16:05:52 <API> #startmeeting
16:05:52 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Jun  6 16:05:52 2013 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:05:52 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:06:09 <API> #topic GSoC updates
16:06:18 <API> Magpie, clown I think that this is your topic
16:06:34 <clown> go ahead Magpie.
16:06:46 <Magpie> k firstly i have a GNOME feed http://feeds.feedburner.com/thismagpie/GNOME
16:07:05 * clown looks
16:08:10 <Magpie> i need to fix the formatting for the planet gnome i think because it's misbehaving on some feeds by showing code as centre aligned so i haven't giving it to planet.gnome
16:08:15 <Magpie> yet
16:08:31 <jjmarin> hi !
16:09:08 <clown> hey jjmarin.
16:09:10 <Magpie> i changed some files to update the patch with https://github.com/thisMagpie/GSoC and you can add a feed to get updated on coding progresses
16:09:15 <Magpie> hi jjmarin
16:09:40 <Magpie> i fixed jhbuild schemas last night
16:10:27 <API> Magpie, ok, so for the meeting sake, could you give a small summary of in which situation you are?
16:10:28 <clown> what means "jhbuild schemas"?
16:10:39 <API> in the sense of "I did this" "next step will be"
16:10:49 <clown> and use info's
16:10:56 * joanie notes that Magpie is probably not used to meetbot commands
16:10:58 <joanie> and our customs
16:11:03 <clown> good point
16:11:03 <Magpie> right now i think i need to go through the js file with clown and identify the next plan of attack
16:11:04 <vho> there :)
16:11:45 <joanie> (sorry for the noise, but the bot cannot change the topic)
16:12:19 <Magpie> ok. There's my summary ^
16:12:34 <API> Magpie, ok thanks
16:12:40 * clown wonders if API will do a "#start_meeting"...
16:12:51 <joanie> clown: he did already
16:13:02 * clown starts to wake up...
16:13:10 <joanie> #info Magdalen is new to the meetbot and doesn't know its commands
16:13:16 <API> clown, yes I did, lets see if now I can do the topic thing
16:13:29 <joanie> the topic is done for minutes
16:13:35 <API> #topic GSoC updates
16:13:40 <API> ok it works
16:13:43 <Magpie> oh
16:13:45 <joanie> it is not done for the channel when people come in late like jjmarin
16:13:51 <Magpie> shall i say that again?
16:13:52 <API> we can introduce Magpie to the command stuff other day
16:13:53 <joanie> anyyyyhooooo
16:13:57 <API> Magpie, not needed
16:13:58 <API> so
16:14:05 <Magpie> ok API thanks
16:14:08 <API> #info magpie presented an updated of her work
16:14:20 * joanie notes that she will have to edit names again
16:14:28 <API> #info she provided a feeder if we want to follow her work http://feeds.feedburner.com/thismagpie/GNOME
16:14:49 <API> #info she summarized her status as "right now i think i need to go through the js file with clown and identify the next plan of attack"
16:15:14 <API> so I think that this is a good summary of the topic
16:15:16 <API> anything else?
16:15:19 <clown> yes
16:15:20 <API> comments, questions, doubts?
16:15:27 <clown> #info Joseph has read some of the GSOC emails from Magpie and others.
16:15:46 <Magpie> i did some updated code as well https://github.com/thisMagpie/GSoC/tree/master/javascript
16:16:14 <clown> #info Joseph has responded to Magpie answering questions about magFocusCaretTracker.py, and supplying her with a clean copy of the focusCaretTracker.js
16:16:26 <joanie> #info Magdalen updated code as well https://github.com/thisMagpie/GSoC/tree/master/javascript
16:16:40 <clown> #info also spent some time working through how to include the JavaScript with a jhbuild of gnome-shell.
16:17:12 <clown> #info next step is to find time to meet with Magpie and go over focusCaretTracker.js, and explain what it tried to do.
