16:06:23 <API> #startmeeting
16:06:23 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Sep 12 16:06:23 2013 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:06:23 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:06:30 <API> #topic GSoC updates
16:06:36 <magpie> clown?
16:06:37 <API> who wants to start?
16:06:56 <clown> go ahead magpie.  I'm still collecting my thoughts.
16:07:02 <magpie> ok
16:07:06 <clown> thanks.
16:07:12 <magpie> #info A patch which demonstrates the working focus and caret tracking integrated into the magnifier.js work, has been accepted to GNOME Shell master after a freeze break request by Alejandro. Thanks Alejandro.
16:07:20 <magpie> #link https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647074
16:07:20 <tota11y> 04Bug 647074: enhancement, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, RESOLVED FIXED, GNOME Shell Magnifier should track focus and the caret
16:07:26 <clown> \o/
16:07:29 <magpie> #info Magdalen has been updating the wiki to explain the work
16:07:47 <magpie> #link https://wiki.gnome.org/SummerOfCode2013/Projects/MagdalenBernsCaretAndFocusTracking
16:07:57 <magpie> #info Magdalen has been working on the release notes with Juanjo and is interested to see what he thinks of the last draft she emailed.
16:08:18 <magpie> #info Magdalen has carried out some tests to check performance degradation caused by the atspi init but after seeking advice from Mike Gorse she feels the test is not complete enough for the results to be reliable: He explained There's a call to atk_bridge_adaptor_init in main.c and that I could timing that with and without there being a call to atspi_init()
16:08:56 <magpie> #info Magdalen will be working on the ui today as adviced by Joseph. She also promised Jasper to update the magnifier and tidy it up so has to put some thought into that.
16:09:19 <magpie> #info Magdalen goes back to uni next week and she wants to look into click lock sometimes soon.
16:09:34 <magpie> ok questions/comments?
16:09:40 <joanie> update and tidy?
16:09:46 <magpie> also thank you everyone!
16:09:49 * API raising hand for questions
16:10:19 <magpie> it was a lot of effort and time that went to getting the patch so I appreciate the help
16:10:23 <clown> you're welcome, magpie.
16:10:33 <magpie> API?
16:10:39 <clown> but note joanie's question:  "update and tidy?"
16:10:48 <API> magpie, joanie made a question
16:10:50 <magpie> oh sorry joanie
16:10:55 <API> just raising hand for be the next one
16:10:57 <magpie> ok i will explain
16:11:31 <magpie> there were some unused functions and some of the tracking mode code is no longer needed. clown do you remember when we looked at that?
16:11:46 * magpie finding bug
16:11:59 <clown> magpie, I don't remember ever looking at tracking mode code no longer needed.
16:12:09 <API> well, probably jasper was talking
16:12:12 <clown> I do remember one note from Jasper about an accessor not being used.
16:12:13 <API> about some of the suggestoin
16:12:18 <API> he made during his reviews
16:12:25 <API> that are not in the current code
16:12:29 <clown> but that accessor had nothing to do with tracking.
16:12:34 <API> like a name for the detail1
16:12:35 <API> etc
16:12:52 <magpie> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707666
16:12:52 <tota11y> 04Bug 707666: normal, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, UNCONFIRMED, Unused functions in the magnifier
16:13:03 * joanie looks
16:13:10 <magpie> I think I got them all but I was not very systematic
16:13:26 <clown> magpie, I'm not on the cc list for that bugzilla.
16:13:33 <API> magpie, well, I just wrote down an example ;)
16:13:38 <clown> this is the first time I've seen it.
16:13:40 <magpie> #info Magdalen also updated https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707693
16:13:40 <tota11y> 04Bug 707693: normal, Normal, ---, at-spi-maint, UNCONFIRMED, caret.py example needs to be improved.
16:14:31 <API> joanie, was your question answered?
16:14:39 <magpie> wait lots of people are saying stuff
16:14:42 <joanie> I'm still pondering it, but I have plenty to read
16:14:57 * magpie is not sure who to address
16:15:15 <joanie> let's call a time out for a second
16:15:16 <API> magpie, sorry, I will shut down
16:15:28 <API> *up
16:15:36 <joanie> clown: were those now-gone functions needed for anything?
