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 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 21:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <loq1u3$rnt$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61512 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 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.
Oh, bullshit. Apple's Launch Services provide a key to start whatever
in the background. Some moron(s) at Google, or where ever, don't use it
and that's poor design in the OS itself? You can't possibly be serious.
One would hope, anyway. There's a clarity of thinking that's distinctly
absent here. How can one "API" behave differently for different programs?
Well, guess what? It'll do whatever the individual programs request from
it.
> But an app that starts from launchd or other background mechanism should
> not get focus since launchd does not have focus to begin with.
Of course not. What does "daemon" (as in launch daemom, or launchd) mean
to you?
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/BPSystemStartup/Chapters/CreatingLaunchdJobs.html
| If you are running per-user background processes for OS X, launchd is
| also the preferred way to start these processes.
> 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.
Oh, the irony - the Dock _never had_ input focus. The same can be said
about lack of focus for some of the contributors to this thread. And,
a program can not assert input focus until it has been loaded into core
and begins execution. As has been noted, the only way to avoid that is
to embed in the hardware a few brain cells from a really good psychic.
Or, perhaps turn the OS core services into a dumping ground for ill-
conceived lunacy, which is what attempting to impliment a work-around
for this would be.
The only good thing going on here, even though it appears to be going
nowhere, is this is an actual on-charter discussion of Mac OS internals...
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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 21:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53b0bffa$0$9738$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61527 |
On 14-06-29 17:54, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > One would hope, anyway. There's a clarity of thinking that's distinctly > absent here. How can one "API" behave differently for different programs? The API doesn't behave differently, it allows programs to behave differently, instead of having a unified UI paradigm (which has traditionally been Apple's strong suit). > Oh, the irony - the Dock _never had_ input focus. Yes it does. When you click over any area/window of the Dock, the dock gains input focus, accepts and processes the click event. If it didn't gain focus, it would never receive any click events. The Dock may play UI games by being integrated into Finder or even the window manager, but it is still a widget which has the ability to accept input events (aka: get focus).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-30 02:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <loqh24$kpd$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61529 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes, quoting me:
> > One would hope, anyway. There's a clarity of thinking that's distinctly
> > absent here. How can one "API" behave differently for different programs?
>
> The API doesn't behave differently, it allows programs to behave
> differently, instead of having a unified UI paradigm (which has
> traditionally been Apple's strong suit).
Hence, it's the program's fault, not Apple's. By the way, when has
it ever been different? Be specific.
> > Oh, the irony - the Dock _never had_ input focus.
>
> Yes it does. When you click over any area/window of the Dock, the dock
> gains input focus, accepts and processes the click event. If it didn't
> gain focus, it would never receive any click events.
More bullshit. Read up on "click-through." And I don't mean for web
sites, I mean as Apple use it.
Here's a hint - if you hover the mouse cursor over then controls of
ANY window (for which they remain visible) you'll see they are active,
and you can click on them WITHOUT altering input focus.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-30 02:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr1ip0.2fhj.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61529 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like: --> Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:40:09 -0400 <53b0bffa$0$9738$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> > On 14-06-29 17:54, billy@MIX.COM wrote: >> One would hope, anyway. There's a clarity of thinking that's distinctly >> absent here. How can one "API" behave differently for different programs? > The API doesn't behave differently, it allows programs to behave > differently, instead of having a unified UI paradigm (which has > traditionally been Apple's strong suit). >> Oh, the irony - the Dock _never had_ input focus. > Yes it does. When you click over any area/window of the Dock, the dock > gains input focus, accepts and processes the click event. If it didn't > gain focus, it would never receive any click events. The Dock may play > UI games by being integrated into Finder or even the window manager, but > it is still a widget which has the ability to accept input events (aka: > get focus). This is incorrect. The dock does NOT get focus. It is perfectly possible to interact with UI elements that do not get focus. For example, I can move an application's window without that applications ever getting focus. -- i wasn't born a programmer. i became one because i was impatient. - Dave Winer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-30 13:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53b1a3c8$0$61511$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61532 |
On 14-06-29 22:27, Lewis wrote: > This is incorrect. The dock does NOT get focus. It is perfectly possible > to interact with UI elements that do not get focus. For example, I can > move an application's window without that applications ever getting > focus. Generally speaking, clicking on the window title is something which is intercepted by the window manager. (if you click on "minimise" the window manager then sends event to the application) However, Firefox muddies the waters because there is much functionality put inside the window title where you can click on buttons, but can also "grab" the window between 2 buttons in the big title bar and move window. Clicking on any widget by definition gives it focus so that it can receive the event and process it. If you are in textedit and click on the "iPhoto" icon in the Dock, it isn't textedit that gets the event, it is the Dock, hence the dock has focus. Just because the Dock doesn't retain focus doesn't mean it doesn't get it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-30 19:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <losf4b$dj$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61558 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Just because the Dock doesn't retain focus doesn't mean it
> doesn't get it.