16:17:21 <clown> done, questions?
16:17:33 <joanie> observation:
16:17:45 <joanie> Given the very tight schedule Magpie is working under
16:17:57 <joanie> the sooner the meeting time, the better
16:18:17 <joanie> on a related note, if clown keeps joanie and jjmarin in the loop, we can help Magpie in the evenings
16:18:22 <joanie> i.e. to supplement what you've done
16:18:24 <joanie> should that be needed
16:19:26 <Magpie> thanks joanie, jjmarin
16:19:27 <clown> I have an hour today, 1:00pm my time.
16:19:28 <joanie> anyhoo, that's all
16:19:46 <jjmarin> So Magdalen has been able to see Joseph's python example and js patch in action ? I think this must be the starting point
16:19:49 <clown> but I have a deadline for tomorrow that must be met.
16:20:10 * joanie nods re deadlines
16:20:35 <joanie> Magpie: could you meet with clown at 1pm (6pm your time I believe)
16:20:37 <joanie> ?
16:20:41 <Magpie> an hour is good
16:20:44 <clown> jjmarin, I doubt the python example works under python3 — that was the issue with it.
16:20:55 <joanie> clown: we are ignoring python3 for now
16:21:06 <clown> yes, I know joanie
16:21:27 <Magpie> it's just to get the gist
16:21:53 <clown> and the js patch doesn't do anything visible except dump log messages to the console.
16:22:09 <Magpie> lot of questions come into my head when i am going through it about gnome shell and how it is handling listeners
16:22:24 <Magpie> registering
16:22:31 <jjmarin> ok
16:22:53 <clown> I can walk you through that Magpie. (crosses fingers).
16:23:01 <API> ok, I will use that
16:23:02 <joanie> clown: Magpie could you have the meeting here? We don't need to use the meet bot
16:23:05 <Magpie> fabulous
16:23:10 <joanie> but I would like to follow along
16:23:22 <API> as "we have a conclusion on the general meeting, lets focus on details on a follow-up meeting"
16:23:26 <API> ;)
16:23:32 <API> so, anything else here?
16:23:39 <clown> not from me.
16:23:51 <API> ok
16:23:52 <Magpie> i'm good with that joanie
16:23:58 <joanie> thanks
16:23:59 <Magpie> yes nothing more from me either
16:24:04 <API> Magpie, clown thanks for the update, lets move to next topic
16:24:12 <API> #topic W3C updates
16:24:14 <API> clown, ?
16:24:26 <clown> so:  resolved that Magpie and I will meet here later at 1pm today.  All others are welcome :)
16:25:18 <Magpie> thanks clown
16:25:19 <clown> #info No big news regarding W3C ARIA work.  Testing is proceeding and it's looking good.
16:25:51 <API> probably a silly question
16:25:52 <clown> #info  There is some other progress on the IndieUI front, but I have been away from that for so long, that I don't have any summary to provide about it.
16:26:01 <API> is still a manual execution testing?
16:26:15 <API> plans to automatically execute them?
16:26:39 <clown> API, yes.  No one has the time to write at automated system at this point.  Apple may be doing this with webkit/safari, but that's proprietary.
16:26:57 <joanie> clown: Apple's not doing it upstream?
16:27:05 <joanie> if so, that sucks
16:27:08 <clown> what does "upstream" mean
16:27:09 <clown> here?
16:27:15 <joanie> webkit
16:27:26 <joanie> not behind some closed Apple doors
16:27:43 <joanie> if they do it in WebKit for safari, we could do it for WebKitGTK
16:28:15 <clown> my suspicion is it's behind close doors.  I hear rumours of "we've automated some of this", but nothing concrete.  But, I don't *know*.
16:28:21 * joanie nods
16:28:58 <API> strange (imho) in any case
16:29:07 <API> they are already adding public tests on webkit
16:29:23 <API> not sure why they are giving parallel tests, proprietary
16:29:23 <clown> tests of what?  ARIA?
