14:05:14 <infapi00> #startmeeting
14:05:14 <Services> Meeting started Thu Apr 16 14:05:14 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.
14:05:56 <infapi00> #topic Progress towards 3.16.X/3.17
14:06:29 <infapi00> #info About the two bugs pending mentioned last week, there is one good news, one bad news
14:06:51 <infapi00> #info Bug 746670 was not solved in time for 3.16.1
14:07:02 <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 that means that there is a major regression on gnome 3.16.X if using wayland
14:07:14 <infapi00> #info that was the bad news
14:07:33 <infapi00> #info bug 746706 got solved
14:07:44 <Services> 04Bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746706 normal, Normal, ---, gtk-bugs, ASSIGNED , Serious accessible event spewage from Gtk+ table cells
14:08:35 <infapi00> #info kudos to joanie for following gtk maintainers to get it solved
14:08:47 <joanie> I actually fixed the bug
14:08:48 <joanie> ;)
14:08:53 <infapi00> joanie, do you know if they plan to include it on any 3.16.X release?
14:08:54 <clown> yay joanie.
14:08:54 <joanie> not just followed it
14:09:02 <joanie> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?h=gtk-3-16&id=f323633883f8d30406661177dd914db51cb56323
14:09:08 <joanie> it's in the 3.16.2 release
14:09:13 <infapi00> ok
14:09:28 <mgorse> I guess I still need to look at it for 3.17 at least, since Benjamin thinks that it really should be fixed in AT-SPI instead
14:09:28 <infapi00> #info this bug fix will be included on GNOME 3.16.2 release
14:09:38 <joanie> which was already done
14:09:43 <infapi00> well, I disagree with Benjamin
14:09:43 <joanie> that's what's confusing me
14:09:59 <joanie> It looks like gtk-3-16-2 is what was just released
14:10:00 <infapi00> but I didn't want to start a long discussion
14:10:05 <infapi00> as the priority was fixing the bug
14:10:10 <joanie> even though gnome is 3.16.1
14:10:18 <mgorse> infapi00: ok, good to know; I haven't really looked into it tbh
14:10:22 <infapi00> joanie, ah
14:10:23 <joanie> so I think we need to be clear about that
14:10:39 <joanie> because I was just testing 3.16.1 in f22 and seeing the flood
14:10:45 <joanie> but not seeing it in my jhbuild
14:10:46 <infapi00> #info correction of previous: it will be included on gtk 3.16.2, that it will be the one likely be included on GNOME 3.16.1
14:10:51 <joanie> :)
14:11:17 <joanie> #info Matthias and Benjamin seem to think backporting it to Gtk+ 3.14 is a good idea too
14:11:28 <infapi00> so questions, comments, doubts about those two bugs?
14:12:12 <infapi00> seems that now
14:12:14 <infapi00> so
14:12:36 <infapi00> #info fmuellner (one of gnome-shell developers) pointed bug 747205 today
14:12:47 <Services> 04Bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=747205 normal, Normal, ---, gnome-shell-maint, NEW , Meta+N does not focus text field in a chat in notification tray
14:12:49 <infapi00> #info there is a fix candidate here: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/211814/91897142/
14:13:07 <infapi00> #info that fix is simple enough to be included on GNOME 3.16.2
14:13:23 <infapi00> #info but it has some problems
14:13:48 <infapi00> #info with the current behaviour, there is no proper focus support, so although you can focus on the banner
14:13:56 <infapi00> #info then you can�t focus to the text entry to answer
14:14:18 <infapi00> #info orca users would be able to read the notification, but not to answer (so they would need to alt+tab to empathy)
14:14:49 <infapi00> #info if that "fix" is applied, the one receiving the focus would be the text entry, but orca users would not be notified of the banner content
14:15:40 <infapi00> #info so I told fmuellner to maintain the current behaviour, and we would try to check it, and find a full solution
14:15:46 <infapi00> so
14:15:52 <infapi00> opinions?