Speaking of not getting it... what part of click-through
did you not understand?
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-30 16:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53b1c391$0$59849$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61566 |
On 14-06-30 15:51, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > Speaking of not getting it... what part of click-through > did you not understand? There is a difference between focus and being the foreground window. click-through is simply a window getting focus without being in foreground. focus = application gets events from mouse/keyboard. Does not necessarily bring application to foreground. foreground affects visibility. focus affects which apps gets keyboard/mouse events.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-01 02:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr48il.2ki1.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61568 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like: --> Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:07:44 -0400 <53b1c391$0$59849$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> > On 14-06-30 15:51, billy@MIX.COM wrote: >> Speaking of not getting it... what part of click-through >> did you not understand? > There is a difference between focus and being the foreground window. > click-through is simply a window getting focus without being in foreground. No, that is not at all correct. You don't get to redefine focus to meet your misconception. -- A is for AMY who fell down the stairs B is for BASIL assaulted by bears
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-01 15:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <louiu7$6u6$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61587 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> You don't get to redefine focus to meet your misconception.
"a central point or locus"
"converge on or toward a central point"
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-01 13:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53b2ed07$0$10897$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61587 |
On 14-06-30 22:52, Lewis wrote: > You don't get to redefine focus to meet your misconception. So you disagree with the defintion of "focus" being the window which currently gets mouse/keyboard events ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-01 08:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <1rOdnZfdNu7eOi_OnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #61512 |
On 2014.06.29, 14:46 , JF Mezei wrote: > 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). I would prefer that focus always remain with the app that has focus. For example, I'm editing in Word and realize I want to locate an image to add to it, so I launch both Bridge and Photoshop. While they are loading I return to my Word doc (moving focus there) ... I do not want to be interrupted when Bridge and/or PS is ready. Unfortunately, not only do apps last loaded most often grab focus, in some cases their idiotic start-splashed go "on top" of everything during the load. -- I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-01 15:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <louj4b$6u6$2@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61595 |
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:
> I would prefer that focus always remain with the app that has focus.
>
> For example, I'm editing in Word and realize I want to locate an image
> to add to it, so I launch both Bridge and Photoshop. While they are
> loading I return to my Word doc (moving focus there) ... I do not want
> to be interrupted when Bridge and/or PS is ready. Unfortunately, not
> only do apps last loaded most often grab focus, in some cases their
> idiotic start-splashed go "on top" of everything during the load.
The easy way out seems to be to just leave stuff like this running...
It also may be the only way out, heh.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; 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 | <280620141610534318%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| 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. again, that's something the user can easily change if they don't like the new way. some do and some don't. that's not a bug. > 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. assume for the moment that's true, then that decision needs to be revisited and changed. > In other words, if you file a bug complaint, the response would be > "works as designed, this is not a bug". that's their standard cop-out answer for anything they don't feel like fixing. for instance, they said the same thing for finder reporting incorrect file and folder sizes. who the hell intentionally designs something to report the *wrong* size? > 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. apps are not designed so that another app can steal focus and an app can't tell the focus was stolen versus an intentional action by the user anyway. > 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). launching an app is not the problem. obviously, launching an app changes focus. the problem is when the user puts an app in the background because they want to do something *else*, but then it decides to bring itself forward and either obscure what the user is doing or obscure it *and* grab keystrokes (there are actually two ways this bug manifests itself) and in both cases, there is a risk of data loss. data loss is unacceptable and it's frightening to see how many people are trying to justify it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 22:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <260620142203393191%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61432 |
