Re: Allowing a11y windows to be on top - bug #136159



Bill Haneman wrote:
Lubos Lunak wrote:

On Thursday 15 of April 2004 22:24, Brian Cameron wrote:

This email is in regards to bugzilla bug 136159, "metacity allows some
non-child dialogs to obscure WM_DOCK windows".  See:

  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136159

The need to have a11y windows, such as GOK, appear above all other windows has been highlighted on the wm-spec list before. Here is a brief summary
of the discussions so far on this topic:




+ Here is where Lubos asked for a proof of concept:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2003-October/msg00048.html

+ And Havoc agreed a proof of concept was in order:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2003-October/msg00056.html

So, isn't it only necessary to create a proof-of-concept in order to move
forward on making this feature a part of the desktop?



To make this clear, I didn't ask for a proof-of-concept for the actual hint (I agree with Havoc that it's better to have a window type for these accessibility windows rather than _NET_WM_WINDOW_STATE_REALLY_ABOVE_ALL_AND_I_MEAN_IT). I have no problem with adding this to the spec or adjusting KWin.


I too think that a separate window type would be better. Are there any objections to adding _NET_WM_TYPE_ABOVEALL and implementing support in metacity?

Agreed! I've been following this kind of discussion for a long time now, and I've always thought and still think that a new window type is the best, clean solution.

my 2 cents.

David

I agree that the xsscreensaver issue is a bit harder; I think that the most workable solution in the near-term is to have the WM handle screen locking, at least once the unlock dialog is posted. Possibly some negotiation between the WM and the screen lock agent would be required in order to preserve some level of assurance that misbehaved apps won't post content inappropriately during the unlock process.

- Bill


What I didn't like was the idea of the WM handling the windows while the screen is locked (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2003-September/msg00012.html), and I asked for a proof-of-concept implementation of that, as I still don't believe screen locking using the WM will work well. On the other hand, if the locking remains the way it is, then somehow the locking application needs to temporarily start handling the accessibility windows itself while the screen is locked - not very nice either.


_______________________________________________
wm-spec-list mailing list
wm-spec-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]