14:15:58 <infapi00> ah a moment, another info
14:16:32 <infapi00> #info this "we will try to check" has the risk of being too late, or getting a complex solution, that would need to be included on 3.17
14:16:33 <infapi00> done now
14:16:37 <infapi00> so, opinions?
14:17:00 <infapi00> do you agree that is better to keep the current broken behaviour instead of the alternative broken behaviour?
14:17:10 <joanie> wait, multitasking sorry
14:17:13 <joanie> lemme read quickly
14:17:30 <jjmarin> both, easy hack for 3.16.2 and the good one for 3.17 :-)
14:17:47 <joanie> I need to actually see and try it
14:17:50 <infapi00> well jjmarin but what Im saying
14:17:53 <infapi00> is that the easy hack
14:17:57 <infapi00> imho
14:18:00 <joanie> to see what users are missing and how to make that accessible
14:18:05 <infapi00> led to a worse status that the current behaviour
14:18:13 <infapi00> with the current bug
14:18:25 <infapi00> at least orca users are able to read the empathy notification content
14:18:28 <infapi00> with the easy hack
14:18:37 <joanie> btw empathy is pretty inaccessible
14:18:43 <infapi00> they will be able to answer, without getting the notification content
14:18:47 <joanie> so the odds of Orca users actually using it....
14:18:55 <joanie> but again, I'd want to actually try it first
14:19:12 <infapi00> heh, well, in fact I was not able to test it right now
14:19:17 <infapi00> because I also don't use empathy at all
14:19:30 <joanie> the current bug is for a sighted keyboard user?
14:19:53 <joanie> and when does florian need an answer by?
14:20:52 <infapi00> joanie, well yes it was reported by a sighted keyboard user
14:21:00 <infapi00> but as the but report says
14:21:05 <infapi00> if you want to reply
14:21:08 <infapi00> to that notification
14:21:14 <infapi00> you need to click on the text entry
14:21:19 <infapi00> so that also affects orca users
14:21:30 <joanie> what I mean, however, is this
14:21:48 <joanie> 1) depending on the chat app, the notifications, etc. Orca might already be reading it automatically.
14:22:03 <joanie> 2) Empathy is largely inaccessible, so Orca users are likely not using it
14:22:06 <joanie> therefore
14:22:12 <joanie> if we have something broken
14:22:18 <joanie> and can fix it for an actual user
14:22:24 <joanie> it might make sense to do that now
14:22:37 <joanie> and then figure out how to make the notification read -- if it isn't already being read
14:22:52 <infapi00> ok, makes sense
14:22:55 <infapi00> so about this:
14:23:00 <infapi00> <joanie> and when does florian need an answer by?
14:23:09 <infapi00> he didn't give me a time limit
14:23:21 <infapi00> I just said "we will take a look" and he answered "ok, thanks"
14:23:29 <joanie> ok, then let's go with that
14:23:40 <joanie> i.e. check first, then answer
14:24:01 <infapi00> ok, so, do you want that check action?
14:24:06 <infapi00> well, not sure if want
14:24:07 <infapi00> but
14:24:08 <joanie> might as well
14:24:11 <infapi00> would you accept that check action?
14:24:16 <joanie> sure
14:24:45 <infapi00> #action joanie will take a look to the notification bug, in order to give a final answer to florian as soon as possible
14:24:53 <infapi00> so ok, thanks
14:25:00 <infapi00> from my part is all what I had on this topic
14:25:09 <infapi00> someone else? moving?
14:26:03 <infapi00> #topic W3C updates
14:26:05 <infapi00> clown, ?
14:26:33 <clown> infapi00, I have one thing
14:27:07 <clown> It might be a debate among experts, but it is causing some controversy.
14:27:09 <clown> Here's a summary.
14:27:19 <clown> #info Issues regarding including "DPub" roles values.
14:27:41 <clown> #info DPub roles are for describing the parts of a book or article, e.g. "forward"
14:28:12 <clown> #info Draft spec is here: https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/dpub.html
14:28:34 <clown> #info DPub is a working group for adding these semantics to ARIA and the web.
