14:05:13 <infapi00> #startmeeting
14:05:14 <Services> Meeting started Thu Apr  9 14:05:13 2015 UTC.  The chair is infapi00. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:05:14 <Services> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:05:53 <infapi00> #Progress towards 3.16.1 and 3.17
14:05:56 <infapi00> argh
14:06:03 <infapi00> #topic Progress towards 3.16.1 and 3.17
14:06:22 <infapi00> hmm, the topic didn't change
14:06:26 <joanie> try now
14:06:26 <infapi00> ah
14:06:28 <infapi00> #topic Progress towards 3.16.1 and 3.17
14:06:33 <infapi00> ok
14:06:41 <joanie> fwiw i don't think it matters wrt meetbot
14:06:47 <infapi00> #info bug 746670 is still open
14:06:58 <Services> 04Bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746670 major, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, ASSIGNED , GNOME Shell for Wayland fails to emit accessible window:activate events
14:07:09 <infapi00> #info although is assigned (something not really usual on gnome bugs), last update was on Mar 30
14:07:24 <infapi00> #info so not sure if getting it solved for 3.16.1 can be given as granted
14:07:53 * joanie sighs
14:07:53 <infapi00> #info probably it would be good a gentle ping, or at least asking if they think that targetting 3.16.1 is still viable
14:08:04 <infapi00> as you are sighing
14:08:21 <infapi00> joanie, what about you piniging?
14:08:26 <infapi00> additionally you created the bug
14:08:44 <joanie> sure
14:09:22 <joanie> the last action of 30 Mar was not 2 weeks ago
14:09:27 <joanie> want me to ping today?
14:09:40 <infapi00> hmm
14:09:50 <infapi00> what action?
14:09:58 <joanie> huh?
14:10:03 <joanie> oh comment 28
14:10:07 <infapi00> fwiw, when on my info I said
14:10:09 <infapi00> "last update"
14:10:18 <joanie> my bad
14:10:20 <infapi00> I was talking about last update on that bug, so last comment on that bug
14:10:22 <infapi00> ok, np
14:10:24 <joanie> the last UPDATE was on ...
14:10:47 <infapi00> so for minutes sake, could you put yourself the #action?
14:10:58 <joanie> sure. my question still remains
14:11:10 <joanie> since the last **update** was not 2 weeks ago
14:11:13 <joanie> want me to ping today?
14:11:20 <joanie> or is that being pushy?
14:12:05 <infapi00> joanie, sorry
14:12:12 <infapi00> probably today Im having a bad day
14:12:19 <infapi00> if last update was not 2 weeks ago
14:12:21 <infapi00> when it was?
14:12:43 <joanie> i meant not 14 days yet
14:12:48 <joanie> it's been 1.5 weeks
14:12:50 <joanie> regardless
14:13:05 <joanie> #info Joanie just commented on the bug to see if we're aiming for 3.16.1.
14:13:12 <infapi00> ok thanks
14:13:53 <infapi00> and now something that Im not sure either if it is 3.16.1 or 3.17 material
14:14:26 <infapi00> #info joanie has been debating with gtk+ developers for a solution for  bug 746706
14:14:37 <Services> 04Bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746706 normal, Normal, ---, gtk-bugs, ASSIGNED , Serious accessible event spewage from Gtk+ table cells
14:14:37 <infapi00> joanie, do you want to provide more details about the bug?
14:14:41 <joanie> sure
14:15:11 <joanie> #info Benjamin thinks the "blame" belongs to the ATK bridge.
14:15:28 <joanie> #info Joanie disagrees, but doesn't much care whom we blame as long as the floods stop.
14:16:02 <joanie> #info Joanie provided a new patch last night which Benjamin said he'd commit today, after making a comment in the commit about it being the bridge's fault. ;)
14:16:37 <joanie> #info Joanie is tentatively ready to celebrate, but Benjamin had said something similar about her last patch which he never committed. So we probably should watch this bug.
14:16:40 <joanie> done
14:16:54 <infapi00> ok thanks
14:17:08 <infapi00> so that is everything I have on my mental list for this topic
14:17:09 <infapi00> so
14:17:15 <infapi00> questions, doubts, more infoes?
