Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Help with double-click recognition.
Message-ID: <8910171248.AA03392@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 89 12:48:55 GMT
References: <1490@esquire.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 30


    Of course, users are best served when one
    starts from a specific user-centered design
    and then derives the appropriate implementation.
    Too bad UNIX and X are not from this culture.

There are thousands of issues that go into the design of a system like X.
To think that X was designed ignoring user requirements, or that "perfect"
design is trivial, is to be rather naive.

    Isn't double-click commonly accepted enough
    that X servers should be able to reliably
    implement it?

Probably (even if it is a bad idea).  It may depend on how you define
"reliably".  Is doing the timeout on the client side, after receipt
of the first click, and then forcing a round-trip to the server to
ensure receipt of all current events, a workable solution?  If you
really wanted to, you could compute the network delay time and factor
it in as well.

    i.e. after one click, if
    another click comes in before the timeout,
    send a double click event, else when the
    timeout expires, send a single click event.

This is what I would call an "idea", rather than a complete design.  As stated,
it sounds rather specific to a single policy, and interactions with other
mechanisms would need to be considered (e.g. what if the first click starts
a synchronous grab?).