[eviks]

How would that global app ban help? You do want the application to steal focus when necessary. It's just in this case the user has made the decision to not wait for startup and switch to another app. Aggravating step - he was typing.

Is this workflow part of the Kwin settings? It's not interrupting typing part of the settings?

[jagged-chisel]

Any app should be ready to accept focus. It should never steal focus. When I start an app, and wait for it to launch, I am attempting to give it focus. I can withdraw that intent at any time by doing something else (e.g. switching apps) and the launching app should finish launching and wait in the background.

[eviks]

Your specific example is just repeating what I've said, but your generic point is wrong: let's say you have an important task in an app with unavoidable interruptions, during which you switch to your browser to mindlessly scroll.

You most likely want to return to the main task as soon as possible because that scrolling is just a time filler because you can't do anything productive. So you don't need any notification and extra action, just switch back asap and continue work with as little interruption as possible.

But even in the specific example that depends entirely on what you're switching from and to and for what reason. If it's for something quick non-interactive (I don't know, switch to a file browser to check the file name or something), then yes, you'd prefer to seamlessly be switched back to the main app to do the thing you launched it for.

But if it's not an important app, then yeah, you just want it to be ready for you and switch to it whenever you decide to avoid the launching delay later

[piguin]

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]

He's saying the setting exists and does what he wants, how can you say his example is "wrong"?

[ghusto]

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]

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]

Thank goodness you'll never be allowed anywhere near software anyone uses.

[kajaktum]

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.

[eviks]

I can also count with 0 hands when this is useful

[jagged-chisel]

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]

> 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.

[jagged-chisel]

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]

> 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]

> 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]

So you want to continue typing, but in an invisible field hidden by a different foreground app?

[1718627440]

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.

[eviks]

That's only possible when they are partially.side by side otherwise you wouldn't be able to hover over the background window

[inigyou]

Windows XP has a solution to this: the taskbar flash

[eviks]

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]

What else do you expect though? You launched a long running task. It is done. Microwave goes ding.

[eviks]

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.

[frameset]

> How would that global app ban help? You do want the application to steal focus when necessary

Maybe you do. I don't. With this setting we can both be hapopy.

[eviks]

We can't both be happy because the setting does nothing for me.

[frameset]

What? You can set it to let apps steal the focus you want. I can set it to not allow any apps to steal focus. How are we not both satisfied?

[waisbrot]

I want the setting to steal YOUR focus

[eviks]

That! I don't want apps to steal focus in some conditions. I can't set it like that because the settings are too primitive. Why would I be satisfied with a primitive binary toggle when I want workflow-dependent conditions?

[frameset]

Did you read the documentation I linked? There's also high/medium/low settings that use XDG signals to determine if focus should change.

[eviks]

Did you read my comment? Which of these 3 settings allows focus steal, but not during typing?

[MiddleEndian]

>You do want the application to steal focus when necessary

No I don't. We recently switched to Zoom at work. Meeting notifications steal my focus (Windows 11 device) and it's fucking terrible. Nothing should ever steal focus.

[ghusto]

I can not think of a single scenario where stealing focus would be desirable.

Also, the presumption that I'm going to wait around for 5+ seconds whilst an opens is unrealistic.

[chongli]

That’s easy: a proper emergency.

Let’s say you’re controlling a piece of machinery with an app in the background and the machine starts on fire. Wouldn’t it make sense for the app to steal focus so it can show you some alarms (in addition to audible alarms which you may not hear because they’re in another room).

[viceconsole]

Having actually worked with industrial machinery, the proper UI for this is 1) unimpeded view of machine and 2) big red physical emergency stop button.

If you're relying on focus stealing or popups or notifications to tell you when your equipment is on fire, you're doing it wrong.

[eviks]

Are you not aware that remote monitoring software exists?

Your option is also not mutually exclusive, you can have your red buttons for local workers. Is redundancy not "proper UI"?

(I'm amazed how people stubbornly refuse to imagine the most trivial of use cases in this discussion.)