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

[David Bolter <david bolter utoronto ca>]

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