Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #61121 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-19 11:18 -0400 |
| Last post | 2014-06-27 18:26 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-19 11:18 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-06-19 11:25 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-19 11:31 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-06-19 11:44 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 11:51 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-19 12:24 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 12:49 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-19 17:10 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 13:22 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-19 17:39 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 17:50 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-19 22:24 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 19:32 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 00:08 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 21:56 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-19 21:59 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-20 12:05 +1000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 16:27 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-06-20 00:15 +0100
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 00:00 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-20 00:16 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-06-20 22:03 +0100
Re: Unwanted Focus switches John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-06-20 00:23 +0100
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 00:07 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 21:56 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-19 23:18 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-20 07:49 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 16:26 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-20 15:10 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 20:01 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-20 16:14 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 20:20 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-20 16:53 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 22:16 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-20 22:54 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-21 04:41 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-21 04:46 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-20 16:51 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 22:05 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-21 08:33 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-21 16:48 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-21 17:02 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 08:27 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-21 17:02 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 19:39 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-19 12:44 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-20 09:28 +1200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 17:50 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-06-20 09:27 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-20 13:17 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 08:30 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-21 15:12 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-19 23:47 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-19 20:00 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-20 17:09 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-20 13:17 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 08:39 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 08:32 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-06-19 18:29 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-19 21:54 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-06-20 02:29 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 16:28 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-20 13:17 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 19:34 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-20 15:59 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-20 20:06 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-21 08:26 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-20 07:52 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-20 15:05 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-20 16:48 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 08:57 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-21 08:45 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-06-20 18:08 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 09:12 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-06-20 09:27 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-22 10:36 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-22 16:20 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-22 17:22 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-22 20:24 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-22 17:24 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-22 23:15 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-23 08:39 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Joe Wolf Dee <joedid@email.com> - 2014-06-23 08:00 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Joe Wolf Dee <joedid@email.com> - 2014-06-23 08:09 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-23 08:43 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-24 15:35 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-23 08:42 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-23 14:41 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-24 07:46 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-24 12:06 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-24 18:40 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-25 03:16 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-25 07:19 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-25 21:16 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-26 06:52 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-26 15:59 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-26 17:25 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-26 22:45 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-26 20:47 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-27 01:50 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-27 06:43 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Joe Wolf Dee <joedid@email.com> - 2014-06-20 17:50 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-21 09:15 +0200
Re: Unwanted Focus switches Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-21 09:03 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-25 07:21 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Joe Wolf Dee <joedid@email.com> - 2014-06-25 07:41 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-25 17:25 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-06-25 18:34 +0100
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-25 14:51 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-25 15:04 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-25 19:55 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-25 15:04 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-25 15:32 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-26 12:22 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-25 20:02 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-26 12:22 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-26 17:27 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-26 19:08 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-26 22:03 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-27 04:41 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-27 04:48 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-27 08:20 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-27 22:04 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-27 06:36 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 16:10 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-29 10:34 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-29 15:11 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-27 01:59 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-27 08:27 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 16:10 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-27 07:59 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-27 22:08 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 16:11 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-28 22:22 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-29 14:46 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-29 13:01 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-29 20:36 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-29 13:46 -0700
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-29 23:13 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-29 21:54 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-29 21:40 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-30 02:12 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-30 02:27 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-30 13:52 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-06-30 19:51 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-30 16:07 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-01 02:52 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-07-01 15:08 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-01 13:16 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-01 08:19 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped billy@MIX.COM - 2014-07-01 15:12 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 16:10 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-26 22:03 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-27 04:19 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-28 16:10 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-28 20:35 +0000
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-26 14:42 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-26 22:03 -0400
Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-27 18:26 +1000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 04:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <loismg$be6$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61450 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
> since focus stealing is by definition a surprise and users won't know
> which window will be affected, then it is a bug.
My impression is Google Drive took input focus without throwing an
active window on top. That'd be a Google Drive bug, not an OS bug.
I asked if one was buried underneath, but didn't get an answer.
Regardless, the poorly written code belongs to Google, not Apple.
When I simulate it here (sans Google Drive, which I'm not going to
load on any of my own systems), the main window of then program that
previously had input focus goes inactive. Its name and menus remain
in the menu bar, but it's clearly inactive from the changes in its
title bar, like this -
On 2014.06.19, 11:18, Alan Browne wrote:
| Occasionally I'm typing away (say here or in Excel or Word or the Chrome
| address/searchbar or whatever) and the focus switches suddenly out of
| the window that I'm in. The app I'm in remains the front app (on the
| menu bar) but the RYG 'lights' go off and then there are error bings as
| I continue typing. Have to mouse back into where I was to continue.
