1 16:00:26 <API> #startmeeting
   2 16:00:26 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Nov 14 16:00:26 2013 CET.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 16:00:26 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 16:00:37 <API> #topic 5 minutes of margin
   5 16:01:48 * clown waves
   6 16:05:59 <API> #topic Progress towards 3.12
   7 16:06:24 <API> #info is preparing a email about changes on clutter/ATK in order to get gnome-shell working on wayland
   8 16:06:31 <API> s/is/API is
   9 16:06:48 <API> #info API also has in his TODO reactivate wayland discussion threads
  10 16:06:59 <clown> changes that are done? or changes that are needed?
  11 16:07:11 <API> #info API has been this week on the GNOME 3.10.2 release, so he was busy
  12 16:07:30 <API> note that GNOME 3.10.2 release means at least test that all modules on GNOME 3.10.2 compiles
  13 16:07:36 <API> so is compiling ALL gnome
  14 16:07:57 <API> clown, well, is the old problem of having two toolkits
  15 16:08:05 <API> and atk being designed for one
  16 16:08:25 <API> in summary, for gnome-shell you need to ensure that the atkutil implementation loaded
  17 16:08:28 <API> is clutter one
  18 16:08:42 <API> but gnome-shell also call gtk_init for some gtk stuff (I think that themes)
  19 16:09:01 <API> with X, clutter_init is called after gtk_init, so overriding AtkUtil
  20 16:09:12 <API> on wayland, for any unknown reasons, is not happening that way
  21 16:09:26 <API> so gtk AtkUtil is the one "winning", so stuff doesn't work
  22 16:09:45 <API> in short my API proposal will be get a way to say "I want this implementation!"
  23 16:09:52 <API> and add a call on gnome-shell
  24 16:10:12 <API> I hope that explanation answer your question
  25 16:10:32 <clown> thanks for the summary.  I infer that the changes are being discussed.
  26 16:11:29 <API> clown, not discussion yet ;)
  27 16:11:31 <API> is what Im saying
  28 16:11:41 <API> I need to send a email with a proposal
  29 16:11:45 <API> to start the discussion
  30 16:11:51 <API> busy with the 3.10.2 release
  31 16:12:08 <clown> right:  you are going to start the discussion with that email:  "… is preparing a email about changes on clutter/ATK …"
  32 16:12:21 <API> yep
  33 16:12:29 <clown> we are on the same page!
  34 16:12:31 <API> and having said so, I finished my part on this 3.12 update
  35 16:12:32 <API> next?
  36 16:12:38 <joanie> me
  37 16:12:51 <joanie> #info Joanie has completed the switch over to not use focus: events.
  38 16:13:13 <joanie> #info There are four bugs in which those events are still required, so she is hacking around that and will file bugs.
  39 16:13:29 <joanie> #info Joanie is still refactoring/rewriting all of Orca (performance, etc.).
  40 16:13:38 <joanie> #info Joanie will test Benjamin's patch soon.
  41 16:13:40 <joanie> (done)
  42 16:14:21 <API> about that, joanie did we mention last week that we asked Firefox to update?
  43 16:14:30 <joanie> yes
  44 16:14:42 <API> ok, in any case, if someone wants a summary:
  45 16:14:44 <joanie> but you could provide a status update
  46 16:15:14 <API> #info implementors status about deprecated focus stuff:
  47 16:15:30 <API> #info gtk: pending to test Benjamin patch
  48 16:15:47 <API> #info webkitgtk: we will deal with it when gtk gets solved
  49 16:16:21 <API> #info firefox: opened a bug last week. They are not using the tracking stuff, but seems that will keep sending object:focus event, because are worried about old versions of orca
  50 16:16:41 <API> #info clutter (so gnome-shell): not using at all those deprecated methods
  51 16:16:44 <API> done
  52 16:16:46 <clown> joanie:  when you say "has completed the switch over to not use focus: events", is that confined to  GTK? (or to all of gnome?  :-) )
  53 16:17:04 <joanie> all of Orca
  54 16:17:12 <joanie> Orca ignores focus: events now
  55 16:17:15 <joanie> with 4 exceptions
  56 16:17:24 <clown> but GTK still works that way?
  57 16:17:34 <joanie> we have object:state-changed:focused
  58 16:17:35 <joanie> and
  59 16:17:36 <clown> still sends focus events (that are ignored by orca)?
