fluid-work IRC Logs-2010-10-26

Owned by Fluid IRC Log Bot
Last updated: Oct 26, 2010Version comment
9 min read

[04:18:15 CDT(-0500)] * Topic is 'This channel is logged – for details see: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/IRC+Channel' set by jessm on 07:30:00 CST(-0600)
[09:25:17 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> mlam: justin_o: jhung: anastasiac: seems Jan's doing some demos at 11a EDT – I've pointed him to the build.fluidproject.org demos – so, just wanted to make y'all aware
[09:25:22 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> golam: ^
[09:25:39 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> jessm: do you know what he is planning on demoing
[09:25:49 CDT(-0500)] <golam> thanks
[09:25:52 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> justin_o: from his email it looks like inline edit and progress
[09:26:02 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> jessm, thanks for the heads-up. JT mentioned the tour, but it's good to be reminded about the resources involved
[09:26:43 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> anastasiac: sure thing
[09:28:45 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> jessm: thanks
[09:29:45 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> hey y'all we're scheduled to have pretty significant storms rolling through in the next two hours. i might suddenly drop offline if the power goes out. just an FYI
[09:55:54 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> anastasiac: Did anyone ever review your patch for FLUID-3793, the Pager issue you discovered?
[09:56:21 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> ah, not to my knowledge. I pinged Bosmon, but I think he's been busy
[09:58:24 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Ok
[09:58:51 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I think he should properly review it. Can you mention the ambiguity I pointed out about a function that is named "get..." but that doesn't itself return a value
[09:59:01 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Your patch fixes the issue, but leaves the potential confusion in place
[09:59:15 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Bosmon will have a better sense of the impact of that issue, in the larger scheme of the Pager
[10:06:01 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> colinclark, yes, I did mention that issue, to see what he thinks. I'll ping him again today
[10:06:10 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I'm sending an email to him and the list about it
[10:06:15 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> So we should be cool
[10:08:03 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: i should have asked in your email to the list re: keyboard a11y demo – why do fixed layouts make the demo less "clear or inclusive?"
[10:09:17 CDT(-0500)] <harriswong> colinclark: is there any jira# you want me to look at?
[10:12:29 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jessm: I saw that email. Example: fixed layouts are harder for text scaling, especially with respect to their containers.
[10:12:58 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: hrm, will there be text in the demo?
[10:13:28 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jessm: that said, I have the design working with the horizontal scroller using relative units and not a fixed layout.
[10:13:57 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: ¿donde esta?
[10:14:47 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jessm: I just checked it into SVN a few mins ago.
[10:15:17 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: M /fluid/infusion/trunk/src/webapp/demos/keyboard-a11y/css/keyboard.css
[10:15:17 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> M /fluid/infusion/trunk/src/webapp/demos/keyboard-a11y/html/keyboard.html
[10:15:19 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> roger that
[10:16:18 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jessm: yeah, that's it. (big grin)
[10:16:24 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> jhung: How is it that fixed layouts are harder for text scaling, do you think?
[10:16:41 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> There's a partial argument around support for IE 6, but beyond that?
[10:21:07 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> colinclark: yes. this is true that current browsers do a much better job at scaling fixed layouts. However, WCAG 1.0 states to avoid fixed units. WCAG 2.0 may be a bit more flexible (still looking into this).
[10:21:47 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> jhung: You're aware that the FSS makes significant use of fixed sizing where appropriate?
[10:23:10 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> WCAG 1.0 has all kinds of "funny" requirements that were rooted (quite legitimately) in the technology landscape of the time
[10:23:13 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> The time being 1997
[10:23:34 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> colinclark: yes. From what I've been reading, fixed sizing is okay if used appropriately.
[10:23:47 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> So WCAG 2.0 takes a much more abstract approach, and requires us to ask questions about how flexible our design will be
[10:24:01 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I'm all for relative sizing where it's appropriate and effective
[10:24:13 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> But I haven't yet seen an argument about how fixed sizes aren't inclusive
[10:25:19 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I'm interested in what sorts of barriers we can see with the approach
[10:25:58 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I could see how someone using a custom stylesheet loaded into their browser might do better with relative sizing, although I'm not even sure of that
[10:26:22 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> And as we learned back in the days of StyleAble, custom stylesheets without app-specific knowledge of skinning pretty much don't work
[10:27:17 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> colinclark: yep.
[10:29:14 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: i haven't looked at the code so shame on me for even asking, but are you using FSS much to structure your styling and your thinking?