In article <c133grFd1hhU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> > Finally trapped the offender using the script that Martin supplied. > >> >> > > >> >> > 1. yesterday from Thunderbird: Google Drive > >> >> > > >> >> > 2. yesterday from QuickTime: Google Drive. > >> >> > > >> >> > Since I don't use GD much I'm kicking it out. > >> >> > >> >> That can't be right: nospam said this is a longstanding bug in OS X; and > >> >> we all know he is never wrong about anything. > >> > > >> > focus stealing can still occur whether or not not google drive is there. > >> > > >> > it can happen with a variety of apps, commonly safari and itunes, but > >> > also many others. > >> > > >> > it is *not* just google drive nor is it caused by google drive and > >> > removing google drive will not eliminate the problem because it's in > >> > the system itself. > >> > > >> > it is without question, a bug in os x and it did not exist in mac os 9 > >> > and earlier. > >> > >> Certainly not. It may be a difference in design between OS 9 and OS X, > >> but that does not magically make it a bug - no matter how many times you > >> repeat the lie. In all likelihood, Apple made a conscious decision > >> regarding this difference in design, and problem with good reasons. > >> Whether it is a good design decision is another discussion, and can be > >> debated; but your claim that this is a longstanding bug in OS X is still > >> absent of a shred of evidence. > > > > where's your evidence that it *isn't* a bug? > > Since you made the claim that it is a bug, the burden of proof rests on > your shoulders. which i did, and more than once. it's now your turn to explain why it *isn't* a bug and why focus stealing is a useful feature. since you refuse to do that, it is a bug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 04:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <c149nfFkfrrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #61448 |
On 2014-06-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <c133grFd1hhU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > Finally trapped the offender using the script that Martin supplied. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 1. yesterday from Thunderbird: Google Drive >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2. yesterday from QuickTime: Google Drive. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Since I don't use GD much I'm kicking it out. >> >> >> >> >> >> That can't be right: nospam said this is a longstanding bug in OS X; and >> >> >> we all know he is never wrong about anything. >> >> > >> >> > focus stealing can still occur whether or not not google drive is there. >> >> > >> >> > it can happen with a variety of apps, commonly safari and itunes, but >> >> > also many others. >> >> > >> >> > it is *not* just google drive nor is it caused by google drive and >> >> > removing google drive will not eliminate the problem because it's in >> >> > the system itself. >> >> > >> >> > it is without question, a bug in os x and it did not exist in mac os 9 >> >> > and earlier. >> >> >> >> Certainly not. It may be a difference in design between OS 9 and OS X, >> >> but that does not magically make it a bug - no matter how many times you >> >> repeat the lie. In all likelihood, Apple made a conscious decision >> >> regarding this difference in design, and problem with good reasons. >> >> Whether it is a good design decision is another discussion, and can be >> >> debated; but your claim that this is a longstanding bug in OS X is still >> >> absent of a shred of evidence. >> > >> > where's your evidence that it *isn't* a bug? >> >> Since you made the claim that it is a bug, the burden of proof rests on >> your shoulders. > > which i did, and more than once. Saying it doesn't magically make it true. So far you have not given a shred of evidence proving your claim. > it's now your turn to explain why it *isn't* a bug and why focus > stealing is a useful feature. > > since you refuse to do that, it is a bug. Since I made no claims, I have nothing to prove. Review the concept of "burden of proof" and try to read for comprehension this time. -- 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 | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 16:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <280620141610504107%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61452 |
In article <c149nfFkfrrU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > > >> >> > focus stealing can still occur whether or not not google drive is > >> >> > there. > >> >> > > >> >> > it can happen with a variety of apps, commonly safari and itunes, but > >> >> > also many others. > >> >> > > >> >> > it is *not* just google drive nor is it caused by google drive and > >> >> > removing google drive will not eliminate the problem because it's in > >> >> > the system itself. > >> >> > > >> >> > it is without question, a bug in os x and it did not exist in mac os 9 > >> >> > and earlier. > >> >> > >> >> Certainly not. It may be a difference in design between OS 9 and OS X, > >> >> but that does not magically make it a bug - no matter how many times you > >> >> repeat the lie. In all likelihood, Apple made a conscious decision > >> >> regarding this difference in design, and problem with good reasons. > >> >> Whether it is a good design decision is another discussion, and can be > >> >> debated; but your claim that this is a longstanding bug in OS X is still > >> >> absent of a shred of evidence. > >> > > >> > where's your evidence that it *isn't* a bug? > >> > >> Since you made the claim that it is a bug, the burden of proof rests on > >> your shoulders. > > > > which i did, and more than once. > > Saying it doesn't magically make it true. So far you have not given a > shred of evidence proving your claim. saying it doesn't doesn't magically make it false. i have explained why it's a bug. it's now your turn to explain why it isn't a bug. simply saying so isn't doesn't make it not a bug. > > it's now your turn to explain why it *isn't* a bug and why focus > > stealing is a useful feature. > > > > since you refuse to do that, it is a bug. > > Since I made no claims, I have nothing to prove. Review the concept of > "burden of proof" and try to read for comprehension this time. if you have nothing to prove, ten you accept my definition and agree it's a bug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 20:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <c18n8vFi882U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #61495 |