16:29:36 <API> clown, some of them yes
16:29:39 <joanie> aria, html, everything
16:29:39 <API> on webkit
16:29:46 <API> each time that you add a feature
16:29:52 <API> you need to provide a test with the patch
16:29:59 <API> so lets say that they add support for foo-aria
16:30:00 <joanie> what we don't have is the w3c official tests
16:30:06 <API> a foo-aria-test is needed
16:30:13 <API> to test regressions
16:30:30 <clown> The w3c official tests are available — they are in a public mercurial repository.
16:30:33 <API> there are already several aria related tests
16:30:46 <API> although they don't have the w3c seal
16:30:58 <clown> The w3c testable statements are available publicly in a "web form".
16:30:58 <API> they are there, working and being automated
16:31:23 <API> if we change something on the a11y implementation, and some of the aria tests doesn't pass on apple automatic bots
16:31:29 <API> that patch is not approved
16:31:35 <clown> cool.
16:31:42 <clown> where are these tests?
16:31:58 * API looking
16:32:08 * clown doesn't mean to take over...
16:32:15 <joanie> http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/LayoutTests/accessibility
16:32:44 <joanie> clown: I never mean to take over either ;)
16:32:47 <API> clown, about the coolness
16:32:50 <API> yes it is cool
16:32:55 <joanie> besides this is an important topic imho
16:33:03 <API> this is the reason I was asking if there are plans to automatize all those tests
16:33:22 <API> clown, if you take a look to those tests
16:33:29 <API> there are several that starts with aria-
16:33:34 <joanie> and the reason I was surprised that they were being run by hand by the W3C folks
16:33:55 <joanie> where "several" == "a whole bunch"
16:33:58 <API> and I was surprised by the fact that apple is doing a proprietary thing with those w3c tests
16:34:04 <API> seems like doing the same work twice
16:34:05 <joanie> me too API
16:34:17 <API> I guess that apple has enough money to do the same twice
16:34:30 <joanie> must be nice
16:35:02 <clown> just skimming one of them (aria-presentational-role.html).  It looks like they can access the a11y API through javascript.  That's something one can't do in FF.
16:35:17 <joanie> clown: yes and no
16:35:22 <joanie> I can explain it later
16:35:27 * joanie looks for a link in the meantime
16:35:56 <API> well, but that is a implementation detail, right?
16:36:03 <joanie> yes
16:36:05 <API> what I mean is that w3c can define a bunch of tests
16:36:11 <joanie> hence the "explain it later"
16:36:17 <joanie> it's beyond the scope of this meeting
16:36:19 <API> and then each browser can decide how to implement/run those tests
16:36:26 <API> what I said is that for me
16:36:28 <joanie> well, not quite but
16:36:36 <joanie> http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Tools/DumpRenderTree (is for webkit1)
16:36:37 <API> the direct way to do that
16:36:47 <API> is just add those w3c tests as current webkit tests
16:37:02 <API> if ff can't do the same ... well, is ff problem :P
16:37:17 <clown> well no, it's a W3C problem.
16:37:47 <clown> In order to "release" the spec as version 1.0, W3C has to show that it's implemented in at least two user agents.
16:38:12 <joanie> so add the tests to webkit
16:38:13 <clown> tha'ts W3C protocol.
16:38:15 <joanie> and look at IE
16:38:22 <API> clown, yeah, but what I mean
16:38:31 <joanie> and Mozilla will then say "oh crap, we must fix this"
16:38:32 <joanie> :)
16:38:37 <API> is that webkit can implement it adding to their tests
16:38:42 <API> and ff can do that in other way
16:38:59 <joanie> (or ff can be skipped as the second user agent due to lack of automation support) ;)
16:39:00 <API> for webkit I see  adirect way to automatize those tests
16:39:17 <API> if ff can't do the same, well, they can do the same everybody is doing now, and run them manually
16:39:40 <joanie> anyhoo *now* we are deep diving and getting off track
16:39:47 <API> anyway, I guess that we lack the answer to several questions
16:39:50 <API> joanie, exactly
16:39:54 <API> so summarizing that
16:40:16 <clown> well,  I'll be the first to shake their hands if they take the time to run them manually.  Meanwhile, I'll run some manually, as will others in the working group.
