Window types (Re: [Usability] Resizability of windows)

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt myrealbox com>]

On May 5, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 5/4/06, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt myrealbox com> wrote:
> ...
> > Were/are any interaction designers involved in the wm-spec? I mean,  
> > it has a special window type for *splash screens*, of all things, but  
> > no type for progress windows. What the hell?
>
> I don't know; you can check the Contributors section if you happen to
> know all the relevant people.  I don't (yet?), but as far as I can
> tell, it's mostly toolkit and window manager authors.  (Also, a
> special type for splash screens makes a _lot_ of sense -- they need
> special handling too such as no window decorations, don't give them
> focus, place them centered onscreen, don't allow them to be
> closed/shaded/resized/moved, don't put the window in the taskbar or
> pager, etc.)
> ...

But the four things I want to do most often with a splash screen are  
(1) minimize it ("get out of my way!"), (2) move it ("get out of my  
way!"), (3) return it to the front ("... wait, did that say  
OpenOffice.org 1.1? I thought I'd launched 2.0!"), and (4) cut out its  
heart with a spoon ("get out of my way!"). Are you saying I can't do  
any of those? :-)

On further thought, if it's not too silly to give a splash screen a  
title bar (and splash screens are already pretty silly), they can quite  
easily be a subset of progress windows (which they already are, in  
functional terms). The title bar would allow moving, and would have a  
minimize button and no others, just like any other progress window.

> Note, though, that the spec can always be extended.  For example,
> Søren already has a proposal to extend the window types
> (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2006-April/ 
> msg00013.html), though his proposal is aimed just at improving the  
> compositor rather than the window manager.
> ...

Ok, maybe we can do that once we have a design nailed down. So, a few  
more questions:

1.  Why are _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_TOOLBAR and _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_UTILITY
    separate types? The spec says "...UTILITY ... is distinct from type
    TOOLBAR because it does not correspond to a toolbar torn off from
    the main application". Yes, but so what?

2.  What type are tooltips? It's a bit hard to tell that with xprop :-)

3.  Would any problems arise if this was true? "Metacity treats a
    window as an alert if both (1) it has _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_DIALOG
    (or if WM_TRANSIENT_FOR is set but not _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE), and
    (2) it has no title. If an alert opens for a window that is not in
    front, Metacity sets _NET_WM_STATE_DEMANDS_ATTENTION for the window
    automatically."

--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/