Subject:
Re: Support for on-screen keyboard
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
15 May 1999 20:26:51 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905152105440.1207-100000@hyperspace>
On Sat, 15 May 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> Yes, for click to activate. But the question was whether we'd want to
> support other focus methods even for systems using an on-screen keyboard.
> In which case, as I wrote above, activating a widget and giving focus to
> a window would be two very distinct actions. Maybe it isn't necessary to
> support for instance sloppy focus together with an on-screen keyboard, but
> it's an issue to consider.
Yes, undelayed sloppy focus or the current simple focus method wouldn't
work with an on-screen keyboard.
> Because it isn't meant to be see as, or treated as, a "computer" by the
> consumer. It's an appliance. It has a fixed set of applications, and only
I'm afraid I'm just too much of a geek to wrap my brain around that
concept. I would probably be trying to figure out how to reflash the ROM
with something less restrictive within a few minutes of playing with it ;)
> But there's lot of other cases too, where multiple windows simply isn't
> desired in a user interface, but where having a windowing system at the
> bottom would be a win for development. POS type applications, for
> instance, where the user has a highly specific set of actions to do,
> and where a full system with a window manager will only server to confuse.
Yes, I can see how it would be useful for some applications.
> I don't want full screen windows. We won't use that, ever. I want to open
> windows of a specified size, a specified position, and be able to map,
> unmap, resize, and change z-order, and not have the user, nor a window
> manager, interfere with any of it.
What decides where these windows go, how big they are, and what depth
they are placed at? Wouldn't it be better to use something which plugs
into the server in the place of an ordinary window manager to do it?
> Essentially, I want it like it is now. Or the way X Windows is without
> a window manager (which is essentially also how NanoX is now).
I see. You would need want some way for the applications to know what else
is on the screen though, wouldn't you? Or is there only ever one
application running, which of course knows what it is doing?
> As for drawing dialog boxes: They're only windows. No different than
> any other windows. I don't need a window manager to draw a rectangle
> around the outer limits of the window. And since the only applications
> that will be allowed to generate pop-ups will have a fixed position on the
> screen, placement of the pop-ups is hardly difficult.
Okay, so the way it will work is that there are just a few windows in
fixed positions, which generate pop-ups within their pre-assigned space?
> Sure, I'd like a window manager too, because I'd love it for other
> projects. But for my main project, I don't need one, and if there will be
> some built in window management we can't turn off in NanoX, we will rip
> that code out of the version we will be using. But I'd rather have a
> switch to turn it off, than having to rip it out of each new version.
Sure, of course it will be optional. It just seems that the best place to
put the stuff you want is in the same place an ordinary window manager
would go.
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
