1 16:06:23 <API> #startmeeting
   2 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.
   3 16:06:23 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:06:30 <API> #topic GSoC updates
   5 16:06:36 <magpie> clown?
   6 16:06:37 <API> who wants to start?
   7 16:06:56 <clown> go ahead magpie.  I'm still collecting my thoughts.
   8 16:07:02 <magpie> ok
   9 16:07:06 <clown> thanks.
  10 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.
  11 16:07:20 <magpie> #link https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=647074
  12 16:07:20 <tota11y> 04Bug 647074: enhancement, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, RESOLVED FIXED, GNOME Shell Magnifier should track focus and the caret
  13 16:07:26 <clown> \o/
  14 16:07:29 <magpie> #info Magdalen has been updating the wiki to explain the work
  15 16:07:47 <magpie> #link https://wiki.gnome.org/SummerOfCode2013/Projects/MagdalenBernsCaretAndFocusTracking
  16 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.
  17 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()
  18 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.
  19 16:09:19 <magpie> #info Magdalen goes back to uni next week and she wants to look into click lock sometimes soon.
  20 16:09:34 <magpie> ok questions/comments?
  21 16:09:40 <joanie> update and tidy?
  22 16:09:46 <magpie> also thank you everyone!
  23 16:09:49 * API raising hand for questions
  24 16:10:19 <magpie> it was a lot of effort and time that went to getting the patch so I appreciate the help
  25 16:10:23 <clown> you're welcome, magpie.
  26 16:10:33 <magpie> API?
  27 16:10:39 <clown> but note joanie's question:  "update and tidy?"
  28 16:10:48 <API> magpie, joanie made a question
  29 16:10:50 <magpie> oh sorry joanie
  30 16:10:55 <API> just raising hand for be the next one
  31 16:10:57 <magpie> ok i will explain
  32 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?
  33 16:11:46 * magpie finding bug
  34 16:11:59 <clown> magpie, I don't remember ever looking at tracking mode code no longer needed.
  35 16:12:09 <API> well, probably jasper was talking
  36 16:12:12 <clown> I do remember one note from Jasper about an accessor not being used.
  37 16:12:13 <API> about some of the suggestoin
  38 16:12:18 <API> he made during his reviews
  39 16:12:25 <API> that are not in the current code
  40 16:12:29 <clown> but that accessor had nothing to do with tracking.
  41 16:12:34 <API> like a name for the detail1
  42 16:12:35 <API> etc
  43 16:12:52 <magpie> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707666
  44 16:12:52 <tota11y> 04Bug 707666: normal, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, UNCONFIRMED, Unused functions in the magnifier
  45 16:13:03 * joanie looks
  46 16:13:10 <magpie> I think I got them all but I was not very systematic
  47 16:13:26 <clown> magpie, I'm not on the cc list for that bugzilla.
  48 16:13:33 <API> magpie, well, I just wrote down an example ;)
  49 16:13:38 <clown> this is the first time I've seen it.
  50 16:13:40 <magpie> #info Magdalen also updated https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707693
  51 16:13:40 <tota11y> 04Bug 707693: normal, Normal, ---, at-spi-maint, UNCONFIRMED, caret.py example needs to be improved.
  52 16:14:31 <API> joanie, was your question answered?
  53 16:14:39 <magpie> wait lots of people are saying stuff
  54 16:14:42 <joanie> I'm still pondering it, but I have plenty to read
  55 16:14:57 * magpie is not sure who to address
  56 16:15:15 <joanie> let's call a time out for a second
  57 16:15:16 <API> magpie, sorry, I will shut down
  58 16:15:28 <API> *up
  59 16:15:36 <joanie> clown: were those now-gone functions needed for anything?
  60 16:16:00 <joanie> for instance, might you want to adjust or not adjust crosshair color based on changes to inversion?
  61 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.
  62 16:16:16 <joanie> I didn't either
  63 16:16:23 <magpie> oh sorry clown.
  64 16:16:28 <clown> the question is:  how does one know these functions are not used?
