Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 20:17, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: > I don't understand how to effectively use IRC without doing one of the > following: > > 1. keeping it on-screen (which seems impractical to me, partly because I > still don't quite "get" dwm) > > or > > 2. having some kind of indication that you've been addressed (urgent hints > or whatever). Teach your fellow IRCers that it's an asynchronous communication form, and that they can wait until you have time to read? -- Mikael Schönenberg
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > I don't know about all you, but I find dwm's sloppy focus can be > really annoying at times -- focusing a window when I accidentally > nudge my atrophying pointer -- and would rather click-to-focus. The > great thing about dropping dwm's sloppy focus is it saves 20 lines of > code! So how about we make dwm less mousy and a bit simpler, too? Since the attached patch only removes code, couldn't a macro in config.h trivially be used to select focus behavior without clutter? --Andrew Hills
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
I use a script for weechat that fires off a sound, sends a dbus notification and sets the urgent hint on the window. Works relatively well for me. I know there is a similar script for irssi, but for smaller clients (like ii or sic) you'll need to script something yourself, if I'm not mistaken.
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Christoph Lohmann wrote: Hello, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: So, broadening: what (if anything) do dwm users use for "notifications" or indicating urgency? [...] urxvt.urgentOnBell: true Ah, thanks. Halfway there. So, that's roughly what I was looking for, but it's not very noticeable. Does anyone have a 'dwm-urgent-blink' patch? The one I found didn't work [...] I've got a workable other half with this urgentcolor patch¹ I found. Now urgent tags are noticeable. -- Thanks again, Ben ¹: http://www.mail-archive.com/dwm@suckless.org/msg06657.html
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
2. having some kind of indication that you've been addressed (urgent hints or whatever). In other wm's, #2 is often handled by having a little flashing systray icon. So, broadening: what (if anything) do dwm users use for "notifications" or indicating urgency? Hello, I use seturgent tool from Evil_Bob (#suckleess), works very well for me. http://www.codemadness.nl/downloads/projects/seturgent For example, to get thunderbird window id: Window id can be decimal or hex. $ xwininfo -root -tree | awk '/Inbox.*Mozilla Thunderbird/' 0x271 (dwm will show tag as urgent) $ seturgent 0x271 Using an addon for thunderbird like email alerter, shows a urgent tag when a new mail arrived. You can also use latest version of suckless lsw to get windows id. It's very handy for scripting etc. -- r...@sdf.lonestar.org
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
"Benjamin R. Haskell" wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Josh Rickmar wrote: > > > Um, why is a systray needed for IRC? > > It's not necessary for IRC, per se. I wrote: > > > Without a systray, I don't understand where one gets the spare screen > > real estate to dedicate to IRC. > > I don't understand how to effectively use IRC without doing one of the > following: > > 1. keeping it on-screen (which seems impractical to me, partly because I > still don't quite "get" dwm) > > or > > 2. having some kind of indication that you've been addressed (urgent > hints or whatever). > > In other wm's, #2 is often handled by having a little flashing systray > icon. So, broadening: what (if anything) do dwm users use for > "notifications" or indicating urgency? > > -- > Best, > Ben > Generally you'll end up using the dwm statusbar for that. I recently switched from an always-open mutt (that used a terminal bell when new mail arrived) to using heirloom's mailx. Now, if there's a new mail message, my dwm statusbar script will append a little "new mail" notification. I haven't yet completed the switch from irssi to something more decent (read: ii) but would probably do the same sort of thing if someone sent me a private message or used my nick in a channel. Josh
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Christoph Lohmann wrote: Hello, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: In other wm's, #2 is often handled by having a little flashing systray icon. So, broadening: what (if anything) do dwm users use for "notifications" or indicating urgency? my IRC client is sending a bell character to my terminal, which is setting the urgent bit on that window. The urgent bit tells dwm to highlight that tag in the statusbar. Just set in your X resources: xterm.bellIsUrgent: true or urxvt.urgentOnBell: true , depending on your favourite X terminal emulator. Reload the X resourced and start one terminal emulator using them. Then run % echo -e '\a'; in an unattended tag and watch the result. Ah, thanks. Halfway there. So, that's roughly what I was looking for, but it's not very noticeable. Does anyone have a 'dwm-urgent-blink' patch? The one I found¹ didn't work (makes dwm unresponsive to input after something gets the urgent bit set, and I don't know enough about pthreads to know what's going wrong). -- Best, Ben ¹: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@suckless.org/msg00997.html
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 18:16:48 +0200 garbeam wrote: > Well, dwm had focus follows mouse since its first minute. I'm not going to > change this when it is approaching the age of 5 tomorrow. I have the opposite problem to the OP. DWM sometimes does some clever focusing stuff which doesn't depend on the mouse position. What ends up happening to me is the mouse pointer is over the main window, I expect focus to be on the main window only to find it's somewhere near the bottom of the stack instead.
