New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Auto hide the LaunchBox when losing focus #34

Closed
polyvertex opened this Issue Mar 26, 2016 · 15 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@polyvertex
Member

polyvertex commented Mar 26, 2016

No description provided.

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Apr 13, 2016

Member

Setting added in v2.5

Member

polyvertex commented Apr 13, 2016

Setting added in v2.5

@polyvertex polyvertex closed this Apr 13, 2016

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 16, 2016

It needs polishing to work more smoothly. For example, click K/Configure application, two notepads will launch, now invoke K, then click into one of notepads, half of K’s window will vanish and the other half will vanish in a second. Expected: whole launchbox vanishes at the same time.

sergeevabc commented Apr 16, 2016

It needs polishing to work more smoothly. For example, click K/Configure application, two notepads will launch, now invoke K, then click into one of notepads, half of K’s window will vanish and the other half will vanish in a second. Expected: whole launchbox vanishes at the same time.

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Apr 16, 2016

Member

This is expected behavior. "Half" of the window does not "vanish" as you describe it, it's just not foreground anymore. The whole window will close after a small amount of time. This timeout is here to prevent any erroneous behavior due to some application taking the focus then immediately giving it back.
The only thing I will do is to slightly reduce this timeout as it is unnecessarily long, but I will not make it immediate.

Member

polyvertex commented Apr 16, 2016

This is expected behavior. "Half" of the window does not "vanish" as you describe it, it's just not foreground anymore. The whole window will close after a small amount of time. This timeout is here to prevent any erroneous behavior due to some application taking the focus then immediately giving it back.
The only thing I will do is to slightly reduce this timeout as it is unnecessarily long, but I will not make it immediate.

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 20, 2016

@polyvertex, I recorded how Executor hides its window when loosing focus — more smoothly as compared to Keypirinha. Please, watch it. Could it be not a delay/timeout issue, but a different approach?

sergeevabc commented Apr 20, 2016

@polyvertex, I recorded how Executor hides its window when loosing focus — more smoothly as compared to Keypirinha. Please, watch it. Could it be not a delay/timeout issue, but a different approach?

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Apr 20, 2016

Member

I know about Executor and I thought you would ask this earlier. Kind of disappointed here. :)
I didn't say it was not possible to make the LaunchBox to hide immediately, I said it behaves that way for a reason.

This timeout is here to prevent any erroneous behavior due to some application taking the focus then immediately giving it back.

Member

polyvertex commented Apr 20, 2016

I know about Executor and I thought you would ask this earlier. Kind of disappointed here. :)
I didn't say it was not possible to make the LaunchBox to hide immediately, I said it behaves that way for a reason.

This timeout is here to prevent any erroneous behavior due to some application taking the focus then immediately giving it back.

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 20, 2016

How does Executor deal with mentioned erroneous behavior retaining the smoothness?

How does Executor deal with mentioned erroneous behavior retaining the smoothness?

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Apr 20, 2016

Member

It doesn't.

Perhaps you should try to explain how that bothers you exactly. Is it just a visual thing? I'm not particularly fond of adding a setting just for that. Really. So unless there's a more "serious" underlying matter to your request, I'll probably not add it.

Member

polyvertex commented Apr 20, 2016

It doesn't.

Perhaps you should try to explain how that bothers you exactly. Is it just a visual thing? I'm not particularly fond of adding a setting just for that. Really. So unless there's a more "serious" underlying matter to your request, I'll probably not add it.

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 20, 2016

Frankly, I’m not even sure what is “erroneous behavior” as neither Executor nor Launchy, Find And Run Robot, Slickrun etc ever failed me for years in terms of smooth hiding when loosing focus, that’s why I expect no less from a new era launcher you develop.

sergeevabc commented Apr 20, 2016

Frankly, I’m not even sure what is “erroneous behavior” as neither Executor nor Launchy, Find And Run Robot, Slickrun etc ever failed me for years in terms of smooth hiding when loosing focus, that’s why I expect no less from a new era launcher you develop.

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Apr 20, 2016

Member

You put it the wrong way. It's not because some people drives on the lest-side lane that you should do the same.

Perhaps you should try to explain how that bothers you exactly. Is it just a visual thing? I'm not particularly fond of adding a setting just for that. Really. So unless there's a more "serious" underlying matter to your request, I'll probably not add it.

Member

polyvertex commented Apr 20, 2016

You put it the wrong way. It's not because some people drives on the lest-side lane that you should do the same.

Perhaps you should try to explain how that bothers you exactly. Is it just a visual thing? I'm not particularly fond of adding a setting just for that. Really. So unless there's a more "serious" underlying matter to your request, I'll probably not add it.

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 20, 2016

Visual annoyance, yes. Like dust on eyeglasses: you could still see through, but requires the effort. We’ve talked about conventions earlier: I’m used to choose apps that work smoothly, i.e. they have achieved progress on board in terms of familiar labels (Exit instead of Farewell), buttons (cross mark in the top right corner if Windows), optimized resources consumption, etc. Being choppy, just for half a second, reminds of unbearable heavy Java apps and alpha versions with memory leaks.

sergeevabc commented Apr 20, 2016

Visual annoyance, yes. Like dust on eyeglasses: you could still see through, but requires the effort. We’ve talked about conventions earlier: I’m used to choose apps that work smoothly, i.e. they have achieved progress on board in terms of familiar labels (Exit instead of Farewell), buttons (cross mark in the top right corner if Windows), optimized resources consumption, etc. Being choppy, just for half a second, reminds of unbearable heavy Java apps and alpha versions with memory leaks.

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 20, 2016

In short, expected behavior when launchbox looses focus is to hide with the same speed as when one uses defined K’s shortcut again or presses Esc (escape_always_closes = yes), i.e. immediately.

sergeevabc commented Apr 20, 2016

In short, expected behