|
| ▲ | piguin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Your example is wrong because the people who write apps always think they are the important work that should steal focus. The user on the other hand knows how to give focus to what they want to use when they want to use it and doesn't benefit from nondeterministic behavior. |
|
| ▲ | jamesnorden 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| He's saying the setting exists and does what he wants, how can you say his example is "wrong"? |
|
| ▲ | kajaktum 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I can count with 0 hands when this is useful. You can make a noise sure but never, ever, ever, ever pop up and interrupt me. |
| |
|
| ▲ | ghusto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So many strange assumtions, but the most striking is that you're presuming the user doesn't know what they want to happen. "you'd prefer to seamlessly be switched back to the main app to do the thing you launched it for" Would I? How do you know? Why do yo think so? This is such an odd thing to be sure about. |
| |
| ▲ | eviks 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My real presumption is that the user knows exactly what they want to happen, but can't encode that knowledge into OS configuration because people have no imagination for trivial use cases, so demand blanket bans. While another group is just as limited and encoded blanket allows > Would I? You would > How do you know? By being the omniscient being that came up with the conditions in the first place | | |
| ▲ | ghusto 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Thank goodness you'll never be allowed anywhere near software anyone uses. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jagged-chisel 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nope. I never want my front task just interrupted like that. Let's take your "check the filename or something" example, and while you're there, you realize you also need a new directory, so while you're typing the name, the other task steals focus and the character you're typing cancels the task - and now you have to start it again. This exact situation has happened so many times, and it's why focus stealing focus of any kind is a problem. I don't care how important the app's developers think their app is. It's my computer, it's my decision how "important" something is. |
| |
| ▲ | eviks 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > so while you're typing the name Let's take the real example I've made up (which is also a situation that happened many times to warrant an automated solution to limit distraction), not a totally different one you've made up because you can't point how the original fails withotu changing the conditions.
Also, I've specifically mentioned typing as a different workfow/use case because that obviously requires different handling. | | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jagged-chisel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fine. I'm checking the files as you say, focus changes while I'm still checking, now I have to switch back to finish checking. No. Do not want. Also, no one else needs to be deciding how my "distractions need limiting" on my computer. I can handle that myself. Provide settings, an extension framework, whatever to allow people to manage their distractions, but don't force that on me and my device. | | |
| ▲ | eviks 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > while I'm still checking No, you're committing the exact same error again. You stopped checking in the first 0.5 sec while the app took 1 sec to start. If you're not capable of imagining a situation where this happens like some other commenters, that's ok, but that's a different argument. > I don't get it, are you not capable of imagining a situation where You're the one deciding that!!! That's what a properly designed system would allow you to do. But the system you advocate for does NOT. If decides for you that you'll never need it. Just like the current dumb systems decide for you that you always need it > Provide settings So we agree again? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 1718627440 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > You most likely want to return to the main task as soon as possible For that it suffices if the window comes to the foreground, but it does not need to steal the focus. |
| |
| ▲ | eviks 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you want to continue typing, but in an invisible field hidden by a different foreground app? | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not what I would call invisible, but yeah that's the behaviour I would expect. That's also similar, to what already happens when I type in one window, while I scroll in another. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | inigyou 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Windows XP has a solution to this: the taskbar flash |
| |
| ▲ | eviks 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That "solution" is just as bad as the Mac's bouncing icons described in the article - while it doesn't steal keyboard focus, it does steal user focus | | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent [-] | | What else do you expect though? You launched a long running task. It is done. Microwave goes ding. | | |
| ▲ | eviks an hour ago | parent [-] | | My expectation is described in the comment you replied to and side comments Microwave's ding is also bad UI, especially when it's repetitive as it's just useless noise. But even the first ding - what value does it have if you already have exactly the same notification category - audio cue - built right there in the process: the machine noise disappears when it stops working. |
|
|
|