16:40:28 <API> clown, could you ask apple people why they didn't include those w3c tests on current webkit tests?
16:40:37 <clown> That is, we aren't waiting for the generosity of the browser vendors...
16:41:00 <API> or why that is not a solution to the automatization issue in any case
16:41:38 <clown> it's a partial solution since it only shows it working in one user agent/a11y platform.  We need two.
16:41:52 <clown> But, sure, I will ask the Apple member about this.
16:41:56 <API> ok
16:41:58 <joanie> clown: start with one, advocate for the second
16:42:07 <API> I think that this is a good way to finish this topic
16:42:11 <API> do we agree?
16:42:16 * joanie nods
16:42:20 <API> anything else on this topic (just in case we disagree)?
16:43:00 <clown> one thing perhaps.
16:43:49 <clown> The plan going forward for ARIA 1.1 and ARIA 2.0 is to build a test harness for automating the tests, leveraging the ones that already exists.
16:44:06 <joanie> where is the test harness going to live?
16:44:14 <clown> At W3C.
16:44:21 <clown> I expect.
16:44:45 <clown> But, (puts on cynic hat), who is going to volunteer to do that?
16:44:59 * clown takes off cynic hat.
16:45:21 <joanie> clown: we have a test harness
16:45:23 <joanie> in webkit
16:45:34 <clown> and you need one in FF and IE and Chrome.
16:45:38 <joanie> w3c will be reinventing the wheel
16:45:46 <joanie> chrome has a test harness
16:45:54 <clown> perhaps they'll donate it?
16:46:21 <joanie> they are open source
16:46:27 <joanie> but specific to the browser
16:46:42 <clown> the tests are specific to the browser AND to the a11y platform.
16:46:46 <joanie> I think w3c energies would be better spent convincing IE and FF to do the same
16:47:03 * joanie shrugs
16:47:49 * API wonders if now we finished the topic or not
16:48:19 <joanie> yeah,
16:48:23 <clown> I'm done.
16:48:26 <joanie> I'll keep bitching until the topic changes
16:48:27 <joanie> ;)
16:48:30 <joanie> so change it
16:49:05 <API> #topic Marketing
16:49:18 <API> so jjmarin , if you are still awake after the tests and tests stuff
16:49:23 <API> jjmarin, any update?
16:49:23 <joanie> heh
16:50:28 * jjmarin bets they are in webkit code
16:50:40 <joanie> the marketing is in webkit?
16:50:41 <jjmarin> sorry, I felt asleep :)
16:50:53 <jjmarin> nope :)
16:50:53 <Magpie> ha
16:50:56 <joanie> one use agent to rule them all?
16:51:16 <jjmarin> no marketing update news I am afraid
16:51:33 <joanie> jjmarin: what is the status on the FoG publicity?
16:52:10 <jjmarin> I am waiting for the approbation of the contract
16:52:27 <joanie> it was approved I thought
16:52:51 <jjmarin> #help
16:52:58 <jjmarin> :)
16:53:00 <joanie> ?