16:16:00 <joanie> for instance, might you want to adjust or not adjust crosshair color based on changes to inversion?
16:16:09 <clown> joanie, this is mostly news to me: as I said, I''m not on the cc list for that bugzilla.  I didn't know about it at all.
16:16:16 <joanie> I didn't either
16:16:23 <magpie> oh sorry clown.
16:16:28 <clown> the question is:  how does one know these functions are not used?
16:16:31 <joanie> and ripping out code that might be needed but just doesn't happen to be used now concerns me
16:16:46 <magpie> i tested it joanie
16:16:50 <joanie> it concerns me even more when it appears that the a11y team was not consulted
16:16:54 <joanie> magpie: that's not my point
16:17:06 <joanie> my point is that there could be valid needs for that code
16:17:14 <clown> I'm of two minds:  1.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  2.  If they truly are not used by anyone within gnome-shell, they could be removed for efficiency.
16:17:36 <joanie> clown: but what if, say, magnification and color inversion is being used
16:17:50 <joanie> and one impacts (or doesn't) the other as desired
16:17:59 <joanie> we no longer have any way to get the current values
16:18:10 <joanie> in order to determine whether or not we want to set them
16:18:12 <magpie> drago01 was quite a thorough reviewer
16:18:21 <joanie> magpie: is he a magnification expert?
16:18:23 <joanie> a low vision expert?
16:18:29 <joanie> or a gnome-shell developer?
16:18:34 <joanie> seems only the last one
16:18:37 <magpie> he checked them all and found any mistakes i think
16:18:37 <joanie> but maybe I'm wrong
16:18:42 <joanie> magpie: it's NOT about code
16:18:45 <joanie> it's about users with low vision
16:18:55 <clown> good point. joanie.  But, the thought is that these functions have been there for years, and no one is using them.  At least, I think that' the hypothesis.
16:19:19 <joanie> clown: but that's because there's not been enough time available
16:19:25 <joanie> potentially
16:19:29 <joanie> anyhoo, they are gone
16:19:34 <magpie> yeah that's right. Like they never ended up being used.
16:19:49 <magpie> They can always be put back again
16:19:54 <clown> true.  the bug was filed, reviewed and the patch committed without anyone from the a11y team knowing about it.
16:19:55 <joanie> but for the record, I am extremely disappointed that a11y module decisions are being made without consulting with the a11y team
16:20:15 <joanie> anyhoo, I have nothing more to say
16:20:24 <API> well, what about if as a conclusion
16:20:31 <API> somepeople take as action item
16:20:39 <API> review that no regression was introduced?
16:20:40 <clown> <cynic>a11y has never mattered</cynic>
16:20:57 * magpie is confused
16:21:10 <joanie> API I don't think there will be a regression
16:21:11 <API> magpie, the thing is that
16:21:18 <API> although gnome-shell developers
16:21:24 <API> review magnification patches
16:21:28 <API> they usually don't test it
16:21:31 <joanie> I think that code which might be needed, but which we have not yet had time to get to, are now gone
16:21:57 <joanie> but when we get to it, we'll just put it back
16:22:11 <joanie> referencing this bug and the lack of consultation with the a11y team
16:22:11 <joanie> :)
16:22:41 <magpie> I mentioned it, sorry I didn't realise it was like that.
16:22:44 <clown> joanie, I've had similar experiences in the past, where functionality has been removed, with the comment:  we can always put it back when it's needed.
16:22:50 <API> yes, this one of the concerns
16:23:21 <API> but as I said, the other concern (or at least one of my concerns) is about change on the magnifier
16:23:36 <joanie> here's an example:
16:23:45 * API shutting up
16:23:48 <joanie> let's say I am using the dark theme by default
16:24:02 <joanie> and then enable reverse contrast
16:24:12 <joanie> what should happen for items in the dark theme?
16:24:54 <magpie> i don't know what you mean by 'dark theme'
16:24:58 <joanie> it might be nice if we could coordinate the inverse feature with the theme feature
16:25:05 <clown> it would be nice.
16:25:17 <joanie> magpie: there is an option to use a dark theme for gtk
16:25:22 <joanie> for people who are photophobic
16:25:24 <clown> it would be nice to cooridnate the inverse feature with the general white-on-black for gs GUI.
