Attachment '20130404_log.txt'

Download

   1 16:05:38 <API> #startmeeting
   2 16:05:38 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Apr  4 16:05:38 2013 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 16:05:38 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:05:43 <clown> joanie is truly the fastest gun in the ease.
   5 16:05:44 <API> GSoC
   6 16:05:45 <API> ups
   7 16:05:46 <clown> "east"
   8 16:05:50 <API> #topic GSoC
   9 16:06:00 <API> joanie?
  10 16:06:05 <joanie> sure
  11 16:06:11 <joanie> i'll info as I go
  12 16:06:41 <joanie> #info As discussed last meeting, we have officially added caret and focus tracking for gnome-shell to the list of GNOME's GSoC items.
  13 16:07:09 <joanie> #info We got a response from Marina stating that Matthias thinks we should have a supporting gnome-shell team mentor.
  14 16:07:23 <joanie> #info No one on the CC list (from gnome-shell) has replied yet.
  15 16:07:59 <joanie> #info But the email seems to suggest that our idea is seen as good enough to be a real idea. :)
  16 16:08:27 <joanie> I would propose that API take an action item to ping the gnome-shell folks to get us a supporting mentor.
  17 16:08:30 <joanie> (done)
  18 16:08:34 * clown needs to re-read that.
  19 16:08:45 <API> one thing
  20 16:08:58 <API> I don't have any problem to ping gnome-shell folks
  21 16:09:21 <API> but I guess that you proposed me because Im "near of the gnome-shell team" somehow
  22 16:09:31 <joanie> that and you are fearless leader
  23 16:09:34 <API> but ... Marina is part of the gnome-shell team
  24 16:09:52 <joanie> and no one responded to her email
  25 16:09:52 <API> shouldn't be her a better candidate?
  26 16:10:04 <clown> I think Jasper would be good.  Was he on the list.
  27 16:10:06 <clown> ?
  28 16:10:11 <API> I assume that gnome-shell team can "forget" me, but would be strange to "forget" Marina
  29 16:10:12 <joanie> Jasper was I think
  30 16:10:13 <API> at least twice
  31 16:10:22 <clown> He wrote an event handling bridge for JS coders.  I used it in my code.
  32 16:10:28 <joanie> API: I don't follow you.
  33 16:10:43 <joanie> Jasper seems uber responsive too
  34 16:10:59 <joanie> so if clown thinks he's a good candidate, let's ping jasper
  35 16:11:07 <API> just wondering if gnome-shell folks would give more attention to any ping from Marina, as she is part of their team
  36 16:11:09 <joanie> he might even be in #a11y
  37 16:11:13 <clown> Maybe I should reply to that email with suggesting Jasper?
  38 16:11:21 <joanie> one sec
  39 16:11:43 <API> yes, jasper is right now on a11y
  40 16:11:54 <API> he made the review of some of the gnome-shell a11y patches
  41 16:11:57 <joanie> I invited him to join us here.
  42 16:12:01 <Jasper> joanie, OK, but I'm not exactly sure what you need.
  43 16:12:05 <joanie> :)
  44 16:12:27 <joanie> So we have added gnome-shell caret and focus tracking for gnome-shell magnifier as a GSoC idea.
  45 16:12:38 <clown> joanie, is the GSoC email from Marina on list somewhwere?
  46 16:12:39 <joanie> and it will be co-mentored by clown API and myself
  47 16:12:47 <joanie> clown: no, was private
  48 16:12:57 <Jasper> I thought it was on d-d-l?
  49 16:13:01 <clown> so, if Jasper was cc'ed he would have it.
  50 16:13:13 <joanie> oh maybe it was cc'ed
  51 16:13:17 <joanie> (to ddl)
  52 16:13:19 <joanie> anyhoo
  53 16:13:38 <joanie> during this meeting, we were thinking that Jasper would be an excellent co-mentor from the gnome-shell team
  54 16:13:42 <clown> I volunteered you, Jasper :-)
  55 16:13:49 <joanie> so rather than have an action item to ping you
  56 16:13:53 <joanie> we invited you to this meeting
  57 16:13:54 <joanie> :)
  58 16:14:07 <Jasper> I'm not sure I"m the best candidate. rtcm knows more of that sort of stuff.
