[12:57] <API> TheMuso, you here?
[20:08] <TheMuso> API: I am around now.
[20:08] <API> TheMuso, well, now I'm the one with not too much time ;)
[20:09] <API> anyway, just in case it is quick
[20:09] <API> joanie mentioned some stuff related with the "Hud"
[20:09] <API> afaik, this is something new on unity
[20:09] <TheMuso> Thats right it is.
[20:10] <API> joanie also mentioned something about you mentioned that if atk support would be implemented directly on nux, that should be accessible
[20:10] <API> so
[20:10] <API> it is this hud thing a program different to unity?
[20:10] <TheMuso> Yes I know this was talked about at the beginniing of unity a11y enablement, and there was a reason which I can't remember.
[20:10] <API> or it is part of unity itself?
[20:10] <TheMuso> API: No its not.
[20:10] <TheMuso> its part of unity
[20:10] <API> well, in that case it doesn't matter if it was implemented on nux or unity
[20:11] <API> atk support on unity is based on nux type system
[20:11] <TheMuso> yeah I am aware of that
[20:11] <API> at least the part that get the specific accessible object from the specific nux object
[20:11] <API> in that sense
[20:11] <API> unity atk support include objects based directly on nux objects
[20:11] <API> so it would not be any difference to have it directly on nux
[20:12] <API> anyway, if that hud is new
[20:12] <API> and it is a new window
[20:12] <TheMuso> Yes I am aware of this. My initial gripe was that if we had wrapped nux directly in the first place, we wouldn't have to have to write new code for every additional piece of Unity widget based ui.
[20:12] <API> well, as I said it would not be any difference
[20:12] <API> any new Unity widget will have an accessible object
[20:13] <API> anyway, and based on experience and not in looking at the coding
[20:13] <TheMuso> but there was a reason why dx didn't want that, but I can't remember why.
[20:13] <API> my first guess is that a new container was implemented
[20:13] <TheMuso> right
[20:13] <API> and the get_child is not implemented
[20:13] <TheMuso> right
[20:13] <API> TheMuso, well at that time
[20:13] <API> they wanted to have the minimum impact on nux
[20:13] <TheMuso> Thats right.
[20:13] <API> asking for new signals or methods were right
[20:14] <API> but they wanted to have all the atk code in just one place
[20:14] <API> as nux is only used by unity (AFAIK)
[20:14] <API> this is ok, and in the end, doesn't matter
[20:14] <API> the only thing I didn't like too much is not having the option to add an "add_accessible" on nux
[20:14] <API> as right now is using a hash table
[20:14] <API> but apart from that ...
[20:14] <TheMuso> Yep.
[20:15] <API> anyway, I still have pending add some unit tests
[20:15] <API> if I'm able to finish this gnome shell patches I will try to look to that unit tests, and also a quick peek
[20:15] <API> to check if that hud thing is just that container thing, or something bigger
[20:16] <TheMuso> API: Ok take your time.
[20:16] <TheMuso> I think Unity 2D will be the preferred option for the LTS anyway.
[20:17] <API> TheMuso, ok
[20:17] <API> hmm
[20:17] <API> preferred option in general or for accessibility?
[20:18] <TheMuso> For accessibility.
[20:19] <API> TheMuso, ok
[20:19] <API> well, and having said so
[20:19] <API> I need to go
[20:19] <API> thanks for the ping
[20:19] <API> see you