16:25:25 <joanie> or just like the dark them
16:25:34 <joanie> clown: yup
16:25:44 <clown> magnifier users have complained to me about that.
16:25:48 <joanie> and we might want to know what the inversion is
16:25:53 <joanie> i.e. being used or not
16:26:06 <joanie> too bad that function was removed
16:26:11 <joanie> sorry, I'll shut up
16:26:17 <API> ok, in any case, fwiw, as clown said
16:26:19 <clown> most of the screen is inverse (the way they want it), but the "chrome" around the edges are not inverse anymore, and difficult to see.
16:26:20 <joanie> I get bitchy when I'm pissed off
16:26:23 <API> gnome-shell developers don't like too much
16:26:31 <API> keeping structures for future features
16:26:33 <magpie> but the gnome=shell don't like to have them until they are being used: They don't like having a getter just in case you might need it
16:26:42 <API> they prefer to have the code that is currently sused
16:26:56 <magpie> yeah what API said
16:27:00 <joanie> and who complained about the need to remove it?
16:27:29 <API> ?
16:27:33 <joanie> did jasper?
16:27:36 <API> don't get that question?
16:27:40 <API> ah
16:27:41 <magpie> Jasper because I found one with a typo that meant it couldnt have worked and he told me i shouldn't put that change into my patch
16:27:49 <magpie> He said it was a separate issue
16:27:55 <joanie> did he complain and said the code should be removed?
16:28:59 <magpie> i think you'd better ask him directly or it might seem like I am blaming him for something.
16:30:33 <API> ok
16:30:40 <API> lets try to conclude something on this first question
16:30:47 <API> as some people have others
16:30:55 <API> a lot of previous discussion
16:31:01 <API> not sure how to summarize it
16:31:11 <magpie> HE was really helpful with the patch stuff.
16:31:23 <API> magpie, and how are saying the opposite?
16:31:29 <API> s/how/who
16:31:36 <API> please, lets not start to mix things
16:32:24 <API> #info there are some doubts about bug 707666
16:32:24 <tota11y> 04Bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707666 normal, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, RESOLVED FIXED, Unused functions in the magnifier
16:32:26 <magpie> any other questions?
16:32:39 <API> #info during the following week, we will try to answer them
16:32:51 <API> is a vague summary, but is better than nothing
16:32:59 <API> clown: I think that you had some question
16:33:13 <clown> API, thanks.  One other update for GSoC
16:33:18 <API> but I don't like to read all the scrollback again ;)
16:33:49 <clown> #info Joseph received an email from the GSoC admin outlining the end of the program, and how students are to submit their code.
16:34:13 <clown> #info Josephs wants to make sure the magpie is aware of this
16:34:23 <clown> #link http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2013/codeguidelines
16:34:24 <magpie> oh yeah i got one of those i think... but i can't see where to submit it yet
16:35:05 <clown> #info They suggest that "pencils down" is Sep 16
16:35:17 <magpie> so wwhat do you think I should do until the 'pencils down' ?
16:35:29 <clown> #info  quoting from the email:  "We suggest that students have completed their projects by this date and spend a week writing documentation and wrapping up their projects. We require that students stop all coding on 23 September. "
16:35:42 <clown> #info "this date" is Sep 16.
16:36:00 <clown> magpie, you should continue with the UI work.
16:36:09 <clown> That is the last thing in the proposal.
16:36:44 <magpie> |Lupin|: can ask me questions here please.
16:37:11 <|Lupin|> magpie: sure. But perhaps rather after themeetingthen. Don'twant to interfere...
16:37:42 <clown> although, this coming Monday is the "pencils down" date.  But, you could still work on the UI code up to the 23rd.
16:37:46 <magpie> |Lupin|: there's a time at the end for miscellaneous
16:38:13 <API> soo
16:38:15 <|Lupin|> magpie: ok, thanks.
16:38:18 <API> something else in this point?
16:38:23 <API> moving?
16:38:40 <API> the alternative to "moving" are questions, doubts, comments
16:38:46 <magpie> I don't know
16:39:05 <API> well, nobody raised the hand
16:39:07 <API> so I will move
16:39:09 <magpie> the ui work seems really vague to me
16:39:16 <API> ups
16:39:21 <API> why vague?