On 2014-06-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <c149nfFkfrrU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >> > focus stealing can still occur whether or not not google >> >> >> > drive is there. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > it can happen with a variety of apps, commonly safari and >> >> >> > itunes, but also many others. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > it is *not* just google drive nor is it caused by google >> >> >> > drive and removing google drive will not eliminate the >> >> >> > problem because it's in the system itself. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > it is without question, a bug in os x and it did not exist in >> >> >> > mac os 9 and earlier. >> >> >> >> >> >> Certainly not. It may be a difference in design between OS 9 >> >> >> and OS X, but that does not magically make it a bug - no matter >> >> >> how many times you repeat the lie. In all likelihood, Apple >> >> >> made a conscious decision regarding this difference in design, >> >> >> and problem with good reasons. Whether it is a good design >> >> >> decision is another discussion, and can be debated; but your >> >> >> claim that this is a longstanding bug in OS X is still absent >> >> >> of a shred of evidence. >> >> > >> >> > where's your evidence that it *isn't* a bug? >> >> >> >> Since you made the claim that it is a bug, the burden of proof >> >> rests on your shoulders. >> > >> > which i did, and more than once. >> >> Saying it doesn't magically make it true. So far you have not given a >> shred of evidence proving your claim. > > saying it doesn't doesn't magically make it false. Now you're just being silly. > i have explained why it's a bug. No, not sufficiently. In particular, you have provided exactly zero artifacts showing an authoritative source (namely Apple, since they make the operating system) claiming this is a bug in OS X. > it's now your turn to explain why it isn't a bug. You are still grappling with understanding the concept of burden of proof. Since *you* made the claim that this is a big in OS X, the burden is on *you* to prove your claim. The burden is not on the rest of the human population to prove that you are right or wrong - that is strictly *your* job. Until such time, the rest of us will naturally assume you are neither right or wrong, but are simply talking out of your ass. > simply saying so isn't doesn't make it not a bug. You are the one claiming it is a bug. Back it up with some evidence, simple. I really don't know how much more clear it can be. You just don't seem to get this thing called logic. >> > it's now your turn to explain why it *isn't* a bug and why focus >> > stealing is a useful feature. >> > >> > since you refuse to do that, it is a bug. >> >> Since I made no claims, I have nothing to prove. Review the concept of >> "burden of proof" and try to read for comprehension this time. > > if you have nothing to prove, ten you accept my definition and agree > it's a bug. Not until you prove your assertion. I'm not holding my breath. This is typical behavior for you. And if history is any indication, you will hold steadfast to your opinion all the while claiming it is fact without offering a single shred of proof. In the end, you'll wander away probably feeling confident that you argued your empty point successfully, while those who can actually follow simple logic will note your absurdity for their next encounter with you. -- 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 | 2014-06-26 14:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <53ac699b$0$9755$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #61429 |
On 14-06-26 12:22, nospam wrote: > where's your evidence that it *isn't* a bug? under what circumstances > can focus stealing be justified?? If Apple's API allows an application to steal focus, then it is made possible by design and hence not a bug. I disagree with the design, but because it isn't a bug and because Apple is religious about its design decisions, there is no hope of fixing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 22:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <260620142203403254%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61433 |
In article <53ac699b$0$9755$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > where's your evidence that it *isn't* a bug? under what circumstances > > can focus stealing be justified?? > > If Apple's API allows an application to steal focus, then it is made > possible by design and hence not a bug. it's unexpected behaviour, the very definition of a bug, and one which can result in data loss. > I disagree with the design, but because it isn't a bug and because Apple > is religious about its design decisions, there is no hope of fixing it. it's a bug, but unfortunately, there is no hope it will be fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 18:26 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Unwanted Focus switches -- culprit trapped |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-466061.18260427062014@aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #61449 |
In article <260620142203403254%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > it's unexpected behaviour, the very definition of a bug, and one which > can result in data loss. You may be right about it being a bug, but unexpected behaviour could not be the very definition, it is *too* relative to the knowledge of the person using the software. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web