Subject: Re: FVWM: Re: "active focus" applications (MetaCard)

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Magill)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 11:28:45 PDT

>Perhaps it was a bit strong, but we've been pointing out the inherent
>and insurmountable problems of using pointer focus with real GUI
>applications (as opposed to xterms) for years now, 

And there are problems with click-to-focus, too.  I personally find
explicit focus annoying.  A "real" gui application should be able to
handle both focus paradigms because not all users like the explicit
paradigm.  If your application doesn't work very well with pointer focus,
maybe you should rethink its design.

>It's also confusing because pointer focus really only has advantages
>when you're dealing primarily with xterm-type windows (as I invariably
>discover is the standard tool of pointer focus afficianados).  When
>When your rarely or never use them, pointer focus is just a pain in the ass
>because you're constantly having to move the mouse before you can type
>in dialogs and such.

I'm missing something. Please explain the situation where explicit focus
helps you travel around an application's windows better than
pointer-focus.  Focus is on a per-window basis, not a per-application
basis, right?  So with explicit focus, you _always_ have to move the
pointer and click it on another window of the application, right?

Jeff
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Merlin Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:35:08 -0600 (CST)

Hi,

Well generally I consider myself a lurker in this list, more for the
purpose of learning and judging when I should make the jump from 1.24r to
2.x.

But when I read the message that started this thread (by Scot? I believe;
anyway) I must admit I reacted just as strongly against the idea or
explicit focus.

Now on to my point...
> >applications (as opposed to xterms) for years now, 

Admittedly I do use mostly xterm based windows.  This is probably the
reason I insist on pointer focus.

> maybe you should rethink its design.

Yes it would be nice if application developers made sure their software was
compatible with both paradigms but I'm not sure if you can consider the
application "broken" if it does not.

> pointer and click it on another window of the application, right?
Well for my two cents worth (know understand I admit to not understanding
the inner workings of a window manager) I find pointer focus very useful
for most of my applications.  In my situation I am running two 3x3 desktops
with 12 to 30 windows on each.  Switching windows quickly, cuting and
pasting are two of my major window manager activities.  Having explicit
focus (and god forbid, extra keystrokes/button presses to cut and paste)
would greatly reduce my efficiency and increase my annoyance!

On the other hand, when I am using "real GUI application" pointer focus can
be a pain.  There are a few perks with explicit focus that really improves
the usability of GUI apps.

Finally if I had it my way I would be able to configure either focus
paradigms (which is the default does not matter) not only in an exclusive
manner (chose one or the other) but, even better, on a per
window/application basis also.  

In my perfect wm world Mega-card (and such) would use explicit focus and 
my xterm based windows would use pointer focus.  GUI apps would gain focus
when I click on their window(s) and lose focus when I either move over a
pointer focus window or click on another explicit focus window.

IMHO....Merlin.

-- 
| Develcon Electronics    | E-mail   : [email-masked]        |
| 856-51 St. E, Saskatoon,| Web Site : http://www.develcon.com           |
| Saskatchewan, Canada.   | DISCLAIMER : These are my opinions & views,  |
| S7K 5C7                 | NOT necessarily those of my employers.       |

---

From: Scott Raney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:56:51 -0600 (MDT)

> maybe you should rethink its design.

Perhaps you missed my original post.  It detailed why certain GUI
techniques are *impossible* to use efficiently with pointer focus.
And you're not going to get very far with an argument that the vast
majority of users (who use explict focus) should be forced to use a
lower-functionality application because more using advanced GUI
techniques don't work well with the non-standard setup some users
find works better in their xterm-based world.

> basis, right?

Well, in *true* pointer focus there is no keyboard traversal at all,
you have to move the mouse into each field in turn to fill out a form.
I don't see too many people advocating we go back to *that*.  Its
about time we take the next step, or at least reduce the incidence of
corruption of new users by making the default explicit focus.

>  So with explicit focus, you _always_ have to move the

No, you click on a button (or choose from a menu, or activate a menu
item with a mnemonic or accelerator) and it opens a dialog that gets
the focus.  You then type whatever you want and then close it by
pressing return, upon which the dialog closes and focus returns to the
application window that had it before.  This is the most standard
operating method of modern GUI applications, and it just doesn't work
very well with pointer focus.
  Scott

-- 
***************************************************************
Scott Raney   [email-masked]   http://www.metacard.com
Tcl and ksh: syntactic gymnastics
MetaCard: it does what you think
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].