This can be done - I have programs that do it, intentionally. They do,
however, put up a window, making their presence known. When that window
is closed, input focus returns to whatever had it previously. Or, I can
ignore them and click on what I was doing to return to it. All this is
expected behavior.
> since focus stealing can steal focus *without* altering the title bar,
> it's a bug by that description too.
See above. When the "RYG 'lights'" extinguish, the title bar has been
altered. I'd bet it was also no longer highlighted, although Alan has
not specifically said so.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 04:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <slrnlqptsu.14p5.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61453 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> was all, like: --> Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:41:52 +0000 (UTC) <loismg$be6$1@reader2.panix.com> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >> since focus stealing is by definition a surprise and users won't know >> which window will be affected, then it is a bug. > My impression is Google Drive took input focus without throwing an > active window on top. That'd be a Google Drive bug, not an OS bug. > I asked if one was buried underneath, but didn't get an answer. > Regardless, the poorly written code belongs to Google, not Apple. There is no dialog when Google Drive or Google Update steals focus. And yes, it is a problem with Google Drive (and Google Update). I will say that the desktop client for Google Drive is generally terrible. OTOH, $10/month for 1TB of clod storage is a great deal and I can put up with a little annoyance every now and then. -- The PSP could have voice recognition too, so when you go "nyuuurrrrrrrr-uuuuuurrrrrrrrrrr-uuuuuuurrrrrrrrr" you go faster, an when you go "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" you stop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 08:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <loj9ga$brq$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61454 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> There is no dialog when Google Drive or Google Update steals focus.
>
> And yes, it is a problem with Google Drive (and Google Update). I will
> say that the desktop client for Google Drive is generally terrible.
> OTOH, $10/month for 1TB of clod storage is a great deal and I can put
> up with a little annoyance every now and then.
OK. If you'd like to fix it, edit its info.plist like this, by adding
an LSBackgroundOnly key (it's inside the application bundle) -
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
<key>LSBackgroundOnly</key>
<string>True</string>
...
Ditto for Google Update, and anything else that's bothering you.
Yea, it's a hack. I suppose you could send this note to Google,
but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to get it right.
And yes, you'll have to find it and click on it to bring it to the
foreground, if that's even necessary.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 22:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <slrnlqrqip.18s6.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61459 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> was all, like: --> Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:20:26 +0000 (UTC) <loj9ga$brq$1@reader2.panix.com> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: >> There is no dialog when Google Drive or Google Update steals focus. >> >> And yes, it is a problem with Google Drive (and Google Update). I will >> say that the desktop client for Google Drive is generally terrible. >> OTOH, $10/month for 1TB of clod storage is a great deal and I can put >> up with a little annoyance every now and then. > OK. If you'd like to fix it, edit its info.plist like this, by adding > an LSBackgroundOnly key (it's inside the application bundle) - > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> > <plist version="1.0"> > <dict> > <key>LSBackgroundOnly</key> > <string>True</string> > ... > Ditto for Google Update, and anything else that's bothering you. > Yea, it's a hack. I suppose you could send this note to Google, > but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to get it right. It's a hack that will not last because the Info.plist is replaced when the app(s) updates, and it updates all the time. There is no reason for the updater to ever steal focus, it's a background only app. The Google Drive app is accessible from the menu bar, if needed. -- 'You're your own worst enemy, Rincewind,' said the sword. Rincewind looked up at the grinning men. 'Bet?' --Colour of Magic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 06:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <BvCdnc3RcJDb1DDOnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #61453 |
On 2014.06.27, 00:41 , billy@MIX.COM wrote: > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: > >> since focus stealing is by definition a surprise and users won't know >> which window will be affected, then it is a bug. > > My impression is Google Drive took input focus without throwing an > active window on top. That'd be a Google Drive bug, not an OS bug. > I asked if one was buried underneath, but didn't get an answer. > Regardless, the poorly written code belongs to Google, not Apple. > > When I simulate it here (sans Google Drive, which I'm not going to > load on any of my own systems), the main window of then program that > previously had input focus goes inactive. Its name and menus remain > in the menu bar, but it's clearly inactive from the changes in its > title bar, like this - > > On 2014.06.19, 11:18, Alan Browne wrote: > > | Occasionally I'm typing away (say here or in Excel or Word or the Chrome > | address/searchbar or whatever) and the focus switches suddenly out of > | the window that I'm in. The app I'm in remains the front app (on the > | menu bar) but the RYG 'lights' go off and then there are error bings as > | I continue typing. Have to mouse back into where I was to continue. > > This can be done - I have programs that do it, intentionally. They do, > however, put up a window, making their presence known. When that window > is closed, input focus returns to whatever had it previously. Or, I can > ignore them and click on what I was doing to return to it. All this is > expected behavior. > >> since focus stealing can steal focus *without* altering the title bar, >> it's a bug by that description too. > > See above. When the "RYG 'lights'" extinguish, the title bar has been > altered. I'd bet it was also no longer highlighted, although Alan has > not specifically said so. If by 'highlighted' you mean in higher contrast (black), v. inactive windows which are lower contrast (grey), then yes, that happened when the RYG lights went out as well. I wrote a program to keep 4 external drives awake by writing a small random file to each every 10 minutes. It sleeps otherwise and when it wakes every 2.5 minutes to do it's thing, you simply do not know about it (running in terminal). -- I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 16:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <280620141610524210%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61453 |
In article <loismg$be6$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > > since focus stealing is by definition a surprise and users won't know > > which window will be affected, then it is a bug. > > My impression is Google Drive took input focus without throwing an > active window on top. That'd be a Google Drive bug, not an OS bug. > I asked if one was buried underneath, but didn't get an answer. > Regardless, the poorly written code belongs to Google, not Apple. since it can happen with more apps than just google drive, it's not google's bug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 10:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <looq47$g3i$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61496 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes, quoting me:
> In article <loismg$be6$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>
> > > since focus stealing is by definition a surprise and users won't know
> > > which window will be affected, then it is a bug.