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:46:20 -0400 (EDT) "Benjamin R. Haskell" wrote: > That said, what do people here use for IRC and how do you deal with it > in dwm? Without a systray, I don't understand where one gets the spare > screen real estate to dedicate to IRC. And w/o dedicated space for it, > I end up forgetting it's there (to the annoyance of people who want > responses). I used to deal with it with multiple monitors or even multiple machines, but that was a bit of a failure. My attention was spread too thinly, I felt drained while not achieving much either in or out of IRC. Now I have IRC on a workspace of its own. I dip into it frequently but irregularly, not breaking my concentration unless I want to. When I look at it, I look into whichever channels I feel like at the time. Sometimes I scan through all which have had any activity. If someone's used my name I hunt through backlog until I find it and usually reply.
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
> Well, the thing is, I don't ever use the mouse for window management, > but I sometimes move the mouse out of the way and in doing so > accidentally focus a completely different window. I personally would > rather dwm had no mouse support at all, but clearly that would be > controversial... Still, at least with click-to-focus the mouse is > completely dormant until you intentionally click something. > > But apparently opinions are split on this topic! > > cls funny, one the main reasons I use dwm is it's excellent mouse support (with some patches) compared to other tiling wms
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
Hello, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote: In other wm's, #2 is often handled by having a little flashing systray icon. So, broadening: what (if anything) do dwm users use for "notifications" or indicating urgency? my IRC client is sending a bell character to my terminal, which is setting the urgent bit on that window. The urgent bit tells dwm to highlight that tag in the statusbar. Just set in your X resources: xterm.bellIsUrgent: true or urxvt.urgentOnBell: true , depending on your favourite X terminal emulator. Reload the X resourced and start one terminal emulator using them. Then run % echo -e '\a'; in an unattended tag and watch the result. Sincerely, Christoph Lohmann
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
Þann mán 4.júl 2011 17:46, skrifaði Benjamin R. Haskell: On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: Þann mán 4.júl 2011 15:14, skrifaði Connor Lane Smith: Interesting, those on IRC were very 'for' this idea. Different demographics? Oh you silly ML people! So people who use mice prefer laggy ML communications over IM? I hate mice, but I also can't stand the constant interruptions model of IRC. Email without notification-style popups lets you deal with (or ignore) stuff at your own pace instead of letting others dictate control of your attention. (i.e. I prefer "laggy") Fair enough. Myself, I can't concentrate on my work when I've got a MUA running, popups or no popups. Shit, it's 6AM already?! That said, what do people here use for IRC and how do you deal with it in dwm? Without a systray, I don't understand where one gets the spare screen real estate to dedicate to IRC. And w/o dedicated space for it, I end up forgetting it's there (to the annoyance of people who want responses). I prefer having a few line high windows always visible, except in fullscreen mode. That is, I actually dedicate screen estate to it.
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Josh Rickmar wrote: Um, why is a systray needed for IRC? It's not necessary for IRC, per se. I wrote: Without a systray, I don't understand where one gets the spare screen real estate to dedicate to IRC. I don't understand how to effectively use IRC without doing one of the following: 1. keeping it on-screen (which seems impractical to me, partly because I still don't quite "get" dwm) or 2. having some kind of indication that you've been addressed (urgent hints or whatever). In other wm's, #2 is often handled by having a little flashing systray icon. So, broadening: what (if anything) do dwm users use for "notifications" or indicating urgency? -- Best, Ben
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
"Benjamin R. Haskell" wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > > > ??ann m??n 4.j??l 2011 15:14, skrifa??i Connor Lane Smith: > >> Interesting, those on IRC were very 'for' this idea. Different > >> demographics? Oh you silly ML people! > >> > > So people who use mice prefer laggy ML communications over IM? > > I hate mice, but I also can't stand the constant interruptions model of > IRC. Email without notification-style popups lets you deal with (or > ignore) stuff at your own pace instead of letting others dictate control > of your attention. (i.e. I prefer "laggy") > > That said, what do people here use for IRC and how do you deal with it > in dwm? Without a systray, I don't understand where one gets the spare > screen real estate to dedicate to IRC. And w/o dedicated space for it, > I end up forgetting it's there (to the annoyance of people who want > responses). > > -- > Best, > Ben Um, why is a systray needed for IRC?
