CLosing apps

Maciej Pilichowski bluedzins at wp.pl
Sat Apr 25 21:32:35 CEST 2009


On Friday 24 April 2009 18:41:37 Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
> > On Monday 16 March 2009 23:35:08 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> And, as it relates to the other discussions, I would still say a
> >> container may not have input focus *unless* it has no children.
> >
> > This means that in order to do something with container using
> > keyboard only, you have to focus on its child window. This could
> > be a bit not intuitive. Besides that I see no problem.
>
> I think I see where you are coming from. Well, you can "try" to set
> focus to a container, the result is just that the active child is
> what actually gets focus. At this point you can do operations on
> the container with whatever global keys are available (think
> alt-f3).

Oh, ok.

> Hmm. Well, if there are nested containers you end up at the deepest
> container. I don't think we talked about context-menu keys yet, but
> that obviously means there needs to be one to bounce from the
> current context menu to the parent context menu.

Do you mean that context menu of child app should contain extra entry 
like "parent container" + submenu with all actions related to parent 
container?

> > And one more thing -- do we would like to have extra policy for
> > TDI, something like when the last app is closed, relaunch it (it
> > would really mean close the doc). Why? Because with konq. you
> > would close tabs one after another, but maybe you would like to
> > stick to konqueror as "window". So you would have to remember
> > while reading to press odd sequence.
> >
> > * open konq. with daily tabs
> > * read the last one, close app
> > * read the last one, close app
> > * read the last one, close app
> > ... (only one left)
> > * read the last one, close _doc_
> >
> > This feels unnatural so I think the option for controlling the
> > close policy "do not close the last app" would be useful.
>
> I think not closing would be unnatural :-). (FWIW, this isn't how
> Konsole works; exiting the last shell exits the app.)

It all depends where do you come from. I am used to that behaviour 
because I see it is Konsole, however in Konqueror I am used to 
something else. Using opera I am used to another behaviour -- and 
that behaviour I like the most :-))

I don't think that providing an option for user for customizing policy 
would affect any part of new UI (I mean in a bad way). Remember 
pretty long thread not so long ago about closing apps. With this UI 
approach there would be no discussion at all -- "don't like the 
defaults, no problem, just switch the option".

> What about a policy that close doc will close the application also
> if there are sibling instances of that app? I think I would be okay
> implementing it that way. It would be similar to your proposal
> except you would be using close doc instead of close app, but the
> not-last ones would "really" close app.

If you think of policy I am not for it, but I don't have anything 
against it. If you think about hardcoded policy I am against it :-) 
Here it is why -- to know what will happen when you close the doc, 
you would have to be sure what the siblings are or check them one by 
one. From my experience it is not usual to work with Konqueror and 
have so many tabs that they cannot fit on the screen. So if I 
launched to kpdf along the way, in such way that each tab is not 
visible from the other, closing doc would be surprise for me. And the 
main principle for developers is -- principle of least surprise.

Thus, if it is useful for somebody else, it is ok with me, but such 
feature would not be useful to me.

However there is nice thing about this policy (as an option) -- if I 
understood the mentioned thread correctly, it could appeal to Mac 
users.

Cheers,


More information about the Kde-usability-devel mailing list