[10:29:37 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jessm: yes, FSS is there.
[10:29:46 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: awesome
[10:30:15 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> so, it sounds like you might benefit from someone looking at the code then, eh?
[10:51:38 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> all: http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/ - enter an URL, and see what percentage of your site is viewable by Google users.
[10:52:20 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> So, jhung, I missed a lot of your comments at standup due to the tour coming through
[10:52:46 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> colinclark: here's a summary:
[10:55:40 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> 1. I have an implementation of a scroller that doesn't require a fixed layout.
[10:55:40 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> 2. Yes, fixed layouts are less of an accessibility concern with modern browsers. However screen resolution is still the primary concern. Will respond to your email to ist regarding this.
[10:56:00 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> 3. continuing on stying. Working on the 5-star widget now.
[10:56:16 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I'm glad you've got something that works with relative layouts. Nice work.
[10:56:57 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> What I'd like, in respect to #2, is for us to use measurable criteria when deciding how a particular implementation technique impacts our users
[10:57:16 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> So rather than just assuming "fixed layouts are bad," let's explore a variety of use cases and decide what the impact will be
[10:57:32 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> In other words, it'll be great to read your response on the list
[10:57:59 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I actually think there's probably an argument for fixed sizes when it comes to varying screen resolutions and sizes
[10:58:24 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> There's a point at which a completely relative layout gets actively worse for larger screens
[10:58:32 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> and constraining sizes becomes quite a reasonable strategy
[11:00:01 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> I agree. It works well in that context.
[11:03:42 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> jessm, looks like your bad weather is forecasted for here, too: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/10/26/toronto-weather.html
[11:05:51 CDT(-0500)] <mlam> i forgot to wear my rain boots!
[11:09:52 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> anastasiac: same storm – we're so "connected"
[11:41:09 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung_afk: seems like you're at an interesting point
[11:41:38 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> where there isn't one option that stands out as the silver bullet solution
[11:42:11 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> it's good to remember that there isn't one a11y use case and we'll likely hit this point with many of our design decisions
[11:43:07 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung_afk: to move forward, let's have someone take a look at your non-fixed layout scroller solution and then talk about whether or not making it fixed improves it – perhaps a chat... what do you think?
[12:54:28 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung_afk: ping?
[12:54:45 CDT(-0500)] <jhung_afk> jessm: whoops
[12:54:59 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> Sorry, i'm here. (tongue)
[12:56:01 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jessm: Sounds like a good idea to have someone look over the relative layout. Any volunteers?
[12:56:26 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: try to find a buddy
[12:56:42 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> jessm: I have no buddies. sniff sniff
[12:56:56 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: i see an emerging to-do list
[12:57:06 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> lol
[12:59:48 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> Anastasiac: ping. Do you have time to go over the markup? I'm also tempted to check-in the 5-star work I've been doing even though it's still very much work in progress.
[13:00:31 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> jhung, sure. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but we could go over it together. I'd say sure, check in what you've got for the stars so far
[13:03:01 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> jhung: anastasiac: let's get some other eyes on it too
[13:03:05 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> mixing up buddies
[13:03:12 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> michelled: any chance you have a few moments?
[13:03:27 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> for you jessm, anytime (smile)
[13:03:41 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> michelled: awesome – except it's for jhung (big grin)
[13:03:45 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> ^^
[13:03:48 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> also anytime (smile)
[13:03:54 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> :d
[13:04:00 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> michelled: yay – welcome back – we missed you
[13:04:37 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> (smile)
[13:04:42 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> michelled, anastasiac: let me check in what I have. Let's meet in a few mins? (need to grab coffee).
[13:04:50 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> jhung: I think I must have missed most of the conversation - can you point me at what I'm looking at?
[13:04:57 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> ok, sure
[13:05:40 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> michelled: it's the keyboard accessibility plugin. http://source.fluidproject.org/svn/fluid/infusion/trunk/src/webapp/demos/keyboard-a11y/
[13:06:26 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> we're going over the markup. Notably the decision to use relative units for layout and styling vs. fixed units.
[13:11:00 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> michelled, anastasiac: I've checked in my latest work. Meet at 2:30p to talk it over?
[13:11:14 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> jhung, sounds good
[13:11:15 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> (assuming a tornado doesn't rip the GTA apart).
