1 16:05:55 <API> #startmeeting
   2 16:05:55 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Aug 22 16:05:55 2013 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 16:05:55 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:06:09 <API> #topic GSoC updates
   5 16:06:12 <API> magpie_desktop, ?
   6 16:06:19 <magpie_desktop> #info this week was very unproductive and the focusCaretTracker and magnification edits did not make 3.9.90
   7 16:06:38 <magpie_desktop> #action Magdalen will make sure the changes are in time for 3.9.91
   8 16:06:48 <magpie_desktop> #info the delay was due to a number of factors:
   9 16:06:57 <magpie_desktop> #info 1) The information Jasper gave me about how to run gnome-shell in jhbuild was not
  10 16:07:00 <magpie_desktop> correct and this messed up the symlinks to libaries that are needed. Magdalen is not sure why that happened but she suspects it was because Jasper having too many conversations at once.
  11 16:07:11 <magpie_desktop> #info 2) The discussion about whether to make the tracker a singleton or not went on for too long.
  12 16:07:22 <magpie_desktop> #info Magdalen feels she should be involved in decisions about work that she has to implement especially when the decisions make things more difficult to implement
  13 16:07:44 <magpie_desktop> #info  3) Magdalen broke her computer before guadec and when she finally got it working that was a terrible connection
  14 16:08:28 <magpie_desktop> #info Magdalen apologises for the delay and has nothing further to add
  15 16:08:35 <magpie_desktop> questions?
  16 16:08:42 <API> magpie_desktop, about 2)
  17 16:08:49 <API> when the thread at gnome-accessibility-devel
  18 16:08:50 <API> started
  19 16:09:03 * clown waves
  20 16:09:04 <API> I assumed that you were subscribed to that list
  21 16:09:24 <API> taking into account some of the comments at bugzilla and in private emails
  22 16:09:27 <API> it seems that not
  23 16:09:39 <API> my idea was including you on the discussion since the beginning
  24 16:09:40 <magpie_desktop> yeah but clown specifically told me not to involve myself
  25 16:09:51 <API> I was surprised for not seeing any mail from you
  26 16:09:55 <API> ah ok
  27 16:10:00 <API> then never mind
  28 16:10:03 <API> in any case
  29 16:10:08 <API> gnome-shell reviewer (Jasper)
  30 16:10:15 <API> already mentioned to be pragmatic
  31 16:10:18 <API> something we all agreed
  32 16:10:25 <API> so for the moment lets not focus on that
  33 16:10:36 <API> so, my other comment
  34 16:10:38 <API> about this:
  35 16:10:42 <API> <magpie_desktop> #action Magdalen will make sure the changes are in time for 3.9.91
  36 16:10:55 <API> fwiw, the freeze for 3.9.90
  37 16:10:57 <magpie_desktop> that's the next cycle
  38 16:11:00 <API> no
  39 16:11:03 <API> is not the next cycle
  40 16:11:06 <magpie_desktop> i mean bit
  41 16:11:08 <API> is still 3.10 cycle
  42 16:11:15 <magpie_desktop> whatever it's called
  43 16:11:16 <API> so is next step on current cycle
  44 16:11:25 <magpie_desktop> right API thanks
  45 16:11:31 <magpie_desktop> so that is
  46 16:11:35 * magpie_desktop getting link
  47 16:11:39 <API> https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointNine
  48 16:11:41 <API> so
  49 16:11:52 <API> 3.9.90 included several freezes
  50 16:12:01 <API> that included feature freeze
  51 16:12:07 <API> so as here is explained:
  52 16:12:32 <API> https://wiki.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning
  53 16:12:33 <magpie_desktop> the 2nd sept but It;ll be in before then
  54 16:12:38 <API> in order to get that into 3.9.91
  55 16:12:45 <API> we need to ask for a freeze break
  56 16:12:49 <magpie_desktop> no we don't
  57 16:12:58 <magpie_desktop> it's not subject to the freeze
  58 16:13:00 <API> magpie_desktop why not?
  59 16:13:07 <magpie_desktop> they've told me
  60 16:13:15 <API> who told you that?
  61 16:13:29 <magpie_desktop> jasper. mclaren quite a few
  62 16:13:47 <API> while, I will clarify with them
  63 16:13:54 <API> but being strict with the "law"
  64 16:14:00 <API> tracking is listed here:
  65 16:14:03 <API> https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointNine/Features
  66 16:14:05 <API> as a feature
  67 16:14:20 <API> and current freeze is also feature freeze:
  68 16:14:24 <API> " Feature Freeze: new functionality is implemented now"
  69 16:14:36 <API> in any case
  70 16:14:45 <magpie_desktop> well why was it not in the tiimeline then?