  59 16:14:26 <Jasper> I'm welcome to learn it and mentor if rtcm is unavailable, though.
  60 16:14:35 <clown> Okay, I suggested you since you wrote the signal.js, and I made extensive use of it in my first attempts.
  61 16:14:45 <Jasper> signal.js?
  62 16:15:06 <joanie> and you also help fix a11y issues, review a11y patches, and are uber-responsive (thanks!!)
  63 16:15:09 <clown> I think that was the name of the package.  It allowed added signal handlers to any JS object.
  64 16:15:24 <clown> It's part of GJS.
  65 16:16:14 <joanie> so.... what is the conclusion?
  66 16:16:22 <joanie> ping rtcm?
  67 16:16:39 <Jasper> clown, I didn't write it.
  68 16:16:43 <clown> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gjs/tree/modules/signals.js
  69 16:16:43 <joanie> heh
  70 16:16:48 <Jasper> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gjs/log/modules/signals.js
  71 16:16:51 <clown> oh, never mind then...
  72 16:16:59 <Jasper> I wrote Lang.Class.
  73 16:17:24 <joanie> well, what I said still stands (re a11y issues, patches, and responsiveness)
  74 16:17:25 <Jasper> But I don't think that makes me a good candidate for a mentor of a random gnome-shell feature.
  75 16:17:36 <joanie> ok
  76 16:17:40 <Jasper> joanie, if rtcm is unavailable, I'll volunteer to mentor.
  77 16:17:48 <Jasper> But I really think rtcm would be a better fit for this feature.
  78 16:17:50 <joanie> woo hoo!
  79 16:17:52 <joanie> ok
  80 16:18:03 <joanie> (we have a meetbot, so ignore me)
  81 16:18:29 <joanie> #info Jasper suggested we ping rtcm. But if rtcm is unavailable, Jasper will volunteer to co-mentor.
  82 16:18:41 <joanie> #action Pineiro will ping rtcm.
  83 16:18:56 <joanie> okay, any other thoughts on this front?
  84 16:19:04 <joanie> (and Jasper, thanks for joining us!)
  85 16:19:35 <clown> yes, thanks Jasper.
  86 16:19:36 <API> ok, so anything else in this point?
  87 16:20:13 <joanie> i think that means "no"
  88 16:20:14 <joanie> :)
  89 16:20:18 <Jasper> OK.
  90 16:20:46 <API> so moving on
  91 16:21:08 <API> although Jasper was also a good guy for next point
  92 16:21:19 <joanie> oops
  93 16:21:25 <API> #topic Wayland
  94 16:21:34 <API> joanie, no problem, as this is a starting point
  95 16:21:39 <API> anyway, going on
  96 16:22:01 <API> #info Although Wayland was seen as the future for X, no real plans or deadline were set
  97 16:22:06 <API> #info until now
  98 16:22:20 <joanie> dun-dun-dun
  99 16:22:33 <API> #info recently Matthias Clasen sent a email trying to start setting some deadlines:
 100 16:22:47 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Wayland/
 101 16:23:07 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Wayland/#Proposed_roadmap
 102 16:23:43 <API> #info as you can recall, we created a bug about "start to check Wayland" some time ago
 103 16:24:01 <API> #info and we briefly discussed it on the 2011 hackfest, but was basically skipped
 104 16:24:20 <API> #info first reason, lack of knowledge, second one, lack of deadlines
 105 16:24:36 <API> #info now it is time to start again this
 106 16:24:48 <API> #info I helped to fill accessibility section:
 107 16:24:58 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Wayland/Gaps#Accessibility
 108 16:25:12 <API> but probably would need more info
 109 16:25:35 <API> #action piñeiro will send a email to accessibility-dev, just in case that section needs to be filled
 110 16:25:53 <API> #info as you recall, I also sent a email a long time ago to X devel
 111 16:25:55 <API> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-accessibility-list/2012-May/msg00007.html
 112 16:26:09 <API> #info for some needs of accessibility (one was that snooping thing)
 113 16:26:22 <API> #info so my plan is sending a similar one to Wayland mailing list
 114 16:26:48 <API> #action Piñeiro will fill a "what accessibility needs to wayland, how to use it" email, ask for review, send to the list
 115 16:26:56 <API> (done with the #infos)
 116 16:26:59 <API> in that sense
 117 16:27:25 <API> that mail that I sent to X-dev was more like a "what we want" but I didn't add "why we want"
 118 16:27:38 <API> recently I had a brief chat with Daniel Stone
 119 16:28:04 <API> that has a lot of expeirence on X, and is doing a lot of the stuff on Wayland
 120 16:28:31 <API> and I came to the conclusion that as part of that discussion,
 121 16:28:45 <API> so they would have more info about solutions to propose
 122 16:28:54 <API> it would be good to say why we need that stuff
 123 16:29:06 <API> having said so, I have been talking a lot about this
 124 16:29:10 <API> so?
