[sugar] frame auto-visibility configuration
Wed Sep 24 12:00:08 EDT 2008
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Gary C Martin <gary at garycmartin.com> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2008, at 16:12, Erik Garrison wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:03:01AM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
>>> Hi Erik,
>>>> Hello all, On tabbing we are currently auto-toggling the frame.
>>>> Are we sure that this is necessary? Could we include a
>>>> configuration option to change this?
>>> Sounds good, I'd agree with just removing it completely.
>> Me too.
> I thought there was a bug with the current implementation that has
> slipped this release cycle. I understood the Frame was to reveal and
> then as you alt-tabbed you could see the focus move between the
> Activity instances (i.e. no switching has yet happened), and when you
> finally release the alt key (on the instance you are really after, not
> the Journal ;-b ), that instance is then focused.
Yes, this was the initial intent. Playing with it (on faster
machines, of course), we thought that there might be a reasonable
delay at which to reveal the real window beneath, but I agree that
right now it's much too fast. We might be able to get away without
revealing the window at all, but we'll need to figure out a way to
reveal the palette (primary only!) so you can see a textual
description of the activity (to distinguish, for instance, 2 Browse
instances). I'd definitely lean toward removing the delay completely
(that is, not showing the actual window) over removing the Frame
completely -- as much as "the actual window" is beneficial to the
what-you-see-is-what-you-get ideal, I think it's far too slow (even
without the Frame) to be practical.
> I agree if you are just tabbing between 2 instances the frame reveal
> is an unnecessary burden, but with 3 activities you'll probably be
> focusing on something you don't want 50% of the time (at least most
> kids will). More than 3 and you really are just ploughing the XO
> through a heap of Activity redraws.
Yup. No good. I just tried it without the Frame at all, and I don't
much care for the experience at all.
> I couldn't find the original trac ticket for this, anyone remember
> (wanted to go see where dev stalled)?
Benzea worked on this one a lot. There's a chance that it's closed
since the current behavior is pretty much to the initial spec. I'm
> Sugar mailing list
> Sugar at lists.laptop.org
More information about the Sugar-devel