On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Gary C Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24 Sep 2008, at 16:12, Erik Garrison wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:03:01AM -0400, Chris Ball wrote: >>> Hi Erik, >>> >>>> Hello all, On tabbing we are currently auto-toggling the frame. >>>> Are we sure that this is necessary? Could we include a >>>> configuration option to change this? >>> >>> Sounds good, I'd agree with just removing it completely. >> >> Me too. > > I thought there was a bug with the current implementation that has > slipped this release cycle. I understood the Frame was to reveal and > then as you alt-tabbed you could see the focus move between the > Activity instances (i.e. no switching has yet happened), and when you
Right... > finally release the alt key (on the instance you are really after, not > the Journal ;-b ), that instance is then focused. Yes, this was the initial intent. Playing with it (on faster machines, of course), we thought that there might be a reasonable delay at which to reveal the real window beneath, but I agree that right now it's much too fast. We might be able to get away without revealing the window at all, but we'll need to figure out a way to reveal the palette (primary only!) so you can see a textual description of the activity (to distinguish, for instance, 2 Browse instances). I'd definitely lean toward removing the delay completely (that is, not showing the actual window) over removing the Frame completely -- as much as "the actual window" is beneficial to the what-you-see-is-what-you-get ideal, I think it's far too slow (even without the Frame) to be practical. > I agree if you are just tabbing between 2 instances the frame reveal > is an unnecessary burden, but with 3 activities you'll probably be > focusing on something you don't want 50% of the time (at least most > kids will). More than 3 and you really are just ploughing the XO > through a heap of Activity redraws. Yup. No good. I just tried it without the Frame at all, and I don't much care for the experience at all. > I couldn't find the original trac ticket for this, anyone remember > (wanted to go see where dev stalled)? Benzea worked on this one a lot. There's a chance that it's closed since the current behavior is pretty much to the initial spec. I'm not sure. - Eben > --Gary > _______________________________________________ > Sugar mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar > _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