  60 16:17:41 <joanie> object:state-changed:selected
  61 16:17:42 <joanie> etc.
  62 16:17:49 <joanie> yes, the events are being emitted by toolkits
  63 16:17:56 <clown> gotcha
  64 16:17:56 <joanie> Orca just ignores them
  65 16:18:16 <clown> and, for completeness, AT-SPI is still emitting focus evetns.
  66 16:18:17 <clown> ?
  67 16:18:28 <joanie> yes
  68 16:18:33 <API> at-spi will forward
  69 16:18:35 <clown> okay, thansk.
  70 16:18:39 <joanie> or otherwise Orca wouldn't see them ;)
  71 16:18:41 <clown> *thanks, even.
  72 16:18:42 <API> whatever cames from atk implementors
  73 16:19:01 <API> so if firefox send it, at-spi will forward it, but as joanie said, will be ignored
  74 16:19:05 <clown> right API.  My questions should have been that ATK still emits focus events.
  75 16:19:22 <API> well, ATK have it as deprecated
  76 16:19:40 <API> so is not ATK itself, but ATK implementors the one deciding to still using a deprecated method
  77 16:19:42 <clown> so, some time in the future, it won't emit focus events.
  78 16:19:43 <API> having said so
  79 16:19:50 <API> clown, I hope so ;)
  80 16:20:11 <clown> :-)
  81 16:20:42 <API> so, anyone else want to say something about this topic?
  82 16:20:44 <API> mgorse, ?
  83 16:20:51 <mgorse> ok
  84 16:21:56 <mgorse> #info mgorse has a set of (uncommitted) patches that allow attributes to be sent with events, so that a D-Bus call doesn't need to be made every time Orca looks at the attributes in response to an event. The infrastructure should be useful for wider things. Still a TODO to write the list again.
  85 16:22:10 <mgorse> done, I think
  86 16:22:31 <API> mgorse, ok, thanks
  87 16:23:03 <API> so, moving to next topic?
  88 16:23:13 <clown> fine with me.
  89 16:23:21 <mgorse> ok
  90 16:23:52 <API> oh a wild new topic appears
  91 16:23:57 <clown> lol
  92 16:24:01 <clown> wild??
  93 16:24:16 <API> well, I was just using a meme
  94 16:24:18 <API> in anycase
  95 16:24:22 <API> #topic OPW
  96 16:24:31 <clown> sorry to bring this up again… but
  97 16:24:33 <API> clown, ?
  98 16:25:27 <clown> #info Joseph was contacted by Sriram asking (1) if there is any a11y project that Gayathri could apply for for next year, and (2) is there any small work she could do now to gain experience.
  99 16:25:34 <clown> #Info Joanie was CC'ed on the email.
 100 16:25:54 <clown> #info I replied that "next year" is to far in the future for me to commit to anything.
 101 16:26:10 <clown> #info But I would bring the issue up here at this meeting.
 102 16:26:17 <clown> done, questions.
 103 16:27:03 <API> hmm, I have the feeling that we made a even further update on the opw page
 104 16:27:06 <API> about accessibility
 105 16:27:09 <mgorse> I feel like it's always a challenge since, like I remember someone saying a long time ago, easy bugs tend to get fixed quickly because they're easy, and the things that languish are harder things, because they're hard. I wish I could think of a solution.
 106 16:27:18 <API> and that was proposed as "small work to gain experience"
 107 16:27:25 <API> was looking at apps key-nav
 108 16:27:26 <API> jjmaring?
 109 16:27:30 <API> ups, he is not here
 110 16:27:31 <mgorse> yeah
 111 16:27:36 <API> joanie, ?
 112 16:27:52 <joanie> what?
 113 16:27:53 <joanie> :)
 114 16:28:02 <joanie> about the opw page update I made?
 115 16:28:32 <clown> Oh, one other thing in the email.
 116 16:28:51 <clown> #info Gayathri is interested in testing work.
 117 16:28:59 <API> testing what?
 118 16:29:05 <joanie> work
 119 16:29:10 <joanie> (sorry)
 120 16:29:15 <clown> #info quote:  "she prefers to do something in testing".
 121 16:29:24 <clown> sorry, it's not more specific than that, API.
 122 16:29:55 <API> so that means that this point is over?