 125 16:29:14 <API> comments, doubts, questions?
 126 16:29:43 <joanie> #info Joanie wonders what we will do about at-spi2.
 127 16:29:49 <API> mgorse, last time I was reviewing X code on at-spi2, I felt that was somewhat messy
 128 16:30:00 <API> so I guess that this would be also a good moment to do some cleaning
 129 16:30:19 <mgorse> You mean the code that handles mouse events?
 130 16:30:30 <API> as I assume that no matters if Wayland arrives, at-spi2 would need to support X for a long while
 131 16:30:37 <API> mgorse, well, in general any X code
 132 16:30:48 <API> because it is true that are mouse event handling
 133 16:30:52 <API> but there are others
 134 16:31:00 <API> in several cases C&P from at-spi1
 135 16:32:08 <mgorse> Would these things be handled by Wayland? When I looked at its Wikipedia page, I think it said that Wayland was used for rendering and things like input need to be handled with APIs outside of Wayland
 136 16:32:43 <API> well in general
 137 16:32:49 <API> also from that Daniel Stone conversation
 138 16:33:02 <API> Wayland is moving a lot of what X did to the client
 139 16:33:25 <API> the poster boy here is the window decorations (before was renderer by X, now is needed to be rendered by the toolkits)
 140 16:33:47 <API> but event input from devices are still managed by Wayland somehow
 141 16:34:04 <API> yes, probably they delegate more on other parts
 142 16:34:11 <API> but Wayland is involved there
 143 16:34:26 <API> also Wayland provides support for extension
 144 16:34:54 <API> on GUADEC, when this was suggested, a quick answer from <insert-name-here> Bradford, from intel
 145 16:35:12 <clown> just out of interest, where do focus and caret events come from?  inside X or inside GTK (or whatever toolkit)?
 146 16:35:28 <API> was that a possibility would be a extension of the protocol on the compositor (on that case could be gnome-shell)
 147 16:35:39 <API> anyway, I'm just babbling, as I lack a lot of details
 148 16:35:45 <joanie> clown: toolkit
 149 16:35:54 <clown> whew!
 150 16:36:02 <joanie> :)
 151 16:36:10 <API> clown, yes, although on the GTK implementation
 152 16:36:16 <API> they used X grabs and a lot of stuff
 153 16:36:23 <clown> oh no, there's a "but".
 154 16:36:30 <API> that came from X
 155 16:36:37 <API> so joanie was right
 156 16:36:42 <clown> what's an "X grabs"?
 157 16:36:44 <API> from the a11y pov that comes from gtk
 158 16:36:46 <API> and will c ome
 159 16:36:53 <joanie> (was bound to be right eventually)
 160 16:36:56 <API> s/gtk/the toolkit
 161 16:37:09 <API> from the toolkit pov, probably they will be using X or Wayland stuff somehow
 162 16:37:34 <mgorse> Also, I think that what Orca needs is (1) the ability to passively listen for keys (ie, if a user presses control, then it should silence, but it doesn't need to intercept the key), and (2) the ability to intercept keys, being flexible about the combinations it defines  (ie, kp_insert plus another key). I don't think that it necessarily needs to be able to intercept all keys, unless I'm missing something, although intercepting all keys is one way
 163 16:38:01 <mgorse> There are problems with the way key grabs are done currently. Ie, if Orca is busy, then keys can bleed through to the application, and I don't see a good way to fix that with the current design
 164 16:38:37 <joanie> mgorse: in a perfect world, Orca wouldn't need to know all input events.