  65 16:16:31 <joanie> and ripping out code that might be needed but just doesn't happen to be used now concerns me
  66 16:16:46 <magpie> i tested it joanie
  67 16:16:50 <joanie> it concerns me even more when it appears that the a11y team was not consulted
  68 16:16:54 <joanie> magpie: that's not my point
  69 16:17:06 <joanie> my point is that there could be valid needs for that code
  70 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.
  71 16:17:36 <joanie> clown: but what if, say, magnification and color inversion is being used
  72 16:17:50 <joanie> and one impacts (or doesn't) the other as desired
  73 16:17:59 <joanie> we no longer have any way to get the current values
  74 16:18:10 <joanie> in order to determine whether or not we want to set them
  75 16:18:12 <magpie> drago01 was quite a thorough reviewer
  76 16:18:21 <joanie> magpie: is he a magnification expert?
  77 16:18:23 <joanie> a low vision expert?
  78 16:18:29 <joanie> or a gnome-shell developer?
  79 16:18:34 <joanie> seems only the last one
  80 16:18:37 <magpie> he checked them all and found any mistakes i think
  81 16:18:37 <joanie> but maybe I'm wrong
  82 16:18:42 <joanie> magpie: it's NOT about code
  83 16:18:45 <joanie> it's about users with low vision
  84 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.
  85 16:19:19 <joanie> clown: but that's because there's not been enough time available
  86 16:19:25 <joanie> potentially
  87 16:19:29 <joanie> anyhoo, they are gone
  88 16:19:34 <magpie> yeah that's right. Like they never ended up being used.
  89 16:19:49 <magpie> They can always be put back again
  90 16:19:54 <clown> true.  the bug was filed, reviewed and the patch committed without anyone from the a11y team knowing about it.
  91 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
  92 16:20:15 <joanie> anyhoo, I have nothing more to say
  93 16:20:24 <API> well, what about if as a conclusion
  94 16:20:31 <API> somepeople take as action item
  95 16:20:39 <API> review that no regression was introduced?
  96 16:20:40 <clown> <cynic>a11y has never mattered</cynic>
  97 16:20:57 * magpie is confused
  98 16:21:10 <joanie> API I don't think there will be a regression
  99 16:21:11 <API> magpie, the thing is that
 100 16:21:18 <API> although gnome-shell developers
 101 16:21:24 <API> review magnification patches
 102 16:21:28 <API> they usually don't test it
 103 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
 104 16:21:57 <joanie> but when we get to it, we'll just put it back
 105 16:22:11 <joanie> referencing this bug and the lack of consultation with the a11y team
 106 16:22:11 <joanie> :)
 107 16:22:41 <magpie> I mentioned it, sorry I didn't realise it was like that.
 108 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.
 109 16:22:50 <API> yes, this one of the concerns
 110 16:23:21 <API> but as I said, the other concern (or at least one of my concerns) is about change on the magnifier
 111 16:23:36 <joanie> here's an example:
 112 16:23:45 * API shutting up
 113 16:23:48 <joanie> let's say I am using the dark theme by default
 114 16:24:02 <joanie> and then enable reverse contrast
 115 16:24:12 <joanie> what should happen for items in the dark theme?
 116 16:24:54 <magpie> i don't know what you mean by 'dark theme'
 117 16:24:58 <joanie> it might be nice if we could coordinate the inverse feature with the theme feature
 118 16:25:05 <clown> it would be nice.
 119 16:25:17 <joanie> magpie: there is an option to use a dark theme for gtk
 120 16:25:22 <joanie> for people who are photophobic
 121 16:25:24 <clown> it would be nice to cooridnate the inverse feature with the general white-on-black for gs GUI.
 122 16:25:25 <joanie> or just like the dark them
 123 16:25:34 <joanie> clown: yup
 124 16:25:44 <clown> magnifier users have complained to me about that.
 125 16:25:48 <joanie> and we might want to know what the inversion is
 126 16:25:53 <joanie> i.e. being used or not
 127 16:26:06 <joanie> too bad that function was removed
 128 16:26:11 <joanie> sorry, I'll shut up
 129 16:26:17 <API> ok, in any case, fwiw, as clown said
 130 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.
