Re: _NET_WM_[GET_|TAKE_|REQUEST_]FOCUS & urgency

[Luke Schierer <lschiere users sf net>]

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 03:57:18PM -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 5/25/05, Luke Schierer <lschiere users sf net> wrote:
> 
> However, I think we can and should move the window to where there is
> the least overlap as possible with the window that has focus, to help
> make it so that it will be seen when it appears.
> 
> > * new windows should be created at the top level unless specifically requested otherwise by the starting
> >   application.  Placement should reflect some overall policy of the WM, preferably a policy that the
> >   user understands and can predict.  Remembering previous placement is a reasonable, but not required,
> >   part of said policy.
> 
> I disagree, for reasons stated above (I hate apps that interrupt what
> I'm working on; notification that they need attention is fine, but
> rudely getting in the way of what I'm doing at the moment is not).
> 
> >         * Window stacking and focus policy should be at least somewhat decoupled.
> 
> It is, so I don't see why this statement has any relevance.  (yes, I
> am one of those who would like a more extreme decoupling than what
> exists in Metacity, but that's beside the point)  It may not be
> decoupled in the way you like, but if so you should state in which way
> the given choice of decoupling is suboptimal, rather than make vague
> statements like this.

it does not *appear* to be decoupled.  It *seems* that the choice is
either on top with focus stealing, or pop under to avoid it.  When
what you *want* is on top with out focus...  hence they appear to be
coupled.

> 
> >         * It is acceptable for a window manager's overall focus policy to include some concept of absolute
> >           Z-level and restrict an application to a single Z-level.  Such a policy, however, should include
> >           some method to notify the user that a new window has been created.
> 
> Um, like DEMANDS_ATTENTION?  ;-)

a DEMANDS_ATTENTION that actually got the user's attention would
suffice here yes.  The idea that bullet was attempting to address
however was window managers that restrict each application to a
single layer, and force you to raise or lower the layer.  *shrugs* as
long as the user knows that's what is happening, such behavior would
be fine, *so long as the user was notified that there is reason to
switch layers*.  however, this is one respect that does not
particularly apply to metacity, as its placement is not nearly so
logical ;-)

of course, having a writeup of how a window manager should behave
with points that do not particularly apply to metacity only makes
sense if we have users who don't use gnome (its a given that you
wouldn't bother for win32 users, who's going to get Microsoft to
listen? you *have* to work around its insufficiencies) ;-)



> 
> 
> Hope that helps,

yes, it is nice to have replies that are both meaningful and
proposing things we can work forward from.  I will keep my eyes out
for specific examples I can forward to the gnome bugzilla.

luke

> Elijah
>