On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Scott Raney wrote:
> 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 have sent
> requests in to the fvwm developers before with no effect. And the
> statement is true: explicit focus is the de facto industry standard,
> and although having a contrarian streak is a stereotypical
> characteristic of Linux users (and probably of fvwm users on other
> platforms), there are times when playing nice with the other children
> is the right thing to do.
Well coming from the standpoint of a person that *started* windows-type
GUI interface use on Win3.1 (*blech*) and was migrated to olwm, the very
first thing I did in my search to customize olwm to my liking was find out
what the whole mouse focus thing was. I instantly fell in love with mouse
focus, and have used it ever since (ol(v)wm, fvwm, win95, NT4). As for
'de facto' standards, they just *happened* to pick click-to-focus as the
default back in the beginning (posibly influenced by MS, or who knows what
else) and it's stuck like that. But that's not the point. Whether or not
fvwm has click-to-focus as default, any software that expects to compete
on the market should *gracefully* handle the possibilities. Whether or
not these problems are 'insurmountable' there are ways of at least dealing
with them.
> I'm not arguing against choice, only that the *default* setting should
> be the one that will benefit the most users. It just seems unfair
> (and unwise) to me that those who are least able to make the changes
> (new users) are the ones who are stuck with the task. *You* know how
> to set up fvwm and will probably be changing the configuration anyway
> to suit your needs, so why not just make the default the one that's
> best for the X and UNIX community as a whole?
What I'd like to know is: what 'new user' is going to be installing their
own copy of fvwm? It's up to the site system admin to determine what he
wants as default for all his users. I don't even know what the defaults
are for any of my software as I read the documentation and decide then
what behaviour I want. It's the job of the admin to make the environment
suit those people he's maintaining systems for, not necessarily the
software developers responsibility. It'd be nice if they supply a decent
set of defaults, and in the realm of fvwm I see that being what the
majority of users wants (not 'de facto' standard) which just happens to be
mouse-focus from what I've heard.
> The MetaCard installation instructions include details about how to
> change the focus model for mwm and olwm (which together account for
> about 98% of our installed base). But these two both come configured
> with explicit focus from the vendors, so there's no need to change
> them in most cases. And although you're correct that this is a
> site/distribution decision, I think you underestimate the importance
> of the recommendations (in the form of default settings) made by the
> developers of the individual packages.
What if the user doesn't *want* the focus to be click-to-focus? And as
for the recommendations, obviously those are for the developers of each
individual package to make. Maybe fvwm suggests mouse-focus because all
the development people like it more? So be it.
> Even though you're not selling fvwm, it is certainly in all of our
> bests interest that the largest number of people find it easy to learn
> and easy to use (especially on most Linux systems, where fvwm is the
> default window manager). Unless you care to dispute the fact that
> most people are familiar with explicit focus, or that explicit focus
> is easier to learn for novices, the correct default setting seems clear.
Whether or not the correct default setting is clear, you should be
allowing for the obvious fact that many people prefer mouse-focus, and
will continue doing so.
> I actually find it confusing, unless these Windows users are former
> workstation users. Windows is exactly the kind of environment that I
> was refering to that doesn't work very well with pointer focus.
> Actually the problems aren't as bad in Windows applications as they
> are with X applications because Windows has floating palettes that
> stay on top even when they lose the focus, and because there is no
> way to do "active focus" applications in Windows (clicking in a window
> always activates that window in Windows).
>
> 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
> 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.
Whether or not pointer(mouse)-focus is confusing is up to the individual
user. I can't stand click-focus, it's bothersome. Instead of moving my
mouse to within a windows constraints, I get to move it to any of the
handles (which I make miniscule as they get in my way) and with sheer luck
click on the handle to bring it to focus. As you may have noticed,
pointer focus has it's main advantage with xterm (or single window input)
applications. These are the realm of the developer. Editors (whether
true X-editors or vi in an xterm) are my mainstay. WordPerfect,
FrameMaker, and vi in an xterm. So face it - fvwm started as a developers
choice, so obviously it's going to have remnants of that past even as it
becomes a favorite in mainstream useage.
As for having to move to the dialog box to type things in, I rather
appreciated the method olwm used. If you explicitly activated the dialog,
warp the pointer and grab focus. If not, map the window and don't grab
focus or warp the pointer. The real beauty would be warping the pointer
to a dialog box, and then unwarping it back to its original position.
> This is really putting the cart before the horse: you buy a computer
> to run applications, not a window manager. If your applications work
> with other window managers but not fvwm, it's fvwm that's broken, not
> the applications. We'd like to support Linux as best we can, and to
> support choice in window managers on other workstations. But to do
> this we need better compatibility between fvwm and either mwm or olwm.
I buy my computer to run apps, and get fvwm to have a window manager I
like, (with mouse-focus). If my app doesn't work with my window manager
the way *I* want my window manager to work, it's the app that's broken.
Leeman Strout
leeman_at_redrose.net
--
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 majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Wed Oct 23 1996 - 14:06:57 BST