Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!morley.rutgers.edu!purtill From: purtill@morley.rutgers.edu (Mark Purtill) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NOT (click to type) in NeXTStep? Message-ID: Date: 12 Nov 90 20:14:39 GMT References: <1990Oct28.165341.6949@cs.cmu.edu> <2955@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <56054@brunix.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 52 rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: >In article purtill@morley.rutgers.edu (Mark Purtill) writes: >> And if you would find it horrible to have pointer-focus, >>that's exactly how I feel about click-to-type. Different people have >>different preferences, and NeXT won't make any sales by telling people >>that their preferences are wrong. NeXTStep should provide an OPTION >>for pointer focus, and, yes, this *is* a significnat factor in which >>machine I buy (Sparc vs. Next). >Although I hate to repeat myself, I think I have to post this again >since this discussion about click to focus or point to focus is >getting out of hand and starts being boring. >There is a BIG difference between a window server (Xwindows) and a >user interface (NeXT's Workspace manager). Fine. Replace X-Windows with X-Windows + (say) VTWM. I don't see that as signifigantly different from NeXTStep. >The WS is designed to help people with on of the problems of GUIs i.e. >cluttered screens. In order to do so the WS hides certain sorts of >windows (i.e. panels and menues) while an application is not in focus. >Thus switching focus is sort of an strong function performed by the >user. This is red herring. It's already been pointed out that if switching windows takes all this time, you simply wait until the mouse is motionless in a window for wome small amount of time. And I don't understand the "problem" of cluttered screens. When I am not using a program, I iconify it. If it's on my screen, then there's a reason for it being there, e.g., I'm going to use it shortly. In other words, I'LL decide if my window is cluttered or not. Please do not presume to decide for me. >The only thing that would be useful is if there was a way to alt-click >to a window such that switching focus could be done without an >auto-raise to click. (How about that NeXT?) It's not the only thing, but it's certainly needed. >Yes, X gives your more flexibility in this respect, but you have to do >also all the work yourself to keep a screen on which you are able to >work, NeXT does a lot of this for you without that you really notice. >A little click may be annoying in the beginning, but as you have to >move the mouse anyway, it does not hurt either. I DON'T WANT the NeXT to do the "work" for me. If I wanted to be held by the hand, I'd buy a Mac. Please listen to what the pointer-focus people are saying: we want to do things a certain way. We do NOT want the NeXT or any other system to force us to do it a different way. It is IRRELAVENT whether the NeXT way is "better", we don't like it. OKay? Now, I'm not saying that X+window manager is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But at least it doesn't force you into a fixed way of doing things. ^.-.^ Mark Purtill purtill@dimacs.rutgers.edu (201)932-4580 (O) ((")) P.O. Box 1179, Rutgers Univ., Piscataway, NJ 08855 (201)220-6905 (H)