planned
 141 16:28:24 <API> anyway, I can mention this stuff on misc time
 142 16:28:27 <API> so ... moving
 143 16:28:36 <API> #topic Other GNOME 3.8 updates
 144 16:28:56 <API> #info mclasen sent a recent mail to desktop-devel-list
 145 16:28:58 <API> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2013-January/msg00033.html
 146 16:29:20 <API> #info it is basically a, in just three weeks stuff will start to be declared frozen
 147 16:29:38 <API> #info it would be good to review the status of everything new and features
 148 16:30:10 <API> #info right now there are about 70 bugs marked as gnome_target=3.8
 149 16:30:41 <API> #info in relation with previous clutter-gtk comments, we need to take that into account, as probably solving clutter-gtk issue would mean new API
 150 16:30:42 <API> done
 151 16:30:55 <API> questions? more comments about 3.8?
 152 16:32:51 <API> about 3 minutes of silence, I assume that we don't have more questions or comments
 153 16:33:01 <API> #topic W3C updates
 154 16:33:04 <API> joseph is not here
 155 16:33:11 <API> joanie, any update from your side?
 156 16:33:18 <joanie> Nope
 157 16:34:36 <API> ok, then moving
 158 16:34:43 <API> #topic Marketing
 159 16:34:44 <API> jjmarin, ?
 160 16:34:48 <jjmarin> ok
 161 16:35:12 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo sent an small Spanish article to API for review
 162 16:35:49 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo has started an article about the a11y FoG campaign for the annual report
 163 16:36:06 <API> #info API still didn't have time to review the spanish article,will do that as part of the aiport-flight holes I mentioned before
 164 16:36:37 <jjmarin> perfect, no hurry !!! :-)
 165 16:37:07 <jjmarin> I also wondering if it is a good idea to complete the gnome a11y info from the wikipedia
 166 16:37:17 <jjmarin> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_Technology_Service_Provider_Interface
 167 16:37:24 <jjmarin> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility_Toolkit
 168 16:37:25 * API looking
 169 16:37:51 <API> well for at-spi I think that more stuff could be added
 170 16:38:04 <API> ie: started with bonobo deprecated, now at-spi2 dbus
 171 16:38:17 <jjmarin> what do you think ? I think it is a good idea to give better information there, because it is a place where a lot of people look for info
 172 16:38:32 <API> on the ATK , probably add that there are more implementations
 173 16:38:52 <jjmarin> Ok, I add then to my ToDo list
 174 16:39:22 <joanie> yay
 175 16:39:40 <joanie> I always wondered who could/should tackle the wikipedia updating stuff
 176 16:39:57 <joanie> on the one hand, we know the information; on the other hand aren't you not supposed to "edit your own stuff"?
 177 16:40:32 <jjmarin> yes, we can do. But wikepedians wants the truth :-)
 178 16:40:36 <API> well, that is vague
 179 16:40:47 <API> I mean that you shouldn't edit your own
 180 16:40:48 <API> stuff
 181 16:40:54 <jjmarin> they usually want a citation to be sure it is truth
 182 16:41:00 <API> is it is your bio , it is clear "your own stuff"
 183 16:41:09 <API> but for stuff like this
 184 16:41:17 <API> atk and at-spi was there long before us
 185 16:41:29 <API> we are working on us, but a lot of others too
 186 16:41:37 <joanie> yes, but we own them now. bwuahahahaha
 187 16:41:43 * joanie clears her throat
 188 16:41:47 <joanie> sorry, you were saying?
 189 16:41:49 <API> and as jjmarin, I guess that if we provide enough citation that would be enough
 190 16:41:49 <joanie> ;)
 191 16:41:55 <joanie> I agree
 192 16:41:56 <API> anyway ... moving?
 193 16:41:57 <API> anything else?