14:17:19 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo just opened a bug report (bug 747563) about the lack of keyboard-navigation in gnome-builder
14:17:30 <Services> 04Bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=747563 normal, Normal, ---, gnome-builder-maint, NEW , The GUI is not keyboard navigable
14:18:13 <infapi00> jjmarin, oh cool, thanks
14:18:21 <clown> nice, jjmarin
14:18:24 <joanie> indeed, thank you
14:18:47 <jjmarin> and this reminds me we still have a pending discussion about keyboard navigation in general
14:19:24 <jjmarin> I can write a message to the a11y-devel
14:19:28 <jjmarin> list
14:19:46 <jjmarin> in order to reactivate the topic
14:19:49 <joanie> or desktop-devel?
14:20:01 <joanie> the code changes are not a11y ones
14:20:15 <joanie> and I don't think all that many people are on a11y-devel
14:20:52 <jjmarin> hmm, ok
14:21:11 <infapi00> well, taking into account the success of the first email (and sorry as it was also my fault)
14:21:13 <joanie> not a demand, merely a question?
14:21:22 <infapi00> yes you could try to see if you get more attention there
14:21:25 <joanie> s/?/./
14:21:33 <infapi00> although afair, I think that that was also somewhat the original idea
14:21:49 <infapi00> about discussing it a little on a11y-devel and then raise it to desktop-devel
14:22:03 <joanie> sure
14:22:10 <infapi00> so under the risk of embarrassing myself again and not replying again
14:22:18 <infapi00> jjmarin, what about
14:22:25 <infapi00> if you do a gentle ping on that thread
14:22:38 <infapi00> see if we are able to discuss this a little on a11y-devel
14:22:47 <jjmarin> ok
14:22:52 <infapi00> and then send conclusiuons to desktop-devel (or open bugs)
14:23:15 <infapi00> jjmarin, could you #info or #action all this? for minutes sake?
14:23:58 <jjmarin> #action Juanjo will ping in the the a11y-devel about the keyboard-navigation thread
14:24:15 <jjmarin> more than less done in bad English ;-)
14:24:27 <infapi00> ok np
14:24:39 <infapi00> so I think that we could end this topic
14:24:48 <infapi00> hmm, well with j ust one info more
14:25:19 <infapi00> #info as we are at the beginning of the 3.17 cycle, it would be good to start to think what we want to include on it
14:25:52 <infapi00> #info probably reusing our plans for 3.16, focusing on what we were not able to include on 3.16
14:26:01 <infapi00> sorry, but today I think that is a bad day for planning
14:26:08 <infapi00> having said so
14:26:13 <infapi00> #topic w3c updates
14:26:15 <infapi00> clown, ?
14:26:40 <clown> I have one thing. but it depends on joanie's work on aria-placeholder.
14:26:48 <clown> I could give a summary of that first.
14:26:51 <clown> Or, joanie could.
14:26:53 <clown> ?
14:26:57 <joanie> go for it
14:27:23 <clown> #info Joanie has worked on the spec for the new @aria-placeholder attribute.
14:27:41 <clown> #info The proposed text is here:  https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action-1349/aria/aria.html#aria-placeholder
14:28:04 <clown> #info  I *think* that text is more or less final, and will be approved at today's meeting.
14:28:52 <clown> I'm giving you all time to read that text before proceeding.
14:31:05 * joanie wonders if she wrote THAT much
14:31:23 <infapi00> wrote too much where?
14:31:24 <infapi00> on the note?
14:31:44 <joanie> nevermind
14:31:45 <joanie> :)
14:31:47 <infapi00> but in any case, the text seems ok to me
14:31:59 <clown> okay, in that case....
14:32:24 <clown> #info The next step is going to be how to represent placeholder in accessibility APIs.
14:32:36 <clown> #info There are two camps.
14:33:05 <clown> #info I have recommended that there be a new "placeholder" property on accessible objects: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015Apr/0039.html
14:33:58 <clown> #info The other camp says that if there is no attribute that qualifies as a label, then the placeholder text should be put in the the "name" property of the accessible object.
14:34:51 <clown> #info I think that's a mistake, even if there is no label text, since the AT has no way of knowing that the "name" text is actual "placeholder" text, in that specific case.
14:35:24 <clown> #info The AT should decide whether to present placeholder text as a label, in that case, not the browser.
14:35:31 <joanie> (unless the placeholder text is also exposed)
14:35:40 <joanie> (i.e. because the AT could then compare)
14:36:16 <clown> Yes, that is another possibility:  put the placeholder text in both the "name" and "placeholder" properties.