  71 16:14:46 <API> what I wanted to say, with my release team hat on
  72 16:14:56 <API> is that I could handle the request for feature freeze
  73 16:15:27 <API> so, I can change that to "If needed, I will handle the request fore feature freeze break"
  74 16:15:30 <magpie_desktop> everyone here seemed to suggest it wouldn't be subject to this freeze so this is the first i've heard that
  75 16:15:48 <API> magpie_desktop, what do you mean that it was not in the timeline?
  76 16:15:53 <API> is in the timeline here:
  77 16:15:58 <API> https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointNine
  78 16:16:06 <API> see 3.9.90
  79 16:16:22 <API> and it was already implicitly suggested that was included
  80 16:16:32 <API> because we always told you to try to get this for 3.9.90
  81 16:16:34 <API> in any case
  82 16:16:38 <API> as I said
  83 16:16:38 <magpie_desktop> well you all helped me write it and nothing about this is in there
  84 16:16:58 <API> *if needed*, I can request the feature breeze break
  85 16:17:16 <API> so summarizing this with pretty bot-labels
  86 16:17:30 <magpie_desktop> API that's not true
  87 16:17:41 * API holding
  88 16:17:44 <API> magpie_desktop, what is not true?
  89 16:17:53 <magpie_desktop> clown asked me to wait till he got back on 19th to even commit
  90 16:18:09 <API> ah, ok
  91 16:18:11 <API> then sorry
  92 16:18:11 <magpie_desktop> so no, that's not what you always said
  93 16:18:17 <API> you got mixed messages
  94 16:18:35 <API> for example mclasen suggested to have this for 3.9.90 on some of the bugs
  95 16:18:40 <API> our bad
  96 16:18:50 <clown> yes, I think I misread the timeline.  I was fixated on the code freeze date of Sep 16.
  97 16:19:10 <clown> I did not think that Aug 19 was a deadline for this work.
  98 16:19:21 <API> clown, ok,
  99 16:19:22 <API> in any case
 100 16:19:27 <clown> however,...
 101 16:19:29 <API> it seems that jasper and mclasen
 102 16:19:37 <API> seems ok to have this for sep 16
 103 16:19:40 <API> so
 104 16:19:45 * clown shuts up.
 105 16:19:46 <API> as I was saying about pretty info
 106 16:20:00 <magpie_desktop> 12 August - 23 August: Complete non-UI Tasks
 107 16:20:04 <magpie_desktop> Note: GNOME's Freeze period begins 19 August. This will not give me enough time to complete the UI for the settings for the 3.10 release. But my mentors feel that the focus and caret tracking itself can be finished in time for 3.10 and that it is important to do so. So I will focus on that.
 108 16:20:13 <magpie_desktop> that;s what the timeline says
 109 16:20:32 <API> #action API will confirm if in order to have magpie work for 3.9.91, it is needed a feature freeze request
 110 16:20:48 <API> #action if needed, as soon as magpie work is ready, he will do that request
 111 16:21:00 <joanie> so the timeline mentions the freeze
 112 16:21:36 <API> magpie_desktop, joanie are my actions a proper summary to what we were saying before? or do I need to add something else?
 113 16:21:51 <magpie_desktop> yes and having the tracker in for 3.10
 114 16:22:02 <joanie> I will leave it to you and magpie_desktop to decide that API
 115 16:22:18 <API> magpie_desktop, well, but that was already summarized by you
 116 16:22:27 <magpie_desktop> ok thanks API
 117 16:22:39 <API> so, using magpie_desktop words
 118 16:22:45 <API> more questions/doubts?
 119 16:23:08 <magpie_desktop> API
 120 16:23:36 <magpie_desktop> what do I do when it's ready ? just put a patch on and then ask or ask and then put a patch?
 121 16:23:44 <magpie_desktop> in what order I mean
 122 16:24:05 <API> magpie_desktop, the order is
 123 16:24:12 <API> 1. magpie finish the work
 124 16:24:19 <API> 2. upload a patch for review
 125 16:24:30 <API> 3. patch is reviewed
 126 16:24:40 <API> 3.1 if needs more changes goto1
 127 16:24:46 <API> 4. patch is accepted
 128 16:24:59 <magpie_desktop> 3. rinse and repeat
 129 16:25:04 <API> (during 1-4 API will confirm if the feature break request is needed)
 130 16:25:05 <magpie_desktop> ok thank you API
 131 16:25:30 <API> 5. if needed, API will ask for the feature break request
 132 16:25:42 <API> magpie_desktop, fwiw, every time you request a break
 133 16:25:59 <API> feature freeze break, ui freeze break
 134 16:26:00 <API> etc
 135 16:26:07 <API> you need something to justify the break
 136 16:26:16 <API> and the best thing to justify it
 137 16:26:21 <API> is a working and accepted patch
 138 16:26:22 <magpie_desktop> ok well they accepted this project and the timeline
 139 16:26:44 <clown> emphasis on "working" :-)
 140 16:26:46 <magpie_desktop> and nothing has deviated from that so i don't see why they would have an issue
 141 16:27:06 <API> the only issue that they could have is the lack of a patch ;)
 142 16:27:10 <magpie_desktop> clown: ?