 131 16:26:20 <joanie> I get bitchy when I'm pissed off
 132 16:26:23 <API> gnome-shell developers don't like too much
 133 16:26:31 <API> keeping structures for future features
 134 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
 135 16:26:42 <API> they prefer to have the code that is currently sused
 136 16:26:56 <magpie> yeah what API said
 137 16:27:00 <joanie> and who complained about the need to remove it?
 138 16:27:29 <API> ?
 139 16:27:33 <joanie> did jasper?
 140 16:27:36 <API> don't get that question?
 141 16:27:40 <API> ah
 142 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
 143 16:27:49 <magpie> He said it was a separate issue
 144 16:27:55 <joanie> did he complain and said the code should be removed?
 145 16:28:59 <magpie> i think you'd better ask him directly or it might seem like I am blaming him for something.
 146 16:30:33 <API> ok
 147 16:30:40 <API> lets try to conclude something on this first question
 148 16:30:47 <API> as some people have others
 149 16:30:55 <API> a lot of previous discussion
 150 16:31:01 <API> not sure how to summarize it
 151 16:31:11 <magpie> HE was really helpful with the patch stuff.
 152 16:31:23 <API> magpie, and how are saying the opposite?
 153 16:31:29 <API> s/how/who
 154 16:31:36 <API> please, lets not start to mix things
 155 16:32:24 <API> #info there are some doubts about bug 707666
 156 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
 157 16:32:26 <magpie> any other questions?
 158 16:32:39 <API> #info during the following week, we will try to answer them
 159 16:32:51 <API> is a vague summary, but is better than nothing
 160 16:32:59 <API> clown: I think that you had some question
 161 16:33:13 <clown> API, thanks.  One other update for GSoC
 162 16:33:18 <API> but I don't like to read all the scrollback again ;)
 163 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.
 164 16:34:13 <clown> #info Josephs wants to make sure the magpie is aware of this
 165 16:34:23 <clown> #link http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2013/codeguidelines
 166 16:34:24 <magpie> oh yeah i got one of those i think... but i can't see where to submit it yet
 167 16:35:05 <clown> #info They suggest that "pencils down" is Sep 16
 168 16:35:17 <magpie> so wwhat do you think I should do until the 'pencils down' ?
 169 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. "
 170 16:35:42 <clown> #info "this date" is Sep 16.
 171 16:36:00 <clown> magpie, you should continue with the UI work.
 172 16:36:09 <clown> That is the last thing in the proposal.
 173 16:36:44 <magpie> |Lupin|: can ask me questions here please.
 174 16:37:11 <|Lupin|> magpie: sure. But perhaps rather after themeetingthen. Don'twant to interfere...
 175 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.
 176 16:37:46 <magpie> |Lupin|: there's a time at the end for miscellaneous
 177 16:38:13 <API> soo
 178 16:38:15 <|Lupin|> magpie: ok, thanks.
 179 16:38:18 <API> something else in this point?
 180 16:38:23 <API> moving?
 181 16:38:40 <API> the alternative to "moving" are questions, doubts, comments
 182 16:38:46 <magpie> I don't know
 183 16:39:05 <API> well, nobody raised the hand
 184 16:39:07 <API> so I will move
 185 16:39:09 <magpie> the ui work seems really vague to me
 186 16:39:16 <API> ups
 187 16:39:21 <API> why vague?
 188 16:39:22 <magpie> can I get some clarity on what I need to do for it?
 189 16:39:24 <magpie> please
 190 16:39:36 <API> magpie, right now there are a dialog
 191 16:39:39 <API> to configure zoom
 192 16:39:51 <API> zoom rate, color, crosshair
 193 16:39:51 <API> etc
 194 16:40:00 <API> but there isn't anything to enable the trakcing
 195 16:40:03 <API> and selecting the mode
 196 16:40:08 <API> so ui work
 197 16:40:09 <API> means
 198 16:40:17 <API> add to the current zoom configuration dialog
 199 16:40:27 <API> the options to configure the tracking
 200 16:41:04 <magpie> ok I'm not sure how to best go about that
 201 16:41:19 <magpie> I'm confused why I need sketches etc
 202 16:41:42 <clown> where does it say you need sketches, magpie?
 203 16:41:48 <clown> or, who said that?