16:39:22 <magpie> can I get some clarity on what I need to do for it?
16:39:24 <magpie> please
16:39:36 <API> magpie, right now there are a dialog
16:39:39 <API> to configure zoom
16:39:51 <API> zoom rate, color, crosshair
16:39:51 <API> etc
16:40:00 <API> but there isn't anything to enable the trakcing
16:40:03 <API> and selecting the mode
16:40:08 <API> so ui work
16:40:09 <API> means
16:40:17 <API> add to the current zoom configuration dialog
16:40:27 <API> the options to configure the tracking
16:41:04 <magpie> ok I'm not sure how to best go about that
16:41:19 <magpie> I'm confused why I need sketches etc
16:41:42 <clown> where does it say you need sketches, magpie?
16:41:48 <clown> or, who said that?
16:42:01 <magpie> when I was asking advice from the design team
16:42:05 <magpie> last week
16:42:09 * clown not that sketches are necessarily bad.
16:42:17 <clown> oh, okay.
16:42:39 <magpie> I mentioned not having a clue and A Day suggested I make a sketch
16:42:50 <API> well, about the need of sketches
16:42:59 <API> that is a question for the design team
16:43:15 <API> and having said so
16:43:22 <API> is almost 45 minutes on the meeting
16:43:24 <API> so if you don't mind
16:43:27 <API> I will move to next point
16:44:07 <API> #topic Other issues related to GNOME 3.10
16:44:13 <API> joanie, do you want to start?
16:44:22 <API> I think that you made more work on that part
16:45:02 <joanie> API well, it's all the regressions, etc
16:45:10 <joanie> that I am finding and you are fixing
16:45:10 <API> yes I know
16:45:16 <joanie> not counting the combo box bug
16:45:18 <API> but you were the regression-detecter here
16:45:21 <joanie> we need benjamin to fix
16:45:34 <API> in any case, I think that you are implicitly asking me to summarize this
16:45:34 <API> soo
16:45:50 <API> #info there are several bugs related with the new gtk widgets
16:46:07 <API> #info example: gtkheaderbar, gtklistbox
16:46:29 <API> #info we made a little work testing them before, but as usually, we found some of those bugs on real apps
16:46:49 <API> #info the poster boy was gnome-control-center, specifically universal access
16:47:09 <API> #info due those bugs, universal access panel was inaccessible (irony shot for everyone)
16:47:43 <API> #info this week joanmarie was using orca to review g-c-c and some other apps, and we were solving them
16:48:11 <API> #info patch review was also good thanks to mclasen and kalev, so hopefully we will fix those regression before the hard code freeze
16:48:27 <API> well, the summary is somewhat general, but I think that is enough to get the idea
16:48:38 <API> joanie, did I miss something?
16:48:45 <joanie> the combo box regression
16:48:47 * joanie looks
16:48:49 <API> true
16:49:07 <API> #info one of the regressions are not related to new widgets, but about combobox
16:49:24 <API> #info Benjamin Otte (IRC: Company) was taking a look to that
16:49:34 <joanie> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707786
16:49:34 <tota11y> 04Bug 707786: normal, Normal, ---, gtk-bugs, UNCONFIRMED, Collapsed Gtk combo boxes no longer emit accessible selection-changed events
16:49:34 <API> #action joanie will ping him about the status of that bug
16:50:03 <API> joanie, I put you on the action because that is that I understood from the last time we talked about htat
16:50:17 <joanie> just pinged him in #a11y
16:50:21 <API> joanie, ok
16:50:32 <API> so, questions, doubts, comments, additional regressions?
16:51:01 <joanie> Nope. We just need to keep testing
16:51:09 <API> good point
16:51:11 <joanie> and thank you for fixing these regressions introduced by others
16:51:20 <jjmarin> I think gnome-initial-setup has similar issues
16:51:23 <API> #action everybody, test
16:51:33 <joanie> jjmarin: see if it still does with Orca master
16:51:37 <joanie> and g-i-s master
16:51:46 <joanie> I have added more support for the GtkListBox stuff
16:51:55 <jjmarin> ok
16:51:57 <joanie> so testing with orca stable won't work
16:52:03 <joanie> or won't give you accurate results
16:52:30 <joanie> but I'll take a look at it too
16:52:38 <joanie> since I have a working orca master in my jhbuild environment
16:52:53 <API> jjmarin, the same with gtk
16:52:59 <API> there are some new stuff about gtklistbox
16:53:18 <joanie> g-i-s uses (used?) egglistbox
16:53:26 <joanie> my guess is that it moved to GtkListbox
16:53:31 <jjmarin> I was thinking about it
16:53:34 <API> I also think that
16:53:42 <API> gtklistbox is in theory egglistbox moved to gtk
16:53:46 <jjmarin> yes I think it is egglistbox
16:53:54 <joanie> jjmarin: still?