 123 16:29:59 <API> in any case, as  I said
 124 16:30:05 <API> opw page was updated again
 125 16:30:13 <API> so if someone ask for a task to get experience
 126 16:30:27 <API> the answer would be
 127 16:30:29 * API looking
 128 16:30:35 <clown> well, I have to reply to Sriram.  GIven what was said here, I guess I say:  there is nothing to be done now.
 129 16:31:25 <API> "test keynav for different gnome apps, if it is failing, put in contact with his maintainer"
 130 16:31:36 <API> so with that sentence and your sentence, moving to next topic?
 131 16:31:49 <clown> one more question:
 132 16:32:09 <clown> If I include "test keynav", whom should I refer her to?
 133 16:32:16 <clown> Who is responsible for keynav?
 134 16:32:22 <joanie> the app that is broken
 135 16:32:29 <joanie> if notes is broken, then the notes maintainer
 136 16:32:36 <joanie> if music is broken, then the music maintainer
 137 16:32:58 <clown> does anyone know, off hand, who the keynav maintainer is?
 138 16:33:06 <joanie> there is no keynav maintainer
 139 16:33:13 <joanie> there are app maintainers
 140 16:33:17 <joanie> so the suggestion is:
 141 16:33:24 <joanie> pick an app, any app you want
 142 16:33:34 <joanie> can you use all its features without the mouse
 143 16:33:39 <joanie> if the answer is no, fix that
 144 16:33:48 <joanie> your mentor will be the maintainer of the broken app
 145 16:34:26 <clown> I see.  I was mis-interpretting things, and thinking that key-nav is an app.  Okay, gotcha.
 146 16:35:00 <clown> I have a way forward, thanks.
 147 16:35:30 <API> sooo
 148 16:35:32 <API> moovinggg
 149 16:35:38 <joanie> yessssssssss
 150 16:35:45 <API> #topic w3c updates
 151 16:35:47 * clown hopes that after he answers this OPW question, that will be the end of it.
 152 16:35:48 <API> clown, ?
 153 16:36:00 <API> #topic OPW
 154 16:36:08 <API> clown, sorry I thought that was over
 155 16:36:11 <API> which questoin?
 156 16:36:24 <joanie> communication breakdown
 157 16:36:32 <clown> the question that Sriram asked in the email he sent to joanie and I.
 158 16:36:46 <clown> Yes, we are done with the OPW topic.
 159 16:37:00 <API> #topic W3C
 160 16:37:02 <API> (again)
 161 16:37:03 <API> so clown?
 162 16:37:11 <clown> #info There is a meeting of all the W3C working groups in China this past week.
 163 16:37:35 <clown> #info Joseph did not attend, so doesn't have any news. :-)
 164 16:37:37 <clown> done.
 165 16:38:48 * joanie hums
 166 16:38:57 * clown whistles
 167 16:39:13 <API> clown, meeting about .....
 168 16:39:24 <API> I mean, does that meeting has a purpose at all?
 169 16:39:27 <API> just being friendly?
 170 16:39:35 <joanie> :)
 171 16:40:09 <clown> It's a chance for (1) working group members to meet face-to-face, and (2) working groups to meet with other working groups to discuss overlapping issues.
 172 16:40:55 <clown> Most of the time, the groups meet weekly but by teleconference.  And, only deal with their group's issues.
 173 16:41:06 <clown> This is a chance to get a broader perspective on things.
 174 16:41:24 <clown> and, a chance to be friendly :-)
 175 16:41:47 <API> ok
 176 16:41:52 <API> I guess that after the meeting
 177 16:42:01 <API> they will send a kind of conclusions summary or something
 178 16:42:46 <clown> I'll look and see if something like that comes out of the meeting.
 179 16:43:27 <API> ok
 180 16:43:35 <API> so questions, doubts, thoughtS?
 181 16:43:45 <clown> #info  Page that describes the meetings;  http://www.w3.org/2013/11/TPAC/
 182 16:44:59 <API> so, thanks
 183 16:45:03 <API> so moving?
 184 16:45:13 <clown> +1
 185 16:46:05 <API> I will skip
 186 16:46:10 <API> marketing as jjmarin is not here
 187 16:46:17 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
 188 16:46:25 <API> something not scheduled (and short) to raise?
 189 16:47:17 * clown crickets
 190 16:48:04 * API catches the indirect
 191 16:48:08 <API> so closing meeting
 192 16:48:10 <API> #endmeeting