> >
> > My impression is Google Drive took input focus without throwing an
> > active window on top. That'd be a Google Drive bug, not an OS bug.
> > I asked if one was buried underneath, but didn't get an answer.
> > Regardless, the poorly written code belongs to Google, not Apple.
>
> since it can happen with more apps than just google drive, it's not
> google's bug.
Yes, anybody can write shitty software.
Do that mean it's Apple's fault?
No.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 15:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <c1aolrFbdrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #61509 |
On 2014-06-29, billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes, quoting me: > >> In article <loismg$be6$1@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: >> >> > > since focus stealing is by definition a surprise and users won't know >> > > which window will be affected, then it is a bug. >> > >> > My impression is Google Drive took input focus without throwing an >> > active window on top. That'd be a Google Drive bug, not an OS bug. >> > I asked if one was buried underneath, but didn't get an answer. >> > Regardless, the poorly written code belongs to Google, not Apple. >> >> since it can happen with more apps than just google drive, it's not >> google's bug. > > Yes, anybody can write shitty software. > > Do that mean it's Apple's fault? > > No. He has yet to offer a single shred of evidence backing up his claim this this is a bug in OS X. And I don't think he ever will. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 01:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53ad0829$0$50659$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61450 |
On 14-06-26 22:03, nospam wrote: > it does, because that explains what a software bug *is* and focus > stealing fits the definition perfectly. therefore, it's a bug. After Snow Leopard, Apple reverse the scrolling direction. After decades of working one way, the new OS was no longer behaving as "expected". This was not a bug, it was a design decision by Apple. Similarly, the design of OS-X allows applications to steal focus in a way that is unexpected. This is a design decision, not a bug. In other words, if you file a bug complaint, the response would be "works as designed, this is not a bug". If you file it as a UI improvement request, Apple will reply that they can't change this design feature because apps are written to expect this capability to be available. You would need to file a UI improvement request that would add a system setting to disregard focus switching requests, unless current focus is from a parent process or window. So when you launch Pages from the Dock, it is allowed to steal focus if the current process is still Dock, but not if , in the meantime, you switched to Firefox (which would not be a parent of Pages).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 08:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <loj9t8$brq$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61458 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> After Snow Leopard, Apple reverse the scrolling direction. After decades
> of working one way, the new OS was no longer behaving as "expected".
The scroll direction can be set either way, at least on OS 10.9.
> This was not a bug, it was a design decision by Apple.
See above.
> Similarly, the design of OS-X allows applications to steal focus in a
> way that is unexpected. This is a design decision, not a bug.
How would design it differently? More to the point, how would anyone?
Embed a few brain cells from a realy good psychic, or ... ??