16:53:57 <jjmarin> ahh
16:54:07 <jjmarin> it was a month a go
16:54:11 <jjmarin> ago
16:54:13 <joanie> but the accessible hierarchy is different
16:54:15 <jjmarin> AFAIR
16:54:23 <joanie> and like I said, this past week I've added support in Orca for it
16:54:29 <joanie> anyhoo, we need to test from master
16:54:40 <joanie> (or 3.9.x if they branched)
16:55:06 <API> so ok
16:55:09 <API> anything else?
16:55:12 <jjmarin> thanks for all this new bug fixing !
16:55:24 <API> (sorry for pushing so much, but we are really over time)
16:55:25 <jjmarin> nop
16:55:34 <API> #topic "Boston" Summit and the possibility of Wayland Accessibility Hacking
16:55:38 <API> joanie, ?
16:55:44 <joanie> sure
16:55:58 <joanie> #info the "Boston" summit this year is being held in the other Boston (aka Montreal)
16:56:08 <joanie> #info the dates are 12-14 October
16:56:52 <joanie> #info Given all the Wayland Accessibility issues, Piñeiro and Joanie were thinking that it might make sense to have some sort of "hackfest" (or hacking session) in Montreal to try to get some of these issues solved.
16:57:11 <mgorse> Does someone know if any of the Wayland developers will be around?
16:57:25 <joanie> #info We haven't thought much beyond that, i.e. should we have an official hackfest; a before/after event?
16:57:31 <joanie> mgorse: not yet, but....
16:57:41 <joanie> boston summit is traditionally populated by many from Red Hat
16:57:51 <joanie> and the "usual suspsects" (core hackers)
16:57:58 <joanie> so my *guess* is that there will be
16:58:06 <joanie> but we should figure out whom we need present
16:58:07 <joanie> and then ping them
16:58:17 <joanie> so do we have a list of the must-haves from outside our team?
16:58:18 <clown> #link https://wiki.gnome.org/Montreal2013
16:58:45 <API> mgorse, in any case, as you made the work to being able to compile at-spi2 without X
16:58:54 <API> first test will be if it is possible to use that on Wayland
16:59:03 <API> and how many feature we lose with that
16:59:07 * mgorse isn't even sure who the Wayland devs are off-hand
16:59:07 <magpie> good going mgorse
16:59:27 <API> in any case
16:59:30 <API> about joanie question
16:59:42 <clown> at-spi2 doesn't require X anymore?
16:59:45 <mgorse> Keystroke listeners probably don't work, for one, and anything mouse-related
16:59:50 <clown> ah...
16:59:56 <API> clown, you can compile it without X
17:00:01 <API> but you will lose stuff
17:00:05 <clown> right, API
17:00:09 <API> so in theory you can use it
17:00:17 <clown> my next question was if you could get mouse events without X.
17:00:20 <API> just losing feature
17:00:25 <clown> mgorse already answered.
17:00:48 <API> yeah, but as we are saying a lot of "in theory", "probably" etc
17:00:59 <API> I think that it would be good to test it
17:01:03 <mgorse> I was figuring that, down the road, we could add other back ends for functionality that we need
17:01:24 <API> mgorse, yes, as I mentioned on gnome-accessibility-devel
17:01:29 <API> answering luke
17:01:33 <API> that is the long term idea
17:01:59 <API> so about joanie's question:
17:02:00 <magpie> what about mousetweaks?
17:02:31 <API> magpie, well
17:02:45 <API> I have an action item to ping them
17:02:52 <API> so I could do that
17:03:02 <API> and see if they have other ideas for the montreal summit
17:03:09 <API> assuming that they are going
17:03:42 <magpie> that will be good I don't think it uses the evdev driver or anything so maybe it won't be so hard to integrate as it seems
17:03:49 <|Lupin|> gotta go, sorry. Bye.