14:28:47 <clown> #info The two main isseus are:  (1) whether to prefix dpub roles with "dpub-".
14:28:56 <clown> #info For example: role="dpub-forward" vs. role="forward"
14:29:15 <clown> #info currently, the plan is to *not* use the dpub- prefix, but there are objections to that.
14:29:33 <clown> #info (2) The dpu role "abstract" might be confused with abstract roles.
14:29:55 <clown> #info The debate is whether to change the name of the dpub "abstract" role value to something else, like "summary".
14:30:10 <clown> #info Other issues summarized here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015Apr/0152.html
14:30:51 <clown> #info There is an upcoming joint telecon between PFWG and the DPub group on Apr 22.
14:30:59 <clown> done.  questions?
14:31:52 * jjmarin wonders if this dpub thing has something to do with ebook formats like epub
14:32:27 <clown> yes, jjmarin.
14:32:42 <jjmarin> ok
14:32:44 <clown> #info DPub is an attempt to capture epub semantics:  http://www.idpf.org/epub/vocab/structure/
14:33:28 <jjmarin> I see, thanks
14:33:29 <infapi00> well, just a silly question
14:33:41 <infapi00> I assume that the people that suggest to not use the prefix
14:34:00 <infapi00> propose that so all those roles could be reused in the future, in the case
14:34:11 <infapi00> that they became general use, instead of just for dpub
14:34:21 <infapi00> is for that reason or there is another one?
14:34:28 <clown> that's part of it infapi00
14:35:02 <clown> another consideration is "space".  Adding 'dpub-' adds six characters per role that need to be transported, parsed, etc.
14:35:56 <clown> a common complaint about ARIA is that is adds to much extra text to the documents.  (But it's worth it).
14:37:04 <clown> the downside of not using the prefix is name collisions.
14:38:11 <infapi00> ok thanks
14:38:17 <infapi00> and thanks for the update
14:38:21 <infapi00> I have no more questions
14:38:21 <jjmarin> and a too short prefix could lead to a effect 2000 drama :-)
14:38:23 <clown> your welcom.
14:38:40 <clown> "effect 2000 drama"?
14:39:27 <jjmarin> year 2000 problem for using just two numbers
14:39:27 <infapi00> #topic Marketing
14:39:34 <infapi00> jjmarin, your tur
14:39:45 <jjmarin> #info no news this week, sorry
14:39:54 <infapi00> ok
14:39:59 <infapi00> #topic Miscellaneous time
14:40:05 <infapi00> this time I have a topic
14:40:26 <jjmarin> Have talk about oliverp email ?
14:40:26 <infapi00> recently joanie and I noticed that some people had some problems coming to the meeting
14:40:33 <infapi00> ?
14:40:40 <infapi00> jjmarin, well, we already talked on last week
14:40:45 <infapi00> s/on/about that
14:41:02 <jjmarin> ok
14:41:07 <infapi00> so unless someone changed their plans about going to GUADEC, not sure what we have to discuss today
14:41:18 <jjmarin> ok
14:41:22 <joanie> sorry, in #gnome-shell
14:41:36 * joanie reads
14:42:11 <joanie> My life has become pretty meetingful
14:42:21 <joanie> thanks to work Igalia is doing on the W3C
14:42:32 <joanie> I wouldn't mind having one less meeting
14:42:40 <joanie> using the mailing lists instead
14:42:56 <joanie> that would solve timezone issues too
14:43:28 <infapi00> anyother is in joanie situation?
14:43:55 <infapi00> well, it doesn't need to be the same situation
14:44:01 <joanie> heh
14:44:09 <jjmarin> I adapt to our collegues agree :-)
14:44:13 <infapi00> but the same "hard to go to meetings" outcome
14:44:13 <clown> I'm in the same time zone as joanie. :-)
14:44:32 <joanie> do you have an equally meetingful life?
14:44:47 <clown> joanie, I don't think I have as many meetings as you.
14:45:04 <clown> I can make this meeting, but I could also use the time for other things.
14:45:05 <joanie> whoever dies with the most meetings wins!