 143 16:27:20 <API> sorry, but without patch they are not going to accept that
 144 16:27:23 <API> said captain obvious
 145 16:27:35 <magpie_desktop> :-) on that note
 146 16:28:03 <magpie_desktop> i am happy if everyone is to change topic??
 147 16:28:35 <API> I have no questions
 148 16:28:42 <API> magpie_desktop, you have a new topic to change to?
 149 16:28:47 <magpie_desktop> well done your slider got committed API
 150 16:29:11 <API> wow, a totally unrelated topic change
 151 16:29:14 <API> in any case, thanks
 152 16:29:27 <API> but there are three bugs related with sliders, that was only one
 153 16:29:34 <API> having said so
 154 16:29:38 <magpie_desktop> nope i am finished with update as long as nobody has questions
 155 16:29:46 <magpie_desktop> that's what i meant :-)
 156 16:30:03 <API> I will change to next (included on agenda) topic
 157 16:30:06 <magpie_desktop> two went in
 158 16:30:25 <API> #topic Testing Evolution Redux
 159 16:30:29 * API one go out
 160 16:30:36 * API sorry for the jokes
 161 16:30:38 <API> so, joanie ?
 162 16:30:47 <joanie> jjmarin: you want to cover this one?
 163 16:30:53 <joanie> since you mentioned it to me in the first place
 164 16:31:04 <joanie> i'll take the action item to test
 165 16:31:50 <joanie> ok, if not....
 166 16:32:11 <jjmarin> yes#info aruiz ask in th
 167 16:32:15 <joanie> #info Juanjo mentioned to Joanie last week that Alberto Ruiz wanted to know if the Evolution accessibility bugs are still present.
 168 16:32:34 <joanie> #info Joanie is sure that they are, but is happy to update the (5+ year old) bugs with new test cases.
 169 16:32:51 <joanie> #action Joanie will do some testing and update the Evolution a11y bugs.
 170 16:32:52 <joanie> done
 171 16:33:05 <jjmarin> thanks joanie !
 172 16:33:10 <joanie> jjmarin: you bet :)
 173 16:33:49 <API> questions time?
 174 16:34:00 <jjmarin> joanie: I think is good idea to ping aruiz when you finished your tests
 175 16:34:12 <joanie> I assume he is cced on the bugs
 176 16:34:16 <joanie> if not, he should be
 177 16:34:30 <joanie> as I update bugs and file any new ones, he'll get notified
 178 16:34:32 <jjmarin> yes, sounds sensible :-)
 179 16:34:36 * API waiting for questions time
 180 16:34:37 <mgorse> Is he an evolution maintainer now?
 181 16:34:54 <jjmarin> he is a manager of applications in red hat
 182 16:36:08 <jjmarin> red hat contributions to evolution, libreoffice and mozilla firefox are under his management AFAIK
 183 16:36:37 <mgorse> ok
 184 16:37:09 <API> as nobody is talking I assume that I can talk now :P
 185 16:37:12 <API> so my question
 186 16:37:27 <API> as far as I remember there are a bazillion of evolution accessibility bugs
 187 16:37:38 <API> is the idea of this task triagge all those bugs?
 188 16:37:44 <joanie> I'll start there
 189 16:37:51 <API> where is there?