17:03:59 <API> |Lupin|, bye, thanks for coming
17:04:04 <clown> by |Lupin|
17:04:08 <clown> *bye
17:04:10 <joanie> but I think we're getting off track
17:04:17 <API> I agree
17:04:19 <joanie> summit is in 1 month
17:04:27 <magpie> bye |Lupin|
17:04:30 <|Lupin|> will try to participate next time ;)
17:05:02 <API> so as I was saying, about joanie's question:
17:05:03 <API> <joanie> #info We haven't thought much beyond that, i.e. should we have an official hackfest; a before/after event?
17:05:17 <API> could you elaborate before/after event=
17:05:19 <API> ?
17:05:26 <joanie> on the 11th or 15th
17:05:30 <API> are you suggesting something like arrive to montreal before in order to hack?
17:05:31 <joanie> summit is 12th-14th
17:05:44 <joanie> not suggesting; tossing it out there for consideration
17:06:09 <mgorse> I think it'll depend in part on who else we need in the room and what their plans are
17:06:09 <joanie> i don't care so much about the exact plan; I care about having a plan :)
17:06:32 <API> joanie, well, as you say, summit is in 1 month
17:06:40 <API> we don't have too much margin to plan
17:06:45 * joanie nods
17:06:47 <API> and to know who are going or not
17:06:57 <API> so not sure if it is worth to rush a longer montreal summit
17:07:06 <joanie> ok
17:07:20 <joanie> so let's assume 12th-14th
17:07:29 <joanie> mgorse: and API: can you both come?
17:08:23 <API> not sure, will try to confirm as soon as possible
17:09:10 <mgorse> I most likely can, although it probably affects one or two work days, so I should probably run it by Scott before I officially promise anything
17:11:08 * joanie nods at mgorse
17:11:15 <joanie> could you run it by Scott?
17:11:21 <joanie> as we are getting close
17:11:30 <joanie> GNOME: It's all about the last minute!
17:11:39 <joanie> (why joanie is not a marketer)
17:11:44 <mgorse> yeah, hopefully I can give you a real answer later today, or tomorrow
17:11:50 <joanie> super awesome. Thanks!!
17:11:52 <jjmarin> who is Scott ?
17:12:02 <mgorse> jjmarin: he's my manager at SUSE
17:12:16 <jjmarin> ah, ok, thank you :-)
17:12:18 <joanie> and an uber nice guy
17:12:23 <API> so, as we are over time
17:12:24 <joanie> he was at GUADEC
17:12:27 <API> anything else on this point?
17:12:28 <clown> managers.  can't live with them.  can't live without them.
17:12:40 <joanie> yes, actually
17:12:42 <joanie> on this point
17:12:52 <joanie> heidi: You mentioned to me that your students might come
17:13:05 <joanie> if so, what would the goal(s) be and how could we help?
17:13:07 <heidi> Yes, I'm working on that.
17:13:36 <heidi> I'm guessing that they would only be there for 1.5 days, one night.
17:13:39 <heidi> And I'm not sure.
17:13:55 <heidi> joanie: I'm in the process of sending you the squashed patches.
17:13:56 <joanie> ok, as soon as you know, and what the days are, please let us know
17:14:01 <heidi> Yes, will do.
17:14:02 <joanie> heidi: yay!
17:14:06 <joanie> (but wrong topic :P)
17:14:13 <heidi> Students are _incredibly_ excited about this.
17:14:18 <joanie> cooool!
17:14:25 <heidi> :-)
17:14:33 <jjmarin> great !
17:14:41 <joanie> ok, so I think that's it on this topic then (?)
17:15:22 <API> joanie, what?
17:15:29 <joanie> ?
17:15:40 <joanie> API you asked if there was anything else on this topic
17:15:45 <API> ah ok
17:15:51 <joanie> I think now that there is nothing else
17:15:56 <joanie> but I'm not sure if that is true for others
17:16:01 <API> im skipping w3c today, sorry
17:16:18 <API> #topic Marketing
17:16:21 <API> jjmarin, ?