14:36:30 <clown> Either way, it argues for a new "placeholder" property on accessibles.
14:36:31 <joanie> FWIW, our platform already has mappings for it
14:36:40 <joanie> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015Apr/0044.html
14:36:42 <clown> Oh?
14:36:50 <joanie> See above message
14:36:52 <infapi00> as a classic atkattribute afair
14:36:58 <joanie> yup
14:37:09 <joanie> placeholders are not a new thing
14:37:12 <infapi00> that in theory are provisional solutions, but I guess that is good enough for  now
14:37:25 <joanie> which I also said in the above message
14:37:29 <joanie> ultimately, bla bla bla
14:37:30 <clown> I can live with a object property.
14:37:46 <infapi00> yes, and afair, putting it directly on the name was also suggested when gtk developers where guessing how to expose it
14:37:50 <joanie> so the camps can do what they want; the correct exposure for ATK/AT-SPI2 is as I stated
14:37:52 <clown> #info Note that AX API has an actual AXPlaceHolderValue property.
14:38:09 <joanie> More stuff we should steal from Apple ;)
14:38:14 <infapi00> eventually we would like to do the same
14:38:25 <joanie> along with subroles!
14:38:26 <joanie> :)
14:38:45 <joanie> which, yes, I realize I need to resume working on
14:38:52 <infapi00> and fwiw, I also agree that it shouldn't be used as fallback of a label
14:38:52 <joanie> along with the new AtkAccessible iface
14:39:02 <infapi00> doing that kind of stuff is too heuristic
14:39:06 <clown> Still, there "placeholder is a name" camp (if I can call it that) are going to recommend that the name computation document be updated to support @aria-placeholder.
14:39:15 <infapi00> and I also prefer exposing it always as a placeholder
14:39:25 <clown> I'm not sure that's right.
14:39:39 <infapi00> and letting somethign more inteligent like a screen reader to decide what to do with the info
14:39:40 <joanie> I'm ok with it being a name if another name isn't provided
14:40:03 <joanie> if people use a label element, that will be chosen
14:40:15 <joanie> assuming there's not aria-label or aria-labelledby
14:40:27 <joanie> and titles are often pretty long
14:40:43 <joanie> so I think I'd prefer falling back on placeholder before falling back on title
14:40:45 <clown> Well, I'm not so sure.
14:41:44 <joanie> mind you, I still expect it as a seperate attribute as stated in my on-list reply
14:41:50 <clown> As I said, I think that decision is the AT's, not the browser.
14:42:22 <clown> If there is a separate property (which we agree on), why stick in the name as well?
14:42:22 <joanie> well, in a way, that can be said for all the name computation stuff
14:42:39 <joanie> see my caption-is-a-name-omg thread and bug ;)
14:42:47 <joanie> anyhoo i'll shut up now :)
14:43:01 <clown> Yes, there are problems with caption as well.
14:43:24 <clown> But, aria-label, aria-labelledby, and <label> clearly have a "name" semantic.
14:43:30 <joanie> yes
14:43:38 <joanie> those to me are not computed; they are provided
14:43:49 <joanie> the computed is the fallback stuff (in my mind)
14:44:13 <clown> Not sure what you mean:  the name computation algorithm says to map those three to the "name" property.
14:44:38 <clown> so, to me, they are computed and dumped into the same property.
14:44:42 <joanie> what I mean is that if there is a label(ish) thing, it's a name
14:44:54 <joanie> title and placeholder and .... are fallbacks
14:45:00 * infapi00 notes that there is just 15 minutes left of the meeting, so it would be good to try to end this discussion soon, marketing+new stuff pending....
14:45:08 <joanie> yeah, I'm done
14:45:13 <clown> what do you mean by "not computed; they are provided" — okay out of time; later then.
14:45:47 <infapi00> well, sorry
14:46:01 <infapi00> but I would like to talk about one small topic and we still have pending marketing
14:46:06 <infapi00> so
14:46:09 <infapi00> #topic Marketing
14:46:12 <infapi00> jjmarin, ?
14:46:34 <jjmarin> #info Juanjo updated gnome-a11y entries in the wikipedia (ATK, AT-SPI and Orca) in English and Spanish with the version and release dates and very small fixes
14:46:46 <jjmarin> done !