 165 16:38:40 <API> mgorse, about (2), that is needed for orca keybindings or for any other reason?
 166 16:38:43 <joanie> but this is not a perfect world
 167 16:39:11 <joanie> and when we have to heuristically guess about object events, knowing what the user just did is helpful.
 168 16:39:23 <joanie> also, keypresses should interrupt speech
 169 16:39:32 <joanie> not just control, but when typing fast
 170 16:39:47 <mgorse> joanie: In those cases, Orca needs to know about the events, but it doesn't need to block them
 171 16:39:56 <joanie> right
 172 16:41:29 <joanie> so....
 173 16:41:45 <joanie> do we have a plan?
 174 16:41:59 <joanie> mgorse: do you know if you'll have time to work on this?
 175 16:43:30 * joanie hums
 176 16:43:32 <mgorse> for  Wayland? I'd need to figure out what API is going to be used there.
 177 16:44:28 <mgorse> and who to talk to in general if we're going to add API, but, yeah, I think I could help with it
 178 16:44:39 <joanie> yay re helping!
 179 16:45:59 <API> taking into account that we already talked a little about it
 180 16:46:08 <API> what do you think about the action items I proposed before?
 181 16:46:15 <joanie> I think they make sense
 182 16:46:25 <joanie> I just want to be sure we have some sort of plan
 183 16:46:42 <joanie> a11y has been improving quite nicely recently
 184 16:46:52 <mgorse> Yeah, makes sense. Which list are you sending the email to, about what we need? g-a-devel?
 185 16:46:53 <joanie> and I don't want to lose that to Wayland
 186 16:47:09 <API> mgorse, well as I said, but will summarize:
 187 16:47:25 <API> 1.) send a ping to ask people to fill that gaps section just in case
 188 16:47:56 <API> 2.) start to write a "what (and why) accessibility needs, please gave us some guidance" mail
 189 16:48:04 <API> 3.) ask for review to the team
 190 16:48:12 <API> 4) send that email to wayland-dev
 191 16:48:32 <mgorse> ok
 192 16:48:36 <API> as I said, we can't coordinate, split all the tasks now
 193 16:48:43 <API> but at least we need this to start rolling
 194 16:48:48 * joanie nods
 195 16:48:55 <API> btw: random rant, I don't like wayland-dev
 196 16:48:58 <API> in the sense
 197 16:49:12 <API> that they use  that list for discussions
 198 16:49:16 <API> but also for patch reviews
 199 16:49:30 <API> have a lot of traffic, and most of the stuff is patch reviewing
 200 16:49:34 <API> rant-off
 201 16:49:37 <joanie> :)
 202 16:49:40 <API> ok, so finishing the topic?
 203 16:49:42 <joanie> .procmailrc ftw
 204 16:49:55 * clown joseph-the-nag notes the lack of infos...
 205 16:50:06 <joanie> the infos were before
 206 16:50:14 <joanie> but....
 207 16:50:33 <joanie> #action Joanie will take the summary from Pineiro and add it to the minutes.
 208 16:50:37 <joanie> meeting is going long
 209 16:50:42 <clown> the last info I see is "Joanie wonders what we will do about at-spi2."
 210 16:50:46 <joanie> though it was an important topic.
 211 16:51:00 <clown> okay.  more work for joanie
 212 16:51:01 <joanie> clown: what else should be infoed?
 213 16:51:10 <joanie> not a big deal
 214 16:51:14 <clown> gah, more work for clown...
 215 16:51:17 <joanie> hah
 216 16:51:23 <joanie> let's move on
 217 16:51:38 <clown> yes, let's.  forget I said anything.
 218 16:52:09 <API> so moving?
 219 16:52:20 <API> I will skip marketing as jjmarin is not here
 220 16:52:28 <API> #topic W3C updates
 221 16:52:30 <API> clown?
