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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Magill)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:34:32 PDT

>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.

We're talking about the focus a windows managed by the window manager, not
fields within a window.  Focus within a window is up to the application.
Motif-compliant applications allow keyboard traversal within the window
(usually with the TAB key).

>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.  

So the application can ask the window manager to change the focus to
another window?  Someone else has indicated that they built an app that
did this while the window manager was using pointer-focus policy.

>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 commonly done using an application-modal keyboard grab so that you
don't have to move the pointer to type in the window.  It can also be 
done via warping the mouse or popping the dialog box up underneath the
pointer.

>> In the next release, you'll
>> be able to drive the thing almost entirely from the keyboard,
>
>Gee, and to think you could do this with Windows and OS/2 applications
>5 years ago...
> ....
>I see, let's take the only decent UI that the vast majority of X users
>have ever used and ruin it because it doesn't work well with the
>environment that works well with xterm windows.  

Lame.  First trash _HIS_ app and then say that Netscape is the only decent
UI?  (As if Netscape were and has always been a perfect app.  Sheesh.)

>users new to computers are much more likely to
>use Netscape than they are to use xterms.  

So what?  Are you just trying to get fvwm to change the default to reduce
your customer support costs for new users?  Give me a break. 

Fvwm should come with the

>So you're saying that application vendors have no right to expect any
>sort of standardization of desktop environments?  

I don't think a specific focus policy belongs in the standard even if we
could agree on one.  If you're using Win95 as an example, why did they
even bother publishing Xmouse if they felt it was a standard that needed
to be enforced?

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: Scott Raney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:55:38 -0600 (MDT)

> did this while the window manager was using pointer-focus policy.

By warping the pointer.

> done via warping the mouse or popping the dialog box up underneath the

Neither of these are practical, the first because warping the pointer
violates all GUI style guides (other than the finally obsolete
OpenLook), and the second because it could result in the window
opening partially off screen.

> UI?  (As if Netscape were and has always been a perfect app.  Sheesh.)

I wasn't trashing his app, in fact it sounds very well implemented.
But I found it strange for him to be citing an app as an example of
how things should be done when it obviously took considerable effort
to make it work like Windows and OS/2 and Motif applications are
*required* to, and have been for years.  If he didn't have to spend so
much time fighting with pointer focus, he could have implemented some
really cool new features instead.

And I certainly wouldn't claim that Netscape is perfect, but it *is*
Motif compliant which can't be said for xterm or most other apps
(including most Tk apps) that X users end up using.

> your customer support costs for new users?  Give me a break. 

So your position is that all new users should suffer until they become
as experienced as you?  I recommend instead that we make it as easy
for them as possible, and that means making explicit focus the
default.  The fact that it would reduce our (and Netscape's) technical
support demands, while good, is not the primary reason for doing it.

> could agree on one.  

And again, my goal is not to reduce choice, but just to make sure that
the defaults are set such that systems are as easy to use by the most
number of people.  I realize that this would mean that long-term fvwm
users would be getting dragged along by the masses, but it's better
than the masses dumping X-based systems and giving them bad reviews
because they behave unpredictably.  Unless you're perfectly happy with
fvwm's (and X's) very small niche, you should look at the big picture.
All changing the default would mean would be that you'll have to make
one more tweak to the config files to change the focus policy to the
way you like it if you don't like explicit focus.

> If you're using Win95 as an example, why did they

xmouse is is the "powertoys" package that the Win95 shell team
released.  It's not supported by Microsoft, and there are big
disclaimers all over the README about how you're on your own if you
install it.  Furthermore, a search of Microsoft's site turns up
several bug reports about things that don't work right when you use
it.

-- 
***************************************************************
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].