Hacker News Reader

Comment by LawnGnome | Hacker News Reader

To an extent it is Gimp's fault, though. It's not as though click-to-focus is a new fad that's sprung up and surprised everyone -- it's been the default way focus has worked in GNOME and KDE for as long as I can remember, and I've been using it for the best part of fifteen years on Linux.

The fact that such a common use case (almost certainly the most common use case, not to mention Gimp-related irritation, for at least the past decade) has been ignored for so long is disappointing.

View on HN

The most common use case... except among the kind of people whose idea of a fun evening is developing a Free image editor on a Free operating system.

I'm not one of those people, but I have a similar background, and GIMP has suited me pretty well for the photo-retouching and website-graphics work I've done.

> almost certainly the most common use case [click-to-focus]

Most common only if you are coming from a ms-windows background. Click-to-focus is only a relatively recent newcomer to the Unix/X-Windows system in the scheme of how long X-Windows has existed.

And if you ever break out of your ms-windows mindset and actually give focus follows mouse a try, focus follows mouse is actually the more powerful method.

Just as an FYI, Windows actually supports focus follows mouse with a registry hack [0]. There are a couple of quirks mostly to do with things like tooltips, but I've found it usable.

[0] http://sinewalker.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/ms-windows-focus-...

I remember getting a Windows 95 PowerToy for it; I didn't see the point of it, previously being an Amiga user which had click-to-focus also.

The new window managers are a hybrid. Mouse events are focus follows mouse, while keyboard events are focus follows click. This allows you to highlight a bit of text and middle click on another window to paste, but leave the focus on the first window and continue typing, for instance. It also allows you to code in an editor while scrolling a documentation window.

MS Windows is only focus follows mouse.

Citation please. I love focus-follows-mouse but this sounds downright confusing. Do windows have different highlights to show where mouse and keyboard events will go?

Citation? Sorry, but it's been in Ubuntu for ages, and that's what I use.

As for the visual cues, it looks a lot like OS X. Currently focused windows has a highlighted top bar and pronounced shadows and is in front of other windows. As for where the keyboard and mouse events... keyboarrd goes to focused window, mouse goes to where you click. It makes sense.

I'm using FFM in Ubuntu classic (non-Unity) right now. Mouse and keyboard events go to the highlighted window and the highlight follows the mouse (with a few minor exceptions which is why some people call it sloppy focus). Clicking doesn't affect where the events go.

Not sure what you're talking about...? Maybe plain old click-to-raise like Mac and Windows?

I'm using default Ubuntu classic behaviour currently, and I almost agree with windsurfer's description. (I'm currently using 11.04, dist-upgraded from a 10.10 clean install, but it's been this way in every Ubuntu I've used over the past four years.)

If I mouse to a different window, focus does not follow (like MS). However... if I use the mousewheel, it applies to whatever window is under the mouse. As windsurfer says, this is cool because I can navigate around in one window while keeping my editor typing in another.

However, in disagreement with windsurfer's claim, my middle-click DOES change focus, as with my left- or right-click.

Anyway, I hate full-on sloppy focus, but I sure love this sloppy-mousewheel-focus.

And if you ever break out of your ms-windows mindset and actually give focus follows mouse a try, focus follows mouse is actually the more powerful method.

Not this again. Focus-follows-mouse is different, not more powerful. It provides a different way of working that not everyone agrees with and not everyone wants to use.

Seriously, get over yourself.

Yes, it is different.

But it is that very difference that makes it much more powerful of a UI convention.

If you had ever experienced it, you'd understand.

I've used both. I have no preference and can work in either; it doesn't affect me either way. Your argument is to false authority.

All the power in the world doesn't matter if it's not what the user wants or expects.

Which gets right to the core of GIMP's marketing problems. For years, users wanted a cheap Photoshop clone ... they got GIMP. Because it's not a near-clone of PS, it hasn't caught on as well outside a small group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com