 222 16:52:35 <clown> hi there.
 223 16:53:23 <clown> #info Testing browsers for compliance/conformance for ARIA 1.0 has sped up.
 224 16:53:45 <clown> #info Hoping to wrap that up in the next month or so.
 225 16:54:11 <clown> #info Tentative "release" of ARIA 1.0 would be Jun.
 226 16:54:17 <clown> questions?
 227 16:54:36 <joanie> wow
 228 16:54:52 <joanie> what motivated the speed-up?
 229 16:55:37 <clown> well, there was always motivation.  what sped things up were "bodies" — testers who would run the tests.
 230 16:55:53 <joanie> aha
 231 16:55:54 <joanie> cool
 232 16:56:18 <clown> there have been a couple of students conscripted from the University of Illinois.
 233 16:56:50 <joanie> student labor yay! :)
 234 16:56:52 <clown> I hear rumours that someone from the Google Chrome team started to test Chrome on Windows with the tests.
 235 16:56:58 <clown> but just rumours...
 236 16:57:07 * clown wishes the test results page was public.
 237 16:57:24 <joanie> we can ask Mark :)
 238 16:58:06 <clown> sure.  A number of us have been pressuring Michael Cooper, who the W3C person who manages the test harnes.
 239 16:58:14 <clown> "harness".
 240 16:59:32 <joanie> anyhoo... nearly meeting end time
 241 16:59:48 * joanie pokes API
 242 16:59:52 <clown> I have a related technical question, but maybe it's better for misc time.
 243 17:00:09 <API> clown, ok
 244 17:00:14 <API> #topic Misc time
 245 17:00:19 <clown> lol
 246 17:00:20 <API> done ;)
 247 17:00:48 <clown> I've been digging through the documentaion for IA2 and ATK (and AT-SPI).
 248 17:00:56 <clown> "AT-SPI"
 249 17:01:22 <clown> looking for restrictions on the controller-for/controlled-by relation.
 250 17:01:42 <joanie> that has always been a mystery relation to me
 251 17:01:46 <clown> I don't see any.  Are there restrictions on their use?
 252 17:02:05 <clown> It looks like any object can be declared as a controller for any other object.
 253 17:02:08 <joanie> so are the controlled relations controlled?
 254 17:02:10 <joanie> :)
 255 17:02:15 <clown> hee, hee.
 256 17:02:28 <API> fwiw, I never used that relation
 257 17:02:35 <joanie> me neither
 258 17:02:38 <API> when I arrived to this world, they were already there
 259 17:02:52 <API> on atk the documentation is really slim
 260 17:02:53 <API> ATK_RELATION_CONTROLLED_BY
 261 17:02:53 <API> Indicates an object controlled by one or more target objects.
 262 17:02:57 <joanie> heh
 263 17:03:00 <API> controlled how?
 264 17:03:00 <clown> I even went as far back as the java accessilbility interface.  same thing, e.g., "Indicates an object is a controller for one or more target objects"
 265 17:03:01 <joanie> fail
 266 17:03:05 <joanie> exactly
 267 17:03:05 <API> when?
 268 17:03:09 <API> when use the relation?
 269 17:03:12 <API> etc
 270 17:03:16 <joanie> why?
 271 17:03:20 <clown> wow.  even the documenation is exactly the same...
 272 17:03:29 <API> clown, fwiw
 273 17:03:41 <API> atk/at-spi was heavily based on the java stuff
 274 17:03:42 <clown> tab list is a common example.
 275 17:04:00 <mgorse> gtk doesn't use those relations anywhere
 276 17:04:01 <clown> the tab controls the visbility of the associated tab pane.
 277 17:04:06 <joanie> #info Joseph asked about the controller-for/controlled-by accessible relations.
 278 17:04:10 <API> something that I guess that makes sense as they both came from Sun
 279 17:04:19 <joanie> #info The team is perplexed.
 280 17:04:20 <joanie> :)
 281 17:04:32 <clown> you actually info'ed that???
