On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:27:19PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:11 PM Python <pyt...@bladeshadow.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 06:43:39PM -0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > > > And those X11 users will swear at you if you override their window > > > managers configured window placement. Application code should not care > > > about or try to control window geometry. Period. > > > > I think this is just plain wrong.
As a side note, from a purely technical standpoint, Grant's point is demonstrably factually false. A GUI application necessarily must "care about or try to control window geometry" so that if the user moves or resizes the application, enables or disables additional widgets, etc., the widgets it contains are redrawn such that they remain usable, possibly expanding the canvas they're drawn on or adding new GUI elements like scrollbars to ensure that (at least it does if it wants to be useful). GUI frameworks may provide a core that automatically handles this for you, but that is not always the case (as an extreme example, if you're writing the whole app from scratch in assembly language), and in any event the framework is part of the application... not the window manager. Just because you didn't write that code doesn't mean your app doesn't need those facilities. > I love how "I think" is allowed to trump decades of usability research. I love how your complete dismissal of everything I said is allowed to replace logical counterargument, particuarly when you ignored the fact that absolutely nothing I said actually contradicts any such years of usability research IN ANY WAY--I merely pointed out that if the application were to have ADDITIONAL flexibility for expert users in regard to placing and sizing windows, the application must necessarily care about and be able to control its window geometry. All the other behaviors remain consistent with usability standards--assuming the vendor implemented them properly, which is a big assumption. In fact, providing such extra semantics may allow the user to overcome bad UI when the vendor failed. > it is far FAR better to put control in the user's hands I love how you dismissed that the semantics I described gives MORE control to the user, not less, without actually sacrificing anything. I love how you dismissed that not all computer users and not all humans are the same, that there are variances and outliers within all usability studies, and indeed all studies of human behavior, and that flexibility and configurability have value for that reason. I love how you dismissed the perpectives and motivations of posters in this thread without understanding or even hearing them. For all you know Rich may just be doing it as an academic exercise, in which case whether or not it conforms to usability best practices is utterly irrelevant, even if it weren't already the case that giving more control to the user--something you just claimed to value--requires giving control to the app. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