16:53:47 <jjmarin> Juanjo will ask karenesq about the status of the contract to make it public
16:54:13 <joanie> aha #action is the command
16:54:26 <jjmarin> #action Juanjo will ask karenesq about the status of the contract to make it public
16:54:28 <jjmarin> :)
16:54:31 <joanie> thanks :)
16:54:52 <API> ok
16:54:56 <joanie> oh I just thought of a new topic that should be on the agenda
16:54:57 <API> so lets go to the last topic
16:54:58 <joanie> crap
16:55:02 <API> hmm
16:55:03 <API> ok
16:55:07 <API> joanie, go on then
16:55:13 <joanie> GUADEC BoF
16:55:21 <joanie> we need to decide
16:55:27 <joanie> and that's not misc
16:55:29 <API> #topic GUADEC BoF
16:55:37 <API> ok, I will start with my opinion
16:56:03 <API> #info Piñeiro opinion: last year a11y BoF made sense because we had several people from the a11y team
16:56:18 <API> #info at the GUADEC, and at the same time, we got other teams involved, so we could plan an agenda
16:56:52 <API> #info in Piñeiro opinion, having or not a Bof at 2013 will depend on how many people from the team are there, and if we find another cross-activity
16:57:38 <API> #info if there isn't too many people from the team, or that activity, it doesn't worth to organize the bof
16:57:39 <API> done
16:57:41 <API> nexT?h
16:58:05 <joanie> Well, who here will be at GUADEC?
16:58:10 <joanie> #info Joanie will be at GUADEC
16:58:31 <jjmarin> Crazy idea, taking into account that Brno is a Red Hat place, maybe it makes sense to see if we can get FEdora/RHEL people interested in testing a11y
16:58:38 <joanie> #info Mike is not here so we should ask him.
16:58:47 <joanie> #info Piñeiro will be at GUADEC
16:58:59 <joanie> interesting idea jjmarin
16:59:11 <clown> #info Joseph will NOT be at GUADEC
16:59:33 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo will quite probably be at GUADEC
16:59:42 <joanie> #info Joanie guesses that Kalev (Fedora package maintainer for a11y) will be at GUADEC via GSoC.
16:59:56 * joanie nudges Magpie
17:00:50 <joanie> #info Magdalen is expected to be at GUADEC via GSoC.
17:01:02 <joanie> so it might be worth doing a BoF
17:01:06 <joanie> but not an official hackfest
17:02:49 <API> in any case
17:02:51 <API> if someone ask us
17:03:00 <API> we can say "yes please, book a room for us"
17:03:16 <API> worst case scenario would be two people doing random a11y stuff at the same room
17:03:30 <joanie> more importantly we should be proactive and ask for a room
17:03:38 <Magpie> hello!
17:03:41 <joanie> I can take that AI
17:03:44 <joanie> but what day?
17:03:55 <joanie> or should we wait until we see what other BoFs are scheduled?
17:04:22 <Magpie> i got some funding approved for 31-8
17:04:23 <API> Magpie, hello?
17:04:30 <joanie> Magpie: yay
17:04:35 <jjmarin> :)
17:04:39 <joanie> I already info'ed you in the coming group
17:04:52 <Magpie> reading up
17:05:25 <joanie> API thoughts on if we should ask for a specific day or just get on the list of planned BoFs?
17:05:26 <Magpie> they said they would book the room for me :)
17:05:45 <joanie> Magpie: we're talking about the BoF room
17:05:47 <joanie> not your room
17:05:52 <API> joanie, probably just list ourselves on the planned bofs?
17:05:55 <API> ups sorry
17:05:56 <joanie> ok
17:05:59 <API> without que question mark
17:06:00 <API> joanie, probably just list ourselves on the planned bofs
17:06:11 <joanie> #action Joanie will add our team to the list of planned BoFs.
17:06:33 <Magpie> oh sorry!
17:06:51 <joanie> i'm done with this topic
17:06:58 <joanie> dunno if others have things to add or info
17:07:16 <Magpie> BoF?
17:07:23 <joanie> birds of a feather
17:07:41 <joanie> meeting, discussion, hacking, whatever
17:07:54 <joanie> for the days at GUADEC that come after the "core"/official days
17:07:58 <Magpie> oh!