 282 17:04:38 <joanie> clown: yeah
 283 17:04:45 <joanie> we never have items under misc time minutes
 284 17:04:49 <joanie> it's sad
 285 17:05:00 <joanie> it's also related to the next thing I'll bring up.
 286 17:05:30 <joanie> #info Speaking of nebulous API, the accessible text interface is crazy huge and confusing.
 287 17:05:40 <joanie> #info We have discussed simplifying it before.
 288 17:05:49 <joanie> #info Joanie thinks perhaps we should actually do that.
 289 17:05:59 * joanie looks for a blog post from Surkov
 290 17:06:06 <API> and never advance too much on that as "it works well enough and other stuff doesn't work at all"
 291 17:06:18 <joanie> ?
 292 17:06:23 <API> afair, initial plan was taking a look to ia2
 293 17:06:30 <API> as a example of something more simple
 294 17:06:33 <API> <joanie> ?
 295 17:06:41 <API> I mean that the reason taht simplification never happened
 296 17:06:44 <API> or never worked on that
 297 17:06:55 <joanie> http://asurkov.blogspot.ru/2013/03/an-easy-way-to-understanding-atk-text.html
 298 17:06:57 <API> was because we needed to fix first the stuff that didn't work at all
 299 17:06:59 <mgorse> Is i2's text interface not pretty much the same as atk's?
 300 17:07:08 <joanie> i think it is
 301 17:07:12 <joanie> that doesn't make it right or good
 302 17:07:13 <joanie> ;)
 303 17:07:22 <mgorse> yeah
 304 17:07:48 <joanie> so if we are going to do a major API change re text, we should do it early in the cycle
 305 17:07:54 <joanie> and start deprecating stuff
 306 17:07:55 <joanie> imho
 307 17:08:14 <joanie> and while we're at it, maybe controlled-by/controller-for should be nuked
 308 17:08:17 <joanie> (deprecated)
 309 17:08:18 <mgorse> UIA's text pattern is pretty different from AtkText, fwiw. On the other hand, I have no idea if any screen readers are using it
 310 17:09:06 <joanie> anyhoo, something to think about -- and probably soonish.
 311 17:09:13 <joanie> right API?
 312 17:09:35 <API> we should do the changes early in the cycle
 313 17:09:39 <API> but in my opinion
 314 17:09:46 <API> with a clear idea of what we want
 315 17:09:49 <clown> I'll just note that FF passes gloriously on IA2 and AT-SPI for the aria-controls attribute tests.
 316 17:09:50 <mgorse> me wonders when a gtk 4 will be released
 317 17:09:53 <API> so lets go step by step
 318 17:10:05 <API> step one would be getting a API everybody is happy with
 319 17:10:10 <joanie> yup
 320 17:10:16 <API> step two will be decide how to integrate it on any cycle
 321 17:11:02 <joanie> yup
 322 17:12:52 <joanie> all is silent
 323 17:12:54 <joanie> meeting over?
 324 17:13:54 <joanie> tota11y: chair
 325 17:13:54 <tota11y> joanie: Error: "chair" is not a valid command.
 326 17:13:57 <joanie> hmmm
 327 17:14:05 <joanie> tota11y: addchair
 328 17:14:05 <tota11y> joanie: (addchair <channel> <network> <nick>) -- Add a nick as a chair to the meeting.
 329 17:14:06 <clown> tota11y:  sofa
 330 17:14:06 <tota11y> clown: Error: "sofa" is not a valid command.
 331 17:14:19 <joanie> tota11y: addchair joanie
 332 17:14:19 <tota11y> joanie: (addchair <channel> <network> <nick>) -- Add a nick as a chair to the meeting.
 333 17:14:24 <joanie> ?
 334 17:14:31 <clown> you forgot the channel
 335 17:14:38 <joanie> it should be implied
 336 17:14:40 <joanie> but yeah
 337 17:14:46 <API> sorry, someone pinged me
 338 17:14:53 <API> so yes
 339 17:14:55 <API> meeting over
 340 17:14:58 <API> #endmeeting

Attached Files

To refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.
  • [get | view] (2013-04-11 12:55:34, 20.0 KB) [[attachment:20130404_log.txt]]

You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.