4 ms·

Right right, and I'm not saying users shouldn't be able to have a floating window with video (or whatever) in it. I'm saying it shouldn't be Chrome making that

Right right, and I'm not saying users shouldn't be able to have a floating window with video (or whatever) in it. I'm saying it shouldn't be Chrome making that window floating and always visible.

porridgeraisin 5mo ago
I don't get it, if you're on google meet, and you want to make one of many videos PiP. How can you ever do that in the window manager? It has to be done in the application! You right click or click on the menu on that particular video, and click Picture in picture. How the heck can the window manager do it?
- pseudalopex 5mo ago
  The application could tell the window manager it wanted an always on top window. The window manager could ask the user if it should allow or reject and remember for this application or not.
  - porridgeraisin 5mo ago
    That's exactly what I said... and also not how wayland works. I cannot comprehend the way wayland folks think... quote from the xdg-pip discussion: > To not make PiP windows effectively "always on top" and "on every workspace" dialogs - a terrible and sadly by applications used concept on X11 - PiP windows must be input-only, i.e. not receive keyboard, pointer and touch input Like what the heck even? That is how pip windows are expected to work? And of course you want inputs on them? e.g to mute/unmute on a video call? Like these are use cases used daily by people. And its "terrible".
    - gmueckl 5mo ago
      I also don't get it with the wayland people. It feels like they want to revert everything to a UX design that was getting old in the 90s.
      - account42 5mo ago
        They want to turn everything into an appliance.
- thesuitonym 5mo ago
  If things were designed well, it would be as easy as clicking the pin icon on the window border.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gmueckl 5mo ago
    How many buttons do you want on a window frame then? The typical 4 buttons already take a lot of space in the title bar. Not everything that seems like a good idea at first glance is actually good design.
    - mx7zysuj4xew 5mo ago
      I've fucking had it with you people and your "design" As many buttons as he thinks he needs, and as a compromise they can be disabled by default and enabled through settings. Instead your ilk will probably remove even those remaining buttons and replace them with some obscure movement command
      - gmueckl 5mo ago
        No, I wouldn't. I'm not your enemy. Please don't antagonize people like that. It's rude and I considered not replying because of your tone. I have a pretty strong oppinion that GUI basics must be simple but more advanced stuff (e.g. tools that trainee professionals spend most of their workday in) must not hide its raw power because the user can be expected to learn. User interface essentials have to be understandable without mental gymnastics by default without appearing overwhelming. The overwhelming majority of computer users don't change defaults on most software and a shockingly big number of computer users deal with them only because they must, not because they derive joy from it. They don't engage deeply with these devices at all. So those defaults must be picked carefully to keep the UI approachable. This isn't the same as ripping out features or antagonizing power users that do bother to learn.
    - thesuitonym 5mo ago
gmueckl 5mo ago
That expectation is really an immediate major UX defect. Most really good GUIs rely on tons and tons of subtle behaviors to work right (that is, to assist the user). That means - counterintuitively - that they need a lot of leeway in how they get to control their own windows to appear on the screen. Ultimately, the screen is just an unbroken flat surface and windows are just a software level abstraction that has been tortured beyond hope and one that users shouldn't have to micromanage or understand deeply. If an application needs something to appear at a specific spot in a specific way, the display manager needs to bend over backwards to make it happen or it's broken. Windows understands it. MacOS understands it. X11 understand it, but the community is working hard to throw that wisdom away.
- mx7zysuj4xew 5mo ago
  Finally a sane answer

Right right, and I'm not saying users shouldn't be able to have a floating window with video (or whatever) in it. I'm saying it shouldn't be Chrome making that window floating and always visible.

porridgeraisin 5mo ago

I don't get it, if you're on google meet, and you want to make one of many videos PiP. How can you ever do that in the window manager? It has to be done in the application! You right click or click on the menu on that particular video, and click Picture in picture. How the heck can the window manager do it?

pseudalopex 5mo ago
The application could tell the window manager it wanted an always on top window. The window manager could ask the user if it should allow or reject and remember for this application or not.
- porridgeraisin 5mo ago
  That's exactly what I said... and also not how wayland works. I cannot comprehend the way wayland folks think... quote from the xdg-pip discussion: > To not make PiP windows effectively "always on top" and "on every workspace" dialogs - a terrible and sadly by applications used concept on X11 - PiP windows must be input-only, i.e. not receive keyboard, pointer and touch input Like what the heck even? That is how pip windows are expected to work? And of course you want inputs on them? e.g to mute/unmute on a video call? Like these are use cases used daily by people. And its "terrible".
  - gmueckl 5mo ago
    I also don't get it with the wayland people. It feels like they want to revert everything to a UX design that was getting old in the 90s.
    - account42 5mo ago
      They want to turn everything into an appliance.
thesuitonym 5mo ago
If things were designed well, it would be as easy as clicking the pin icon on the window border.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- gmueckl 5mo ago
  How many buttons do you want on a window frame then? The typical 4 buttons already take a lot of space in the title bar. Not everything that seems like a good idea at first glance is actually good design.
  - mx7zysuj4xew 5mo ago
    I've fucking had it with you people and your "design" As many buttons as he thinks he needs, and as a compromise they can be disabled by default and enabled through settings. Instead your ilk will probably remove even those remaining buttons and replace them with some obscure movement command
    - gmueckl 5mo ago
      No, I wouldn't. I'm not your enemy. Please don't antagonize people like that. It's rude and I considered not replying because of your tone. I have a pretty strong oppinion that GUI basics must be simple but more advanced stuff (e.g. tools that trainee professionals spend most of their workday in) must not hide its raw power because the user can be expected to learn. User interface essentials have to be understandable without mental gymnastics by default without appearing overwhelming. The overwhelming majority of computer users don't change defaults on most software and a shockingly big number of computer users deal with them only because they must, not because they derive joy from it. They don't engage deeply with these devices at all. So those defaults must be picked carefully to keep the UI approachable. This isn't the same as ripping out features or antagonizing power users that do bother to learn.
  - thesuitonym 5mo ago

gmueckl 5mo ago

That expectation is really an immediate major UX defect. Most really good GUIs rely on tons and tons of subtle behaviors to work right (that is, to assist the user). That means - counterintuitively - that they need a lot of leeway in how they get to control their own windows to appear on the screen. Ultimately, the screen is just an unbroken flat surface and windows are just a software level abstraction that has been tortured beyond hope and one that users shouldn't have to micromanage or understand deeply. If an application needs something to appear at a specific spot in a specific way, the display manager needs to bend over backwards to make it happen or it's broken. Windows understands it. MacOS understands it. X11 understand it, but the community is working hard to throw that wisdom away.

mx7zysuj4xew 5mo ago
Finally a sane answer