 204 16:42:01 <magpie> when I was asking advice from the design team
 205 16:42:05 <magpie> last week
 206 16:42:09 * clown not that sketches are necessarily bad.
 207 16:42:17 <clown> oh, okay.
 208 16:42:39 <magpie> I mentioned not having a clue and A Day suggested I make a sketch
 209 16:42:50 <API> well, about the need of sketches
 210 16:42:59 <API> that is a question for the design team
 211 16:43:15 <API> and having said so
 212 16:43:22 <API> is almost 45 minutes on the meeting
 213 16:43:24 <API> so if you don't mind
 214 16:43:27 <API> I will move to next point
 215 16:44:07 <API> #topic Other issues related to GNOME 3.10
 216 16:44:13 <API> joanie, do you want to start?
 217 16:44:22 <API> I think that you made more work on that part
 218 16:45:02 <joanie> API well, it's all the regressions, etc
 219 16:45:10 <joanie> that I am finding and you are fixing
 220 16:45:10 <API> yes I know
 221 16:45:16 <joanie> not counting the combo box bug
 222 16:45:18 <API> but you were the regression-detecter here
 223 16:45:21 <joanie> we need benjamin to fix
 224 16:45:34 <API> in any case, I think that you are implicitly asking me to summarize this
 225 16:45:34 <API> soo
 226 16:45:50 <API> #info there are several bugs related with the new gtk widgets
 227 16:46:07 <API> #info example: gtkheaderbar, gtklistbox
 228 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
 229 16:46:49 <API> #info the poster boy was gnome-control-center, specifically universal access
 230 16:47:09 <API> #info due those bugs, universal access panel was inaccessible (irony shot for everyone)
 231 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
 232 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
 233 16:48:27 <API> well, the summary is somewhat general, but I think that is enough to get the idea
 234 16:48:38 <API> joanie, did I miss something?
 235 16:48:45 <joanie> the combo box regression
 236 16:48:47 * joanie looks
 237 16:48:49 <API> true
 238 16:49:07 <API> #info one of the regressions are not related to new widgets, but about combobox
 239 16:49:24 <API> #info Benjamin Otte (IRC: Company) was taking a look to that
 240 16:49:34 <joanie> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707786
 241 16:49:34 <tota11y> 04Bug 707786: normal, Normal, ---, gtk-bugs, UNCONFIRMED, Collapsed Gtk combo boxes no longer emit accessible selection-changed events
 242 16:49:34 <API> #action joanie will ping him about the status of that bug
 243 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
 244 16:50:17 <joanie> just pinged him in #a11y
 245 16:50:21 <API> joanie, ok
 246 16:50:32 <API> so, questions, doubts, comments, additional regressions?
 247 16:51:01 <joanie> Nope. We just need to keep testing
 248 16:51:09 <API> good point
 249 16:51:11 <joanie> and thank you for fixing these regressions introduced by others
 250 16:51:20 <jjmarin> I think gnome-initial-setup has similar issues
 251 16:51:23 <API> #action everybody, test
 252 16:51:33 <joanie> jjmarin: see if it still does with Orca master
 253 16:51:37 <joanie> and g-i-s master
 254 16:51:46 <joanie> I have added more support for the GtkListBox stuff
 255 16:51:55 <jjmarin> ok
 256 16:51:57 <joanie> so testing with orca stable won't work
 257 16:52:03 <joanie> or won't give you accurate results
 258 16:52:30 <joanie> but I'll take a look at it too
 259 16:52:38 <joanie> since I have a working orca master in my jhbuild environment
 260 16:52:53 <API> jjmarin, the same with gtk
 261 16:52:59 <API> there are some new stuff about gtklistbox
 262 16:53:18 <joanie> g-i-s uses (used?) egglistbox
 263 16:53:26 <joanie> my guess is that it moved to GtkListbox
 264 16:53:31 <jjmarin> I was thinking about it
 265 16:53:34 <API> I also think that
 266 16:53:42 <API> gtklistbox is in theory egglistbox moved to gtk
 267 16:53:46 <jjmarin> yes I think it is egglistbox
 268 16:53:54 <joanie> jjmarin: still?