14:45:09 <infapi00> well, in my case even being on the "right" timezone, it also breaks my working day somehow
14:45:20 <clown> sadly, joanie will win
14:45:54 <infapi00> additionally, I wouldbasically for some weeks at mid-may, and after that I guess that my working schedule will just be randomized day-per-day
14:46:15 <infapi00> so an "asynchronous" coordination tool, like ml would be better to me
14:46:30 <clown> I will also be away for about two weeks in May.
14:46:36 <infapi00> s/basically/basically disappear
14:47:16 <jjmarin> I would like to read emails from nowhere in May :-)
14:47:32 <clown> jjmarin, I'll send you some.  Just for you!
14:47:43 <jjmarin> +1 ;-)
14:48:21 <infapi00> well, so it seems that there are a initial "non-rejection" at the meeting
14:48:41 <joanie> ?
14:48:49 <clown> "non-rejection" of ?
14:48:52 <infapi00> joanie, bad worded
14:48:53 <joanie> heh
14:49:16 <infapi00> we are talking about the possibility of move the coordination to ml, instead of fixed weekly meetings
14:49:22 <infapi00> and as far as I see
14:49:29 <infapi00> nobody is against it
14:49:32 <joanie> ah
14:49:36 <clown> okay.
14:49:42 <joanie> some of us are even in favor of it
14:49:52 <mgorse> Occasionally there are things that we want to discuss, but often there aren't. But then we could just have an impromptu meeting if we really want to. And sometimes we end up deep diving which could just as easily be done in #a11y
14:50:03 <clown> Just to put it on the table:  what about meetings once a month?
14:50:07 <infapi00> yes thats true
14:50:14 <infapi00> thats==what mgorse said
14:50:15 <jjmarin> surprise meetings ! :-)
14:50:23 <infapi00> if we need a meeting to discuss about something specific
14:50:24 <mgorse> mostly they seem useful for presenting updates
14:50:29 <infapi00> we can ask for it
14:50:36 <clown> that too.
14:50:51 * clown is really non-comittal today.
14:52:58 <infapi00> so, should we declare the stoppage of the traditional weekly meetings, or being conservative and ask about that on the ml?
14:53:23 <joanie> my vote is to stop
14:53:31 <joanie> but i'm not opposed to asking first
14:54:04 <mgorse> I think we have everyone here who tends to show up to them
14:54:09 <jjmarin> the ml era is coming, I'm ok with that
14:54:37 <infapi00> ok, then instead of asking about
14:54:48 <infapi00> we will just announce that
14:54:58 <clown> which ml?  gnome-accessibility or gnome-accessibility-devel?
14:55:05 <infapi00> clown, gnome-accessibility
14:55:09 <clown> okay.
14:55:16 <infapi00> that is the one for users and coordination
14:55:16 <jjmarin> ok
14:55:25 <infapi00> in theory gnome-accessibility-devel are for implementation details
14:55:43 <infapi00> although in the practice, most emails goes directly to gnome-accessibility
14:55:51 <clown> makes sense, in theory…
14:57:16 <infapi00> ok, so
14:57:48 <infapi00> #info infapi00 will send an email to ml announcing the stop of weekly meetings by default
14:57:52 <infapi00> hmm
14:58:02 <infapi00> that should be an action
14:58:05 <clown> yup
14:58:10 <infapi00> but I guess that is ok as it is
14:58:12 <infapi00> so
14:58:20 <infapi00> something else miscellaneous to debate?
14:58:39 <joanie> infapi00: will you update the wiki page too?
14:58:49 <clown> good catch, joanie
14:59:52 <infapi00> joanie, true
14:59:55 <infapi00> yes, I will update it
14:59:59 <joanie> thanks!
15:00:18 <joanie> it's 17:00 and I need to answer the folks in #gnome-shell about this chat focus stuff
15:00:23 <joanie> safe to part?
15:00:24 <infapi00> so as it is already end time
15:00:30 <infapi00> lets finish the meeting
15:00:33 <infapi00> #endmeeting