17:08:02 <joanie> like the 5th-8th
17:08:09 <Magpie> i think there will be lightening talks too
17:08:16 <joanie> that's during core days
17:08:24 <joanie> I think
17:09:40 <Magpie> I want to prepare one, if they are good with that.
17:09:52 <joanie> sure
17:09:56 <joanie> but that is not part of this topic
17:10:14 <joanie> API I think we're done with this topic. (?)
17:10:19 <jjmarin> I didn't know kalev was a11y packager in Fedora/RHEL, but we can approach him and ask if he thinks it is useful for him and their collegues a a11y testing session. What do you think ?
17:10:28 <API> joanie, I didn't want to interrupt
17:10:32 <joanie> jjmarin: he's a community member I believe
17:10:36 <joanie> though I could be wrong
17:10:42 <joanie> but sure we could do that
17:11:24 <API> joanie, jjmarin so, any conclusion about kalev?
17:11:34 <jjmarin> sure
17:11:42 <joanie> we should inform kalev that we are having a bof
17:11:49 <joanie> and encourage him to join us
17:11:58 <API> ok, thanks
17:12:01 <API> having said so
17:12:05 <API> as we are already over time
17:12:08 * joanie nods
17:12:11 <API> closing this topic
17:12:14 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
17:12:24 <API> something else (and short) to be added to the meeting=
17:12:26 <API> ?
17:13:34 <Magpie> not that i can think of
17:13:50 <Magpie> i'm still googling birds of a feather ;)
17:14:42 <clown> roughly, people with common interests, Magpie.
17:14:56 <jjmarin> like angry birds :)
17:15:08 <clown> so what are the pigs?
17:15:14 <jjmarin> hehe
17:15:21 <joanie> inaccessible apps?
17:15:30 * joanie gets a slingshot and aims
17:15:36 <clown> wow, there are a lot of pigs out there, then, joanie
17:15:44 <joanie> clown: sadly this is indeed true
17:15:59 * clown is fantastic at stating the obvious.
17:16:08 <joanie> #info Life is a bowl of cherries; accessibility is a game of angry birds
17:16:30 <API> fwiw, I don't remember what are the exact meaning of bof acronym
17:16:35 <jjmarin> more pigs, more fun killing them :)
17:16:35 <API> Magpie, but fwiw
17:16:41 <joanie> birds of a feather
17:16:48 <API> a bof is a kind of hackfest-alike meeting
17:16:50 <clown> Birds Of a Feather, API
17:17:07 <API> https://live.gnome.org/GUADEC/2012/BOFs
17:17:14 <joanie> but no 2013 page yet
17:17:21 * joanie reads the board/adboard discussion on that
17:17:27 <API> Magpie, this is the one we organized last year:
17:17:28 <API> https://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/BoFs/A11yCamp2012
17:17:47 <joanie> but ours was not a BoF as much as it was an unconference/hackfest
17:17:54 <joanie> I'm thinking this year will be far less formal
17:18:08 <clown> this suggests you might need a visa:  https://www.guadec.org/?page_id=116
17:18:25 * clown wasn't expecting that.
17:18:33 <joanie> we don't
17:18:41 <joanie> people from india do
17:18:46 <API> Magpie, :
17:18:47 <API> BoF #
17:18:47 <API> Birds of a Feather. An informal discussion group. Unlike special interest groups or working groups, BoFs are informal and often formed in an ad-hoc manner. BoF meetings are common adjuncts to planned "sessions" at Drupal Camps and at Drupalcons
17:18:58 <API> from https://drupal.org/glossary#b
17:19:01 <API> and having said so
17:19:05 <API> almost 20 minutes over time
17:19:10 <clown> Americans?  Canadians?  Mexicans?  Ah, India.
17:19:13 <API> so I think that is a good moment to close the meeting
17:19:17 <API> thanks everybody to come
17:19:20 <API> see you at #a11y
17:19:22 <API> #endmeeting