17:16:27 <clown> again?  I've queued the same stuff for the past three of four meetings… Sheesh...
17:16:37 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo has started the release notes for the new accessibility features https://git.gnome.org/browse/release-notes/commit/?h=gnome-3-10&id=fc614b6df76797e485bec191a44aff2cae881f4a
17:16:51 <jjmarin> #info It is just a draft and it hasn't been reviewed yet. Today we have the first meeting about the release notes.
17:16:57 <jjmarin> questions ?
17:17:18 <magpie> I have an info if ok jjmarin?
17:17:39 <magpie> well two-ish
17:17:50 <jjmarin> ok
17:18:01 <magpie> and a quesrion after that :-)
17:18:07 <magpie> #info Magdalen sent out an update to the a11y mailing list
17:18:33 * clown looks
17:18:46 <magpie> #info Magdalen has been invited to do a talk at the women in engineering student conference in october about the work from this summer.
17:19:31 <jjmarin> cool !
17:19:51 <magpie> oh #info Magdalen would like to make a how-to video this week for the bbc accessibility pages and would like some advice on this as well as the WiE talk
17:20:29 <magpie> also my question: jjmarin
17:20:42 <magpie> how did they like the release notes draft?
17:21:20 <jjmarin> magpie: nobody has review it yet
17:21:42 <jjmarin> s/revew/reviewed
17:21:57 <magpie> ok jjmain thanks
17:22:03 <magpie> #link http://www.wes.org.uk/
17:22:07 <jjmarin> I want to add the fact you need gettings to activate the focus and caret tracking
17:22:23 <jjmarin> but not sure if this will be accepted
17:22:59 <magpie> you don't need them to activate i jjmarin
17:23:12 <magpie> you need them to change the setting and to deactivate
17:23:37 <magpie> by default the setting is 'centered' and 'push' for caret and focus respectively
17:24:12 <clown> joanie, are those good defautls?
17:24:16 <jjmarin> the focus and caret tracking are not activated by default, AFAIK or I'm wrong ?
17:24:18 <clown> *defaults
17:24:20 <joanie> clown: depends on the individual
17:24:21 * magpie thinks caret default might be better if it were proportional by default but isn't sure what the majority will say to that
17:24:31 <API> well, guys
17:24:39 <API> if those are good default or not
17:24:42 <clown> yeah, I'm looking for the best lowest common denominator, joanie
17:24:45 <joanie> anyhoo, let's let the users provide feedback
17:24:46 <API> are somewhat off-topic on the meeting
17:24:48 <clown> probably a bad goal.
17:24:55 <API> and I like joanie suggestion
17:25:00 <clown> +1
17:25:10 <API> jjmarin, if you don't mind I will move to other topic
17:25:22 <jjmarin> ok
17:25:30 <magpie> jjmarin: to answer your question no they are activated by default
17:25:34 <API> and taking into account clown comments
17:25:37 <magpie> they do not need to be activated
17:25:51 <API> #topic w3c updates
17:25:54 <API> clown, ?
17:26:07 <clown> really?
17:26:10 <API> yes,
17:26:11 <API> sorry
17:26:12 <clown> okay, here goes...
17:26:26 <API> I thought that in other cases we didn't have any w3c update, so the reason to skip
17:26:32 <API> but I was wrong
17:26:41 <clown> #info There was a latest public draft for IndieUI published at the end of July
17:26:45 <clown> #link http://www.w3.org/TR/indie-ui-events/
17:27:28 <clown> #info On the ARIA front, as of yesterday, there is only one test case needed to advance the ARIA spec to the next stage.
17:27:33 * clown looks for link.
17:28:01 <clown> #link https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/testharness/testreport?testsuite_id=1&filter_invalid=on&filter_required=on&filter_cr_met=on&filter=Filter+view
17:28:26 <clown> #info actually, looking at that table, it looks like there are two implementations.
17:28:58 <clown> #info Finally, the next stage for ARIA is to run the UAIG (User Agent Implementation Guide) specific test cases.
17:29:29 * API waiting for clown's done in order to make a question
17:29:29 <clown> #info  the plan is to finish that by the end of September, and publish a last call revision of the UAIG
17:29:32 * joanie looks
17:29:47 <clown> #link http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/
17:29:49 <clown> done
17:30:31 <API> ok, my question:
17:30:42 <API> "needed to advance the ARIA spec to the next stage."