14:47:45 <jjmarin> question, suggestions or next topic ? :-)
14:47:54 <infapi00> ok, I guess that that doesn't need too much explanation
14:47:59 <infapi00> jjmarin, thanks for the work there
14:48:11 <jjmarin> pretty small indeed :-)
14:48:20 <infapi00> then I will move
14:48:25 <infapi00> #topic Miscellaneous
14:48:36 <infapi00> technically is miscellaneous because I didn't have time to update agenda
14:48:42 <infapi00> #info Just 30 minutes before meeting
14:48:47 <infapi00> #info this mail:
14:48:51 <infapi00> #info https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-accessibility-list/2015-April/msg00002.html
14:48:56 <infapi00> #info was sent to the list
14:49:11 <infapi00> #info summary: GUADEC 2015 organizers are touching us
14:49:27 <infapi00> #info because they want a bigger showcase for a11y on this year GUADEC
14:49:54 <infapi00> #info something that it is good (instead of us knocking doors to get attention)
14:50:11 <infapi00> #info he also hinted how relevant is a11y on Sweden,
14:50:40 <infapi00> #info I also understand that he is implicitly suggesting the involvement from Sweden organizations
14:50:43 <infapi00> so
14:50:51 <jjmarin> sounds promising at least
14:51:27 <jjmarin> oliverp is in the engagement team as well
14:52:12 <jjmarin> apart from guadec organizer
14:52:30 <infapi00> although we are going to have too much time to discuss
14:52:30 <infapi00> I think that at least it would be good to have a introduction on this meeting
14:52:30 <infapi00> as I mentioned on the infoes
14:52:30 <infapi00> having guadec organizers pinging us is good
14:52:35 <infapi00> but not sure how many people from this meeting will go there
14:52:37 <infapi00> I don't plan to go to GUADEC this year for example
14:52:39 <infapi00> and in fact, due that, Im somewhat disconnected from it
14:52:54 <joanie> I'm not able to go either
14:53:11 <joanie> The following week I will almost certainly be in Toronto
14:53:19 <joanie> Mozilla is having a web a11y meetup
14:53:36 * clown looks at calendar
14:53:48 * infapi00 I even don't know when guadec is
14:53:55 <joanie> 7-9 August
14:54:02 <joanie> plus hackfest days after
14:54:32 <clown> I won't be going to GUADEC (but then, I haven't yet).
14:54:40 <infapi00> those hackfest days where oliverp is suggesting having bofs etc
14:54:55 <jjmarin> I do not have any plan yet
14:55:42 <infapi00> jjmarin, so that is a "jjmarin doesn't know if he will go or not"
14:56:01 <jjmarin> exactly
14:56:15 <infapi00> so I guess that at this point
14:56:18 <infapi00> if we answer him
14:56:22 <infapi00> it would be something like
14:56:48 <infapi00> "your idea is really cool, but no one from the team plans to go to GUADEC, you are alone fool?"
14:56:59 <infapi00> but probably without using the word fool
14:57:17 <joanie> and probably instead using the word "conflict" (i.e. wrt scheduling)
14:57:57 <infapi00> you are alone conflict!
14:58:22 <infapi00> ok, so jokes apart
14:58:35 * joanie grins
14:58:57 <joanie> perhaps it's too early for us to respond
14:59:05 <joanie> since some people don't yet know if they can go
14:59:26 <infapi00> well, I didn't want to get him handling
14:59:36 <infapi00> so probably a more conservative
15:00:12 <infapi00> "this sounds a good idea; but first checks shows that there are some scheduling conflict; we will debate about guadec plans on next meeting week"
15:00:36 <joanie> that sounds good and fair and reasonable and stuff
15:00:36 <joanie> :)
15:00:49 * joanie runs to her next meeting
15:01:00 <jjmarin> +1
15:01:10 <clown> +1
15:01:26 <clown> "see" you this afternoon, joanie.
15:01:49 <joanie> :)
15:02:23 <jjmarin> joanie will arrive first, she's running :-)
15:02:29 <infapi00> ok so in order to end the meeting
15:02:45 <infapi00> #action infapi00 will answer GUADEC email with a conservative answer, to avoid oliver feeling ignored
15:02:49 <infapi00> so done
15:02:53 <infapi00> #endmeeting