Is this workflow part of the Kwin settings? It's not interrupting typing part of the settings?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why do you presume to tell me how I perform a task? Do you know how many files I have to scan through to check? Do you know how far the Finder scroll has to move to show me what I want? Maybe it takes a glance. Maybe it takes ten seconds.
I don't particularly care what kind of activity you might be imagining, but nothing that steals focus should be happening without my consent. You have been arguing that it should and then later changing your argument to allowing configuration for such things.
> > I don't get it, are you not capable of imagining a situation where
I don't know where this came from, but it's not in my comments. I think your emotional response to this discussion has you conflating commenters.
If you want to advocate for configuration to allow focus stealing that's fine. But you've been arguing as if it's silly that anyone would want it any other way than you.
Why do you keep presuming you can make up your own example when arguing about a different one??? The original premise "depends entirely on what you're switching from and to and for what reason", so of course if you change your conditions you'll have different outcome re. focus stealing!
> You have been arguing that it should
No, you've been missing the point this whole time.
> I don't know where this came from, but it's not in my comments
It is, I suggested you imagine the case where you'd like the change of focus to happen in response to some conditions you find favorable, yet several times you faield to address it as is and kept bringing up different conditiosn.
> I think your emotional response to this discussion has you conflating commenters.
I think if you're that bad at reading literal text you shouldn't attempt at trying to read emotional state of that author.
> If you want to advocate for configuration to allow focus stealing that's fine
So why do you keep arguing that it's not fine because you can't imagine a situation where it is?
> But you've been arguing as if it's silly that anyone would want it any other way than you.
Nope, that's you misreading again. I have no issue with people who want a dumbed down "never steal" config.
Maybe the silly part here is people ostensibly supporting computers respecting user choices arguing against being able to better configure your computer to respect user choices.
In the real world, where it's impossible for the OS to distinguish between the "You stopped checking in the first 0.5 sec while the app took 1 sec to start" scenario and the "you're still busy with the current task and don't want to switch to the other app yet" scenario, the safe choice is always to not steal the focus because the cost of switching too early is significantly higher than the cost of not switching.
But in the real world I'd use proxy conditions to arrive at a rate of correct guesses that's satisfactory for me just like with everything else with computers (even basic mouse clicks), not use your total "safe" ban (safety has a trade-off, you can't resolve that universally)
Seemingly you disagree and believe that such a system is possible. Is there anything preventing you from implementing it to prove the doubters wrong?
For that it suffices if the window comes to the foreground, but it does not need to steal the focus.
"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.
> Would I?
You would
> How do you know?
By being the omniscient being that came up with the conditions in the first place
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.
Maybe you do. I don't. With this setting we can both be hapopy.
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.
Also, the presumption that I'm going to wait around for 5+ seconds whilst an opens is unrealistic.
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).
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.
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.)