 269 16:53:57 <jjmarin> ahh
 270 16:54:07 <jjmarin> it was a month a go
 271 16:54:11 <jjmarin> ago
 272 16:54:13 <joanie> but the accessible hierarchy is different
 273 16:54:15 <jjmarin> AFAIR
 274 16:54:23 <joanie> and like I said, this past week I've added support in Orca for it
 275 16:54:29 <joanie> anyhoo, we need to test from master
 276 16:54:40 <joanie> (or 3.9.x if they branched)
 277 16:55:06 <API> so ok
 278 16:55:09 <API> anything else?
 279 16:55:12 <jjmarin> thanks for all this new bug fixing !
 280 16:55:24 <API> (sorry for pushing so much, but we are really over time)
 281 16:55:25 <jjmarin> nop
 282 16:55:34 <API> #topic "Boston" Summit and the possibility of Wayland Accessibility Hacking
 283 16:55:38 <API> joanie, ?
 284 16:55:44 <joanie> sure
 285 16:55:58 <joanie> #info the "Boston" summit this year is being held in the other Boston (aka Montreal)
 286 16:56:08 <joanie> #info the dates are 12-14 October
 287 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.
 288 16:57:11 <mgorse> Does someone know if any of the Wayland developers will be around?
 289 16:57:25 <joanie> #info We haven't thought much beyond that, i.e. should we have an official hackfest; a before/after event?
 290 16:57:31 <joanie> mgorse: not yet, but....
 291 16:57:41 <joanie> boston summit is traditionally populated by many from Red Hat
 292 16:57:51 <joanie> and the "usual suspsects" (core hackers)
 293 16:57:58 <joanie> so my *guess* is that there will be
 294 16:58:06 <joanie> but we should figure out whom we need present
 295 16:58:07 <joanie> and then ping them
 296 16:58:17 <joanie> so do we have a list of the must-haves from outside our team?
 297 16:58:18 <clown> #link https://wiki.gnome.org/Montreal2013
 298 16:58:45 <API> mgorse, in any case, as you made the work to being able to compile at-spi2 without X
 299 16:58:54 <API> first test will be if it is possible to use that on Wayland
 300 16:59:03 <API> and how many feature we lose with that
 301 16:59:07 * mgorse isn't even sure who the Wayland devs are off-hand
 302 16:59:07 <magpie> good going mgorse
 303 16:59:27 <API> in any case
 304 16:59:30 <API> about joanie question
 305 16:59:42 <clown> at-spi2 doesn't require X anymore?
 306 16:59:45 <mgorse> Keystroke listeners probably don't work, for one, and anything mouse-related
 307 16:59:50 <clown> ah...
 308 16:59:56 <API> clown, you can compile it without X
 309 17:00:01 <API> but you will lose stuff
 310 17:00:05 <clown> right, API
 311 17:00:09 <API> so in theory you can use it
 312 17:00:17 <clown> my next question was if you could get mouse events without X.
 313 17:00:20 <API> just losing feature
 314 17:00:25 <clown> mgorse already answered.
 315 17:00:48 <API> yeah, but as we are saying a lot of "in theory", "probably" etc
 316 17:00:59 <API> I think that it would be good to test it
 317 17:01:03 <mgorse> I was figuring that, down the road, we could add other back ends for functionality that we need
 318 17:01:24 <API> mgorse, yes, as I mentioned on gnome-accessibility-devel
 319 17:01:29 <API> answering luke
 320 17:01:33 <API> that is the long term idea
 321 17:01:59 <API> so about joanie's question:
 322 17:02:00 <magpie> what about mousetweaks?
 323 17:02:31 <API> magpie, well
 324 17:02:45 <API> I have an action item to ping them
 325 17:02:52 <API> so I could do that
 326 17:03:02 <API> and see if they have other ideas for the montreal summit
 327 17:03:09 <API> assuming that they are going
 328 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
 329 17:03:49 <|Lupin|> gotta go, sorry. Bye.
