On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 03:57:18PM -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 5/25/05, Luke Schierer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, I think we can and should move the window to where there is > the least overlap as possible with the window that has focus, to help > make it so that it will be seen when it appears. > > > * new windows should be created at the top level unless specifically > > requested otherwise by the starting > > application. Placement should reflect some overall policy of the WM, > > preferably a policy that the > > user understands and can predict. Remembering previous placement is a > > reasonable, but not required, > > part of said policy. > > I disagree, for reasons stated above (I hate apps that interrupt what > I'm working on; notification that they need attention is fine, but > rudely getting in the way of what I'm doing at the moment is not). > > > * 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. > > > * 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. 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 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) ;-) > > > Hope that helps, yes, it is nice to have replies that are both meaningful and proposing things we can work forward from. I will keep my eyes out for specific examples I can forward to the gnome bugzilla. luke > Elijah > _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