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: Þann mán 4.júl 2011 15:14, skrifaði Connor Lane Smith: Interesting, those on IRC were very 'for' this idea. Different demographics? Oh you silly ML people! So people who use mice prefer laggy ML communications over IM? I hate mice, but I also can't stand the constant interruptions model of IRC. Email without notification-style popups lets you deal with (or ignore) stuff at your own pace instead of letting others dictate control of your attention. (i.e. I prefer "laggy") That said, what do people here use for IRC and how do you deal with it in dwm? Without a systray, I don't understand where one gets the spare screen real estate to dedicate to IRC. And w/o dedicated space for it, I end up forgetting it's there (to the annoyance of people who want responses). -- Best, Ben
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
Þann mán 4.júl 2011 15:14, skrifaði Connor Lane Smith: Interesting, those on IRC were very 'for' this idea. Different demographics? Oh you silly ML people! So people who use mice prefer laggy ML communications over IM? Well, the thing is, I don't ever use the mouse for window management, but I sometimes move the mouse out of the way and in doing so accidentally focus a completely different window. I personally would rather dwm had no mouse support at all, but clearly that would be controversial... Still, at least with click-to-focus the mouse is completely dormant until you intentionally click something. I'd pay for learning how to configure an X server not to draw a cursor. Mice suck for about everything but drawing graphics, and even then I'm skeptical.
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > Interesting, those on IRC were very 'for' this idea. Different > demographics? Oh you silly ML people! > > On 4 July 2011 06:51, garbeam wrote: >> No I totally disagree. Click to focus makes the life uneccessary harder. >> Doing this just for the rare corner case of touching your pointing device by >> accident doesn't sound like a very sound reason for it. > > Well, the thing is, I don't ever use the mouse for window management, > but I sometimes move the mouse out of the way and in doing so > accidentally focus a completely different window. I personally would > rather dwm had no mouse support at all, but clearly that would be > controversial... Still, at least with click-to-focus the mouse is > completely dormant until you intentionally click something. I guess psychologically for me it's the other way around: I can't remember the last time I nudged the mouse accidentally, so I tend to associate things with "if I've moved the mouse over a window, clearly it's because I want to interact with the window so why should I have to redundantly tell the computer that with ane extra click". (It may tangentially be relevant that I'm right handed but use the mouse with my left hand, so when eg I write stuff on paper or pick up a drink it's on the other side of the desk to the mouse, so the risk of "accidental nudging" is incredibly low.) -- cheers, dave tweed__ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:14:06PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > Well, the thing is, I don't ever use the mouse for window management, > but I sometimes move the mouse out of the way and in doing so > accidentally focus a completely different window. unclutter? http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/X11/contrib/utilities/unclutter-8.README -noah
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On 4 July 2011 17:16, garbeam wrote: > Well, dwm had focus follows mouse since its first minute. I'm not going to > change this when it is approaching the age of 5 tomorrow. Since the two sides seem fairly even, as far as I can tell, I agree it's probably best not to change it. It can just be a little annoying sometimes, is all. ;) Nitpick: it's sloppy focus, not focus-follows-pointer: the windows remains focused even when the pointer is over the root window, the status bar, etc. I also hope there'll be a dwm birthday cake. Thanks, cls
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
Well, dwm had focus follows mouse since its first minute. I'm not going to change this when it is approaching the age of 5 tomorrow. Cheers, Anselm
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
Unless, of course, you don't HAVE a touchpad to disable. (However, the touchpad is definitely 100% easier to hit than the mouse.)
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On 04/07/11 17:14, Connor Lane Smith wrote: Interesting, those on IRC were very 'for' this idea. Different demographics? Oh you silly ML people! On 4 July 2011 06:51, garbeam wrote: No I totally disagree. Click to focus makes the life uneccessary harder. Doing this just for the rare corner case of touching your pointing device by accident doesn't sound like a very sound reason for it. Well, the thing is, I don't ever use the mouse for window management, but I sometimes move the mouse out of the way and in doing so accidentally focus a completely different window. I personally would rather dwm had no mouse support at all, but clearly that would be controversial... Still, at least with click-to-focus the mouse is completely dormant until you intentionally click something. But apparently opinions are split on this topic! cls Well, disabling completely touchpad (Linux) using synclient 'TouchpadOff=0' via shortkeys or using a tool like syndaemon, can helps in that situations to avoid touching mistakes. See you. -- r...@sdf.lonestar.org
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:14:06PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > I personally would > rather dwm had no mouse support at all, but clearly that would be > controversial... I'd be interested in seeing the patch. Is the mouse used for anything much other than sloppy focus (it's all I use the mouse for, in DWM)?