[13:12:26 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> jhung: 2:30 sounds good - tornado not so good
[13:14:55 CDT(-0500)] <jessm> michelled: anastasiac: jhung: the storm was much ado about nothing much here
[13:15:10 CDT(-0500)] * michelled remembers the 1985 tornado that took out homes on my road
[13:25:39 CDT(-0500)] <jhung> michelled, anastasiac: meet in skype?
[13:25:46 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> sure
[13:26:35 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> yep
[16:12:46 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> I have just created FLUID-3819 which has arisen in the context of some work for YURA on CollectionSpace
[16:13:04 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Which I would like to propose as a last-minute Bug Parade candidate ... sorry to do this again
[16:13:16 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Again I think it would be a pretty simple adjustment to the framework
[16:13:56 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> Bosmon: okay... the last one you did seemed to be a relatively quick change... i guess you are adding unit tests and everything too so we should be fairly certain that it won't break other things and that it generally works
[16:14:19 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Bosmon: Are you ever scared that all these last minute changes are going to burn us in QA?
[16:14:34 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Well... not really (smile)
[16:15:00 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> I mean, though these changes are in some way "fundamental" I am confident they are of very bounded impact
[16:15:08 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> ok, that's cool
[16:15:14 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> And are just adding "alternative pathways" to the codebase rather than impacting behaviour that we already have
[16:15:17 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> What can you do to help Justin feel a similar confidence?
[16:15:26 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> unit tests, I guess, was what he mentioned
[16:15:26 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Well, I can give this explanation I just gave (smile)
[16:15:29 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> lol
[16:15:34 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Yes, these all come with those
[16:15:37 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> ok
[16:15:47 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> (smile) okay.. well i'll trust you then...
[16:15:53 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> so i'll add it to the parade...
[16:16:05 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Thanks (smile)
[16:16:09 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> Bosmon: are you okay with the other jiras on the parade
[16:16:40 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> I had a chat with michelle about the reorderer issues
[16:16:45 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> I guess I am somewhat afraid of them
[16:17:02 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Bosmon: elaborate
[16:17:11 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> They are scary issues for me because they are not yet fully baked, conceptually
[16:17:19 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> We have to do more work thinking through what they mean
[16:17:19 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> yes
[16:17:22 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:31:06) AntranigBasman: Oh dear
[16:17:22 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:31:16) AntranigBasman: That is quite a lot
[16:17:22 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:31:22) AntranigBasman: And also requires some kind of design/research work
[16:17:23 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> why do they freak you out?
[16:17:32 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:31:45) Michelle: it seems that several are related
[16:17:32 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:31:48) AntranigBasman: yes
[16:17:32 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:32:50) AntranigBasman: I mean, we have talked about many of these, but I'm not sure we have a completely firm approach of how to deal with them
[16:17:32 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:34:53) AntranigBasman: I mean, FLUID-3709 is still in a totally vague state
[16:17:38 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> We'll have to get you paired up with the right people, I think
[16:17:52 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:37:13) Michelle: we can get James and Jon to put some thought into that one and clarify it
[16:17:52 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:46:00) AntranigBasman: Well, it is also an issue that will need extensive a11y testing
[16:17:52 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:46:10) AntranigBasman: Hopefully we can get some cycles from Everett or so... although he is gone now, right?
[16:17:52 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:46:50) Michelle: not sure what the story is. it might just be that he isn't planning to come into the city anytime soon
[16:18:05 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:46:55) AntranigBasman: ah
[16:18:05 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:47:18) Michelle: we can get some a11y testing happening here though
[16:18:05 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:47:23) Michelle: Golam for instance
[16:18:05 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> (14:47:29) AntranigBasman: ok
[16:18:17 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> What we found with Inline Edit was that we needed to do some implementation before being fully aware of the extent of vagueness and to understand the design requirements
[16:18:39 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> yes
[16:19:01 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> We can do lots of a11y testing on our end. It won't be perfect, but the whole point of this AEGIS-driven testing will be to get us new solid results
[16:19:10 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> right
[16:19:10 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> But we want results that are new, not just the same old stuff
[16:19:19 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> I guess to start with we need to "do something plausible"
[16:19:24 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> so making some attempts at addressing the things we know will help
[16:19:26 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Yes, exactly
[16:19:39 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> This is squarely in the "no one has ever done this" category, I think
[16:20:49 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> Well, this is what we are being paid to do (smile)
[16:21:01 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> indeed
[16:37:01 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> Bosmon: I added FLUID-3819 to bug parade now
[16:37:08 CDT(-0500)] <justin_o> you should see it on the latest update