 190 16:38:00 <joanie> triaging all the existing bugs
 191 16:38:08 <joanie> then I'll look for others
 192 16:38:13 <jjmarin> AFAIR, he asked about the email composer
 193 16:38:25 <joanie> we have bugs about that
 194 16:38:27 <joanie> :)
 195 16:38:41 <API> well, just worried because that seems a big task
 196 16:38:52 <joanie> API didn't say I would do it *tomorrow* :)
 197 16:38:52 <API> and probably evolution guys could do some of the triagging work
 198 16:39:03 <joanie> if they know about a11y, sure
 199 16:39:06 <API> as far as I see
 200 16:39:14 <API> they see a bazillion bugs on their own component
 201 16:39:19 <joanie> updated (new) listeners might be in order
 202 16:39:21 <jjmarin> we can ask him to start with the areas he is most interested of
 203 16:39:27 <API> and ask others to confirm them
 204 16:39:33 <API> in any case, this is somewhat ranty
 205 16:39:34 <joanie> but if you all want me to not do anything
 206 16:39:46 <joanie> I can delete my action item
 207 16:39:57 <API> joanie, well, if you are willing to do that
 208 16:40:03 <API> I can't object
 209 16:40:09 <joanie> you could
 210 16:40:10 <joanie> :)
 211 16:40:12 <API> just ranting a little
 212 16:40:18 <API> joanie, well, if you are willing to do that
 213 16:40:21 <API> I don't want to object
 214 16:40:25 <joanie> ;)
 215 16:40:28 <joanie> fair enough
 216 16:40:29 <API> so just ranting a little
 217 16:40:32 <API> so no more questions from me
 218 16:40:36 <API> from others?
 219 16:42:40 <API> nobody talking
 220 16:42:43 <API> #topic W3C updates
 221 16:42:46 <API> clown, joanie ?
 222 16:43:05 <joanie> I never have updates on this front
 223 16:43:09 <clown> I am still in catch-up mode this week, so I only have one thing to report.
 224 16:43:32 <clown> #info there is an effort to define a new aria-describedat attribute.
 225 16:43:50 <clown> #info originally, the value would be an url that pointed to a off-page description.
 226 16:44:10 <clown> #info it is similar to longdesc, but could be used for any element.  longdesc is for <img> element only.
 227 16:44:54 <clown> #info it is also contrasted with the existing aria-describedby which takes an idref to an element on the current page.
 228 16:45:19 <clown> #info however, this is still very preliminary.  Some of the ideas are documented here:  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/aria-unofficial/raw-file/tip/describedat.html
 229 16:45:22 <clown> done.
 230 16:46:16 <API> seems a lot of different ways to describe an element
 231 16:46:52 <API> sometimes giving a lot of options means confuse implementors about which to use
 232 16:47:14 <clown> the history goes something like this.
 233 16:47:14 <API> anyway, if being defined I guess that is because is needed
 234 16:47:51 <clown> 1.  first there was longdesc, which very few authors used correctly, and user agents implemented didn't implement the same way.
 235 16:47:56 <joanie> so if it's described at another page
 236 16:48:13 <joanie> that means a11y cannot do anything until the browser implements support for it
 237 16:48:13 <clown> 2.  aria-describedby was suggested next, and was used consistently by authors and user agents.
 238 16:48:27 <joanie> i.e. going off to a different page and grabbing the info
 239 16:48:41 <clown> 3.  but, authors wanted a way to put the description on a separate page, and you can't do that with aria-describedby.
 240 16:48:41 <joanie> and then exposing it via the a11y framework of the platform in question
 241 16:49:30 <API> joanie concern is also true
 242 16:49:44 <API> not sure how ATs like screen readers could use that attribute
 243 16:49:58 <clown> oh, yes, joanie.  There are questions as to how browsers should implement describeat.  But that's been true of longdesc for a long time.
 244 16:50:38 <joanie> yeah, but longdesc doesn't require the useragent to go to a non-loaded page to fetch stuff
 245 16:50:43 <joanie> right?
 246 16:50:46 <clown> for example, FF implements longdesc as an accessilbe action.
 247 16:50:56 <clown> that is a "go to this page" action.
 248 16:51:08 <clown> it's very similar to a link.
 249 16:51:13 <joanie> ah
 250 16:51:28 <joanie> I guess something similar could be done here then
 251 16:51:37 <clown> But IE simply stuck the url of the longdesc into the accessible description.
 252 16:51:38 <API> clown, so if a screen reader want to use it, it will call the browser to move to a different page
 253 16:51:39 <joanie> sucks that you have to leave the current page to get the info though
 254 16:51:53 <clown> joanie, absolutely correct
 255 16:51:56 <joanie> anyhoo, what do I know?
 256 16:51:57 <joanie> :)
 257 16:52:08 <clown> that's why (IMO) aria-describedby works
 258 16:52:42 <API> well, it seems to work because the info is at the same page
 259 16:52:45 <API> but you said
 260 16:52:50 <clown> right, API
 261 16:52:52 <API> "but, authors wanted a way to put the description on a separate page"
 262 16:52:58 <API> so we are again on the same problem
 263 16:53:04 <clown> yes.  authors keep asking for that.