 330 17:03:59 <API> |Lupin|, bye, thanks for coming
 331 17:04:04 <clown> by |Lupin|
 332 17:04:08 <clown> *bye
 333 17:04:10 <joanie> but I think we're getting off track
 334 17:04:17 <API> I agree
 335 17:04:19 <joanie> summit is in 1 month
 336 17:04:27 <magpie> bye |Lupin|
 337 17:04:30 <|Lupin|> will try to participate next time ;)
 338 17:05:02 <API> so as I was saying, about joanie's question:
 339 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?
 340 17:05:17 <API> could you elaborate before/after event=
 341 17:05:19 <API> ?
 342 17:05:26 <joanie> on the 11th or 15th
 343 17:05:30 <API> are you suggesting something like arrive to montreal before in order to hack?
 344 17:05:31 <joanie> summit is 12th-14th
 345 17:05:44 <joanie> not suggesting; tossing it out there for consideration
 346 17:06:09 <mgorse> I think it'll depend in part on who else we need in the room and what their plans are
 347 17:06:09 <joanie> i don't care so much about the exact plan; I care about having a plan :)
 348 17:06:32 <API> joanie, well, as you say, summit is in 1 month
 349 17:06:40 <API> we don't have too much margin to plan
 350 17:06:45 * joanie nods
 351 17:06:47 <API> and to know who are going or not
 352 17:06:57 <API> so not sure if it is worth to rush a longer montreal summit
 353 17:07:06 <joanie> ok
 354 17:07:20 <joanie> so let's assume 12th-14th
 355 17:07:29 <joanie> mgorse: and API: can you both come?
 356 17:08:23 <API> not sure, will try to confirm as soon as possible
 357 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
 358 17:11:08 * joanie nods at mgorse
 359 17:11:15 <joanie> could you run it by Scott?
 360 17:11:21 <joanie> as we are getting close
 361 17:11:30 <joanie> GNOME: It's all about the last minute!
 362 17:11:39 <joanie> (why joanie is not a marketer)
 363 17:11:44 <mgorse> yeah, hopefully I can give you a real answer later today, or tomorrow
 364 17:11:50 <joanie> super awesome. Thanks!!
 365 17:11:52 <jjmarin> who is Scott ?
 366 17:12:02 <mgorse> jjmarin: he's my manager at SUSE
 367 17:12:16 <jjmarin> ah, ok, thank you :-)
 368 17:12:18 <joanie> and an uber nice guy
 369 17:12:23 <API> so, as we are over time
 370 17:12:24 <joanie> he was at GUADEC
 371 17:12:27 <API> anything else on this point?
 372 17:12:28 <clown> managers.  can't live with them.  can't live without them.
 373 17:12:40 <joanie> yes, actually
 374 17:12:42 <joanie> on this point
 375 17:12:52 <joanie> heidi: You mentioned to me that your students might come
 376 17:13:05 <joanie> if so, what would the goal(s) be and how could we help?
 377 17:13:07 <heidi> Yes, I'm working on that.
 378 17:13:36 <heidi> I'm guessing that they would only be there for 1.5 days, one night.
 379 17:13:39 <heidi> And I'm not sure.
 380 17:13:55 <heidi> joanie: I'm in the process of sending you the squashed patches.
 381 17:13:56 <joanie> ok, as soon as you know, and what the days are, please let us know
 382 17:14:01 <heidi> Yes, will do.
 383 17:14:02 <joanie> heidi: yay!
 384 17:14:06 <joanie> (but wrong topic :P)
 385 17:14:13 <heidi> Students are _incredibly_ excited about this.
 386 17:14:18 <joanie> cooool!
 387 17:14:25 <heidi> :-)
 388 17:14:33 <jjmarin> great !
 389 17:14:41 <joanie> ok, so I think that's it on this topic then (?)
 390 17:15:22 <API> joanie, what?
 391 17:15:29 <joanie> ?
 392 17:15:40 <joanie> API you asked if there was anything else on this topic
 393 17:15:45 <API> ah ok
 394 17:15:51 <joanie> I think now that there is nothing else
 395 17:15:56 <joanie> but I'm not sure if that is true for others
 396 17:16:01 <API> im skipping w3c today, sorry
 397 17:16:18 <API> #topic Marketing
 398 17:16:21 <API> jjmarin, ?
 399 17:16:27 <clown> again?  I've queued the same stuff for the past three of four meetings… Sheesh...