17:30:52 <API> what means advance ARIA spec to the next stage?
17:31:02 <API> accepting a new version or something like that?
17:31:29 <clown> currently, the spec is in "Candidate Recommendation" state, meaning it's not official.
17:31:39 <clown> the next state is "Reocommendation"
17:31:44 <clown> *Recommendation
17:31:52 <clown> meaning it is a standard
17:31:54 <joanie> clown: I have question about the 344 thang
17:32:00 <API> so in that context state==stage?
17:32:01 <clown> you can think of it as release 1.0
17:32:09 <joanie> you say: STATE_CHECKED is set, but should be cleared.
17:32:19 <joanie> did you also check for STATE_INDETERMINATE?
17:32:27 <joanie> I think that is how "mixed" gets exposed
17:32:31 <clown> In order to transit from CR to R, you must show that the spec is implementable in at least two user agents.
17:32:52 <clown> just a second joanie, answering API right now.
17:33:01 <joanie> (yeah, my bad. apologies)
17:33:22 <API> well, my question was more in the sense that
17:33:24 <API> I asked about
17:33:26 <API> "needed to advance the ARIA spec to the next stage."
17:33:34 <clown> the test cases show that each feature is implemented in at least two browsers.  But not always the same two.
17:33:35 <API> but on your explanation you used "state"
17:33:40 <API> in that context are the same?
17:33:44 <clown> yes.
17:33:49 <API> ok, thanks
17:33:54 <clown> sorry in this context stage = state.
17:34:10 <API> oh, I knew about the two implementation needed
17:34:18 <API> but I didn't know that was so fine grained (per feature)
17:34:45 <API> in any case, clown you replied my question, thanks
17:34:50 <API> you can move to deal with joanie
17:34:55 <clown> there are some saying that this spec has been the most tested spec in the history of the W3C.
17:34:59 <joanie> deal with? :P
17:35:11 <clown> okay, let me read the log, joanie.
17:35:42 <clown> okay the element that aria-checked="mixed" is on is a radio button (or menuitemradio).
17:35:57 <clown> according to the spec, radio buttons are either true or false, never mixed.
17:35:57 <joanie> right
17:36:08 <joanie> oh
17:36:11 <clown> it is an author error to assigned mixed to a radio button.
17:36:17 <joanie> ahhhhhhhhhhhh
17:36:19 <joanie> got it
17:36:22 <clown> the spec says, that user agents are to map that to "false".
17:36:24 <joanie> thank you for the explanation
17:36:29 <clown> no problem.
17:37:03 <joanie> (I have no more questions)
17:37:08 <clown> it looks like IE+MSAA and Safari+AXAPI and doing that.
17:37:36 <magpie> what's it doing?
17:38:08 <joanie> and if safari is doing it, webkit should be as well
17:38:11 * joanie crosses her fingers
17:38:18 <clown> IE and safari are mapping radio button with aria-checked='mixed' to a radio button that is 'false'  (off).
17:38:34 <joanie> anyhoo, we're about 40 minutes over
17:38:36 <magpie> weird
17:38:47 <magpie> we missed the meeting last week
17:38:49 * API I think that as all question are answered on this topic will close the meeting
17:38:57 <magpie> so that might be why...
17:39:04 <API> magpie, but we didn't warn people about having double meeting today ;)
17:39:20 <magpie> we were naive :-)
17:39:21 <API> so, any more people want to "deal" with clown?
17:39:52 <magpie> that sounds a bit menacing
17:40:23 <API> magpie, sorry
17:40:25 <API> was a joke
17:40:34 * clown is unoffended.
17:40:36 <magpie> me too API :-)
17:40:36 <API> as it seems that I used "deal with joanie" before
17:40:47 * clown shuffles cards
17:40:49 <API> and it has a meaning slitghtly different to what I thought
17:40:49 * clown deals
17:41:05 <joanie> API in this case it might have been an apt use :P
17:41:06 <API> so as the past two minutes (or "dealing with" minutes)
17:41:13 <API> wre really miscellaneous stuff
17:41:18 * clown looks sideways at joanie
17:41:20 <API> I will end the meeting
17:41:28 <API> #endmeeting