 264 16:53:07 <API> unless screen readers start to do some magic stuff
 265 16:53:31 <API> like "wget url_at_aria-describedat, then expose"
 266 16:53:43 <API> something that seems more like a browser responsibility
 267 16:53:46 <API> in any case
 268 16:53:49 <API> as you said
 269 16:53:50 <clown> I think it's okay if the AT tells the user somehow that this is going to result in a context change, are you sure you want to do that?
 270 16:53:52 <API> this is still preliminary
 271 16:54:11 <API> so I should not be surprised by the open questions
 272 16:54:15 <clown> well, what do ATs do with ordinary links now, API?
 273 16:54:24 <API> well, but ordinary links
 274 16:54:33 <API> are there to move to a different page
 275 16:54:39 <API> because after all
 276 16:54:43 <API> web pages is about that
 277 16:54:48 <API> moving between pages
 278 16:54:50 <API> but here
 279 16:55:12 <API> we are talking about moving to a different page, just to get the description of a element of the page you are currently reading
 280 16:55:23 <API> doesn't seems really user-friendly to me
 281 16:55:33 <clown> the current though on describedat is that it is for moving to a different page for further informaiton.  That page coudl be a full HTML page.
 282 16:55:33 <API> disclaimer: I just thought about that 2 minutes ;)
 283 16:55:54 <API> in any case
 284 16:56:01 <clown> sure.  it's good to have this kind of discussion around these preliminary ideas.
 285 16:56:02 <API> using again the card of "preliminary"
 286 16:56:11 <API> I will not complain a lot more
 287 16:56:23 <API> and after all, meeting is almost finished
 288 16:56:29 <clown> wow, time flies.
 289 16:56:40 <API> so
 290 16:56:42 <joanie> u.s. airways planes out of philly don't
 291 16:56:47 <API> #topic Marketing
 292 16:56:48 <joanie> <snark />
 293 16:56:51 <API> (aka engagement)
 294 16:56:54 <API> jjmarin, ?
 295 16:56:59 <joanie> aka evangelism
 296 16:57:22 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo has been working on updating some gnome a11y entries in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Screen_Reader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnopernicus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca_%28assistive_technology%29  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screen_readers . Work in progress, more changes soon :-)
 297 16:58:03 <jjmarin> and this all my evangelism for this week :-)
 298 16:58:10 <joanie> :)
 299 16:58:15 <API> gnopernicus!
 300 16:58:22 <joanie> heheh
 301 16:58:30 <API> in any case
 302 16:58:33 <API> jjmarin, ok thanks
 303 16:58:39 <API> so questions, doubts?
 304 16:58:46 <clown> does gnopernicus still work?
 305 16:58:51 <jjmarin> yes, I have to put in the list of dead screen readers :-)
 306 16:59:00 <joanie> define still
 307 16:59:08 <joanie> it never did remotely as much as Orca
 308 16:59:14 <joanie> and is of course corba-based
 309 16:59:58 <jjmarin> clown: you need an old gnome version, then it works :-)
 310 17:00:07 <clown> still='up to the present time'.  How is that?
 311 17:00:20 <clown> corba.  doesn't still work, then.
 312 17:00:25 <API> last commit on gnopernicus:
 313 17:00:26 <joanie> up to the present time in a really old gnome, yes
 314 17:00:26 <API> https://git.gnome.org/browse/archive/gnopernicus/
 315 17:00:31 <API> 5 years ago
 316 17:00:56 <joanie> and mostly translation
 317 17:01:04 <mgorse> I thought development stopped more than five years ago. Probably that commit was a translation update or something
 318 17:01:08 <jjmarin> the real last commit is August 21, 2006
 319 17:01:10 <joanie> yup
 320 17:01:22 <joanie> anyhoo, we have another meeting
 321 17:01:24 <jjmarin> s/is/was
 322 17:01:26 <joanie> so misc time?
 323 17:01:28 <clown> 5 years ago + 1 day.
 324 17:01:38 <jjmarin> yes !
 325 17:01:52 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
 326 17:01:59 <API> gnopernicus is dead
 327 17:02:01 <API> anything else?
 328 17:02:10 <clown> long live gnopernicus~
 329 17:02:10 <joanie> #info gnopernicus is dead
 330 17:02:20 <clown> #action long live gnopernicus!
 331 17:02:24 <joanie> haha
 332 17:02:34 <jjmarin> LSR is dead too, long live to Orca !!!
 333 17:02:44 <joanie> :)
 334 17:03:04 <API> miscellaneous time was dead time today
 335 17:03:13 <API> all stuff really relevant
 336 17:03:16 <API> so relevant that ...
 337 17:03:19 <API> #endmeeting