 400 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
 401 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.
 402 17:16:57 <jjmarin> questions ?
 403 17:17:18 <magpie> I have an info if ok jjmarin?
 404 17:17:39 <magpie> well two-ish
 405 17:17:50 <jjmarin> ok
 406 17:18:01 <magpie> and a quesrion after that :-)
 407 17:18:07 <magpie> #info Magdalen sent out an update to the a11y mailing list
 408 17:18:33 * clown looks
 409 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.
 410 17:19:31 <jjmarin> cool !
 411 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
 412 17:20:29 <magpie> also my question: jjmarin
 413 17:20:42 <magpie> how did they like the release notes draft?
 414 17:21:20 <jjmarin> magpie: nobody has review it yet
 415 17:21:42 <jjmarin> s/revew/reviewed
 416 17:21:57 <magpie> ok jjmain thanks
 417 17:22:03 <magpie> #link http://www.wes.org.uk/
 418 17:22:07 <jjmarin> I want to add the fact you need gettings to activate the focus and caret tracking
 419 17:22:23 <jjmarin> but not sure if this will be accepted
 420 17:22:59 <magpie> you don't need them to activate i jjmarin
 421 17:23:12 <magpie> you need them to change the setting and to deactivate
 422 17:23:37 <magpie> by default the setting is 'centered' and 'push' for caret and focus respectively
 423 17:24:12 <clown> joanie, are those good defautls?
 424 17:24:16 <jjmarin> the focus and caret tracking are not activated by default, AFAIK or I'm wrong ?
 425 17:24:18 <clown> *defaults
 426 17:24:20 <joanie> clown: depends on the individual
 427 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
 428 17:24:31 <API> well, guys
 429 17:24:39 <API> if those are good default or not
 430 17:24:42 <clown> yeah, I'm looking for the best lowest common denominator, joanie
 431 17:24:45 <joanie> anyhoo, let's let the users provide feedback
 432 17:24:46 <API> are somewhat off-topic on the meeting
 433 17:24:48 <clown> probably a bad goal.
 434 17:24:55 <API> and I like joanie suggestion
 435 17:25:00 <clown> +1
 436 17:25:10 <API> jjmarin, if you don't mind I will move to other topic
 437 17:25:22 <jjmarin> ok
 438 17:25:30 <magpie> jjmarin: to answer your question no they are activated by default
 439 17:25:34 <API> and taking into account clown comments
 440 17:25:37 <magpie> they do not need to be activated
 441 17:25:51 <API> #topic w3c updates
 442 17:25:54 <API> clown, ?
 443 17:26:07 <clown> really?
 444 17:26:10 <API> yes,
 445 17:26:11 <API> sorry
 446 17:26:12 <clown> okay, here goes...
 447 17:26:26 <API> I thought that in other cases we didn't have any w3c update, so the reason to skip
 448 17:26:32 <API> but I was wrong
 449 17:26:41 <clown> #info There was a latest public draft for IndieUI published at the end of July
 450 17:26:45 <clown> #link http://www.w3.org/TR/indie-ui-events/
 451 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.
 452 17:27:33 * clown looks for link.
 453 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
 454 17:28:26 <clown> #info actually, looking at that table, it looks like there are two implementations.
 455 17:28:58 <clown> #info Finally, the next stage for ARIA is to run the UAIG (User Agent Implementation Guide) specific test cases.
 456 17:29:29 * API waiting for clown's done in order to make a question
 457 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
 458 17:29:32 * joanie looks
 459 17:29:47 <clown> #link http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/
 460 17:29:49 <clown> done
 461 17:30:31 <API> ok, my question:
 462 17:30:42 <API> "needed to advance the ARIA spec to the next stage."
 463 17:30:52 <API> what means advance ARIA spec to the next stage?
 464 17:31:02 <API> accepting a new version or something like that?
 465 17:31:29 <clown> currently, the spec is in "Candidate Recommendation" state, meaning it's not official.
 466 17:31:39 <clown> the next state is "Reocommendation"
 467 17:31:44 <clown> *Recommendation
 468 17:31:52 <clown> meaning it is a standard
 469 17:31:54 <joanie> clown: I have question about the 344 thang
 470 17:32:00 <API> so in that context state==stage?