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 16:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <280620141610564486%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61461 |
In article <loj9t8$brq$2@reader2.panix.com>, <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > > Similarly, the design of OS-X allows applications to steal focus in a > > way that is unexpected. This is a design decision, not a bug. > > How would design it differently? More to the point, how would anyone? easily. > Embed a few brain cells from a realy good psychic, or ... ?? or how it worked before they broke it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 07:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <270620140759343430%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #61458 |
In article <53ad0829$0$50659$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > it does, because that explains what a software bug *is* and focus > > stealing fits the definition perfectly. therefore, it's a bug. > > > After Snow Leopard, Apple reverse the scrolling direction. After decades > of working one way, the new OS was no longer behaving as "expected". > > This was not a bug, it was a design decision by Apple. > > Similarly, the design of OS-X allows applications to steal focus in a > way that is unexpected. This is a design decision, not a bug. There is no similarity, and you have no evidence to support that. When Apple reversed the scroll direction, they announced that they had done so, and gave the reasons for it. They have never said anything about applications being allowed to steal focus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 22:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53ae23a5$0$50746$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61481 |
On 14-06-27 10:59, Michelle Steiner wrote: > > so, and gave the reasons for it. They have never said anything about > applications being allowed to steal focus. If it is in the API and documented, then it is by design.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 16:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <280620141611085194%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61483 |
In article <53ae23a5$0$50746$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > so, and gave the reasons for it. They have never said anything about > > applications being allowed to steal focus. > > If it is in the API and documented, then it is by design. there is no 'steal focus' api call.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 22:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <280620142222219257%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #61483 |
In article <53ae23a5$0$50746$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-06-27 10:59, Michelle Steiner wrote: > > > > so, and gave the reasons for it. They have never said anything about > > applications being allowed to steal focus. > > If it is in the API and documented, then it is by design. That is a big "if".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 14:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53b05f58$0$2772$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61507 |
On 14-06-29 01:22, Michelle Steiner wrote: >> If it is in the API and documented, then it is by design. > > That is a big "if". If some apps behave different from each other in terms of focus management, it means that it is somehow in the API. However, someone brought up the info.plist which may have some flags to indicate whether this is to be foreground or background app and this may be how apps like Google force themselves to the foreground. In such a case, then it is the OS which is poorly designed. I think focus should only switch upon application startup when its parent process has focus. (eg: you click on dock, it has focus, starts textedit and textedit can then steal focus when it pops up). But an app that starts from launchd or other background mechanism should not get focus since launchd does not have focus to begin with. Simularly, if after clicking on textedit on Dock, you swiych to iphoto, then by the time textedit starts up, Doc no longer has focus, so it should not be able to steal focus since its parent doesn't have focus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 13:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <290620141301374747%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #61512 |
In article <53b05f58$0$2772$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> If it is in the API and documented, then it is by design. > > > > That is a big "if". > > > If some apps behave different from each other in terms of focus > management, it means that it is somehow in the API. No, it doesn't mean that at all. > But an app that starts from launchd or other background mechanism should > not get focus since launchd does not have focus to begin with. Um, no. > Simularly, if after clicking on textedit on Dock, you swiych to iphoto, > then by the time textedit starts up, Doc no longer has focus, so it > should not be able to steal focus since its parent doesn't have focus. After clicking on textedit on the Dock, it is the frontmost application, even before displaying any windows. If you then switch to iPhoto, that application is the frontmost application and has focus; Textedit will then continue to process its opening code in the background.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 20:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr0u6g.27qe.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61512 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like: --> Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:46:32 -0400 <53b05f58$0$2772$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> > On 14-06-29 01:22, Michelle Steiner wrote: >>> If it is in the API and documented, then it is by design. >> >> That is a big "if". > If some apps behave different from each other in terms of focus > management, it means that it is somehow in the API. However, someone > brought up the info.plist which may have some flags to indicate whether > this is to be foreground or background app and this may be how apps like > Google force themselves to the foreground. > In such a case, then it is the OS which is poorly designed. I think > focus should only switch upon application startup when its parent > process has focus. (eg: you click on dock, it has focus, starts textedit > and textedit can then steal focus when it pops up). Oh no, that's a horrible idea. Apps need to be able to come forward. I fucking *HATE* it when I have to close a few dozen windows to find the faceless app that has a dialog up on screen I have no way to get to. > But an app that starts from launchd or other background mechanism should > not get focus since launchd does not have focus to begin with. Then you would, for example, never be able to login to Dropbox. -- "These are my rules, I make 'em up." ~George Carlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 13:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <290620141346598042%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #61522 |
In article <slrnlr0u6g.27qe.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > Oh no, that's a horrible idea. Apps need to be able to come forward. I > fucking *HATE* it when I have to close a few dozen windows to find the > faceless app that has a dialog up on screen I have no way to get to. Exposé (or is it now called Mission Control?) to the rescue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 23:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr17cm.2ah6.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61525 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was all, like: --> Sun, 29 Jun 2014 13:46:59 -0700 <290620141346598042%michelle@michelle.org> > In article <slrnlr0u6g.27qe.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> Oh no, that's a horrible idea. Apps need to be able to come forward. I >> fucking *HATE* it when I have to close a few dozen windows to find the >> faceless app that has a dialog up on screen I have no way to get to. > Exposé (or is it now called Mission Control?) to the rescue. Exposé does not show dialogs from faceless apps. -- You are responsible for your Rose
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web