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On 4 July 2011 16:14, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > But apparently opinions are split on this topic! Suppose it depends, I've been conditioned, and expect that when I move a mouse into another window, focus should go there, so much that when I'm on Windows I'll use some tweaking program to implement this. Maybe I'm just not using dwm properly, because the main time I use this focusing is when I have floating windows, so make what you will of that. Rob
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
Interesting, those on IRC were very 'for' this idea. Different demographics? Oh you silly ML people! On 4 July 2011 06:51, garbeam wrote: > No I totally disagree. Click to focus makes the life uneccessary harder. > Doing this just for the rare corner case of touching your pointing device by > accident doesn't sound like a very sound reason for it. Well, the thing is, I don't ever use the mouse for window management, but I sometimes move the mouse out of the way and in doing so accidentally focus a completely different window. I personally would rather dwm had no mouse support at all, but clearly that would be controversial... Still, at least with click-to-focus the mouse is completely dormant until you intentionally click something. But apparently opinions are split on this topic! cls
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
hi, On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:28:54AM +0300, Ruben Mikkonen wrote: > > I don't know about all you, but I find dwm's sloppy focus can be > > really annoying at times -- focusing a window when I accidentally > > nudge my atrophying pointer -- and would rather click-to-focus. The > > great thing about dropping dwm's sloppy focus is it saves 20 lines of > > code! So how about we make dwm less mousy and a bit simpler, too? this is an idea so bad it's impressive cool! regards, Mate ps. btw there are lot of other wms and Desktop Environments *sparkle* for lunix that provide click to focus, maybe you should check them out
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
I also find sloppy focus quite annoying, but I don't prefer click-to-focus neither. Since I anyway use mostly keyboard, it's irritating to grab the mouse to switch the window - therefore I use keyboard for that stuff. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > Hey, > > I don't know about all you, but I find dwm's sloppy focus can be > really annoying at times -- focusing a window when I accidentally > nudge my atrophying pointer -- and would rather click-to-focus. The > great thing about dropping dwm's sloppy focus is it saves 20 lines of > code! So how about we make dwm less mousy and a bit simpler, too? > > Thanks, > cls >
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 02:10:33AM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > I don't know about all you, but I find dwm's sloppy focus can be > really annoying at times -- focusing a window when I accidentally > nudge my atrophying pointer -- and would rather click-to-focus. The Occasionally it is annoying. But more often it behaves just how I want, and the extra clicking would I suspect annoy me rather more.
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
As my vote, I prefer to keep sloppy focus, at the very least as an option, (the fact that sloppy focus doesn't seem to work properly on Windows means I'm forced back to click to focus at work at it's driving me mad the sheer volume of unnecessary clicking). Incidentally, I use the mouse a LOT with my PC, it's just that tiling window management is one area that doesn't benefit from mouse interaction (partly because it's already reduced the user input needed down to the bare minimum). On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > Hey, > > I don't know about all you, but I find dwm's sloppy focus can be > really annoying at times -- focusing a window when I accidentally > nudge my atrophying pointer -- and would rather click-to-focus. The > great thing about dropping dwm's sloppy focus is it saves 20 lines of > code! So how about we make dwm less mousy and a bit simpler, too? > > Thanks, > cls > -- cheers, dave tweed__ computer vision reasearcher: david.tw...@gmail.com "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." -- attempted insult seen on slashdot
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
Am 04.07.2011 03:11 schrieb "Connor Lane Smith" : > I don't know about all you, but I find dwm's sloppy focus can be > really annoying at times -- focusing a window when I accidentally > nudge my atrophying pointer -- and would rather click-to-focus. The > great thing about dropping dwm's sloppy focus is it saves 20 lines of > code! So how about we make dwm less mousy and a bit simpler, too? No I totally disagree. Click to focus makes the life uneccessary harder. Doing this just for the rare corner case of touching your pointing device by accident doesn't sound like a very sound reason for it. Also there are chances your patch doesn't cover all cases for click to focus behavior correctly. In my impression the proper way would increase LOC overall. But I need to do a detailed look at it first. I appreciate this as a patch though. Cheers --garbeam
Re: [dev] [dwm] sloppy focus
> I don't know about all you, but I find dwm's sloppy focus can be > really annoying at times -- focusing a window when I accidentally > nudge my atrophying pointer -- and would rather click-to-focus. The > great thing about dropping dwm's sloppy focus is it saves 20 lines of > code! So how about we make dwm less mousy and a bit simpler, too? click to focus is for macs. -- # Kurt H Maier