 194 16:42:00 <joanie> nope
 195 16:42:02 <mgorse> So docs or the project's web site could be cited
 196 16:42:25 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo will contact wikipedians to follow the process for editing the gnome a11y entries
 197 16:42:26 <API> mgorse, yeah, for example
 198 16:42:34 <API> or about the at-spi change to dbus
 199 16:42:40 <API> some of the posts about the change
 200 16:42:48 <API> or just that analysis made by rob taylor
 201 16:42:48 <API> etc
 202 16:43:05 <API> I guess that there are enough documentation on the internet to support any change
 203 16:43:34 <mgorse> If we want something and don't have a citation or it, then anyhow it's a sign that our documentation could be improved there
 204 16:43:40 <mgorse> s/or/for/
 205 16:43:58 <API> mgorse, yeah, good pint
 206 16:44:00 <API> *point
 207 16:44:43 <mgorse> pint (n): an attempt at a point, made quickly by someone who didn't notice that he missed a letter while typing
 208 16:45:06 <jjmarin> cheers !!! :P
 209 16:45:14 <API> :P
 210 16:45:22 <joanie> hahaha
 211 16:45:28 <API> I assume that that is a "lets move to next point"
 212 16:45:36 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
 213 16:45:40 <joanie> I could use a pint
 214 16:45:48 <API> #info FOSDEM will be this weekend
 215 16:46:02 <mgorse> Are you all going?
 216 16:46:04 <API> #info API will have a presentation, and possibly, a release-team meeting there
 217 16:46:37 <API> #info possibly because not all the release team will be there, so probably will be just a meeting with some to talk about stuff, so a release-team "meeting"
 218 16:46:39 <API> (done)
 219 16:47:27 <joanie> I'm not going
 220 16:47:50 <joanie> but Fearless Leader can represent us
 221 16:48:36 <jjmarin> sure !!!
 222 16:48:57 <jjmarin> Maybe I will watch the video
 223 16:48:58 <joanie> he'll have to drink our beer for us. ;)
 224 16:49:18 <jjmarin> or the movie :-)
 225 16:49:19 <joanie> good point, I wonder if they'll live stream the cross-desktop track?
 226 16:50:00 <jjmarin> I now they record some talks http://video.fosdem.org/
 227 16:50:04 <API> no idea
 228 16:51:08 <jjmarin> I have a question. I've notice nautilus doesn't present any keyboard shortcuts in their menus
 229 16:51:42 <jjmarin> I think this is a nuance for our users. What do you think ?
 230 16:52:08 <jjmarin> I'm worried because Evince will have the same problem for GNOME 3.8
 231 16:52:16 <joanie> the brave new menus?
 232 16:52:21 <jjmarin> yeah !
 233 16:52:39 <joanie> and if Evince is not accessible in time for GNOME 3.8, that won't matter much. ;)
 234 16:52:51 * joanie looks at nautilus
 235 16:53:34 <jjmarin> new tab for example, I now it is Ctrl+T, but it is not shown in the menu
 236 16:53:35 <joanie> well, some of the existing shortcuts seem to not be shown in the menus, but still work I think
 237 16:53:41 * joanie nods
 238 16:53:56 <joanie> could you file a bug to find out if that was an intentional design decision?
 239 16:53:57 <jjmarin> yes, the new tab at least work
 240 16:54:48 <joanie> because you're right in that it is not especially discoverable for new users
 241 16:54:55 <jjmarin> Orca users are informed of this shortcuts when they open the menu (in case they are in the menu)
 242 16:54:58 <joanie> I haven't looked in the menus recently
 243 16:55:09 <jjmarin> s/open/on/
 244 16:55:17 <joanie> so they are still exposed to us
 245 16:55:28 <joanie> but what if you are not an Orca user?
 246 16:55:46 <jjmarin> very true :-)
 247 16:56:17 <joanie> if you could file a bug (assuming one hasn't already been filed) and CC me and API that would be great.
 248 16:56:28 <jjmarin> ok
 249 16:56:36 <joanie> thanks!
 250 16:56:39 <jjmarin> np
 251 16:57:24 <jjmarin> :-)
 252 16:57:42 <jjmarin> API, are you in Brusels ?
 253 16:57:44 <API> well, so this time it was a productive misc time
 254 16:57:50 <API> hmm
 255 16:57:51 <API> no
 256 16:57:56 <API> I'm going tomorrow morning
 257 16:58:09 <jjmarin> ah, ok, then have a good travel :-)
 258 16:58:11 <API> so, unless anyone has anything else to say
 259 16:58:15 <joanie> misc time should not be productive
 260 16:58:16 <jjmarin> nop
 261 16:58:16 <API> I will close the meeting
 262 16:58:28 <API> #closemeeting
 263 16:58:28 <joanie> just snarky comments
 264 16:58:29 <API> hmm
 265 16:58:32 <API> #endmeeting