 471 17:32:01 <clown> you can think of it as release 1.0
 472 17:32:09 <joanie> you say: STATE_CHECKED is set, but should be cleared.
 473 17:32:19 <joanie> did you also check for STATE_INDETERMINATE?
 474 17:32:27 <joanie> I think that is how "mixed" gets exposed
 475 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.
 476 17:32:52 <clown> just a second joanie, answering API right now.
 477 17:33:01 <joanie> (yeah, my bad. apologies)
 478 17:33:22 <API> well, my question was more in the sense that
 479 17:33:24 <API> I asked about
 480 17:33:26 <API> "needed to advance the ARIA spec to the next stage."
 481 17:33:34 <clown> the test cases show that each feature is implemented in at least two browsers.  But not always the same two.
 482 17:33:35 <API> but on your explanation you used "state"
 483 17:33:40 <API> in that context are the same?
 484 17:33:44 <clown> yes.
 485 17:33:49 <API> ok, thanks
 486 17:33:54 <clown> sorry in this context stage = state.
 487 17:34:10 <API> oh, I knew about the two implementation needed
 488 17:34:18 <API> but I didn't know that was so fine grained (per feature)
 489 17:34:45 <API> in any case, clown you replied my question, thanks
 490 17:34:50 <API> you can move to deal with joanie
 491 17:34:55 <clown> there are some saying that this spec has been the most tested spec in the history of the W3C.
 492 17:34:59 <joanie> deal with? :P
 493 17:35:11 <clown> okay, let me read the log, joanie.
 494 17:35:42 <clown> okay the element that aria-checked="mixed" is on is a radio button (or menuitemradio).
 495 17:35:57 <clown> according to the spec, radio buttons are either true or false, never mixed.
 496 17:35:57 <joanie> right
 497 17:36:08 <joanie> oh
 498 17:36:11 <clown> it is an author error to assigned mixed to a radio button.
 499 17:36:17 <joanie> ahhhhhhhhhhhh
 500 17:36:19 <joanie> got it
 501 17:36:22 <clown> the spec says, that user agents are to map that to "false".
 502 17:36:24 <joanie> thank you for the explanation
 503 17:36:29 <clown> no problem.
 504 17:37:03 <joanie> (I have no more questions)
 505 17:37:08 <clown> it looks like IE+MSAA and Safari+AXAPI and doing that.
 506 17:37:36 <magpie> what's it doing?
 507 17:38:08 <joanie> and if safari is doing it, webkit should be as well
 508 17:38:11 * joanie crosses her fingers
 509 17:38:18 <clown> IE and safari are mapping radio button with aria-checked='mixed' to a radio button that is 'false'  (off).
 510 17:38:34 <joanie> anyhoo, we're about 40 minutes over
 511 17:38:36 <magpie> weird
 512 17:38:47 <magpie> we missed the meeting last week
 513 17:38:49 * API I think that as all question are answered on this topic will close the meeting
 514 17:38:57 <magpie> so that might be why...
 515 17:39:04 <API> magpie, but we didn't warn people about having double meeting today ;)
 516 17:39:20 <magpie> we were naive :-)
 517 17:39:21 <API> so, any more people want to "deal" with clown?
 518 17:39:52 <magpie> that sounds a bit menacing
 519 17:40:23 <API> magpie, sorry
 520 17:40:25 <API> was a joke
 521 17:40:34 * clown is unoffended.
 522 17:40:36 <magpie> me too API :-)
 523 17:40:36 <API> as it seems that I used "deal with joanie" before
 524 17:40:47 * clown shuffles cards
 525 17:40:49 <API> and it has a meaning slitghtly different to what I thought
 526 17:40:49 * clown deals
 527 17:41:05 <joanie> API in this case it might have been an apt use :P
 528 17:41:06 <API> so as the past two minutes (or "dealing with" minutes)
 529 17:41:13 <API> wre really miscellaneous stuff
 530 17:41:18 * clown looks sideways at joanie
 531 17:41:20 <API> I will end the meeting
 532 17:41:28 <API> #endmeeting