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

[Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>]

On 5/25/05, Luke Schierer <lschiere users sf net> wrote:

> > >         * 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.

If a modal window (of the application that previously had focus) is
denied focus when it appears (e.g. an "unexpected error message"),
then the usual reasoning of "let the user go on what they were doing
and interacting with the window they were using" doesn't apply (the
modal dialog would prevent any such interaction).  Hence, in that case
the main window is defocused, and the modal dialog is placed on top.

Another example of decoupling is mouse/sloppy focus, where a window
can get focus without being raised.

The only point I think this makes is that the criteria of "at least
somewhat decoupled" is too vague to be useful.  You had a specific
idea in mind for it, but the criteria you listed isn't detailed enough
to support it.

> > >         * 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.

Yeah, I think we're reaching agreement (I hope) that this is the bug
we need to addresss, or at least the first one.

>  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

I don't quite follow what you mean.  Also, do you mean each
application, or each window?  (And for legacy apps, can the WM tell
the difference?)

> 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) ;-)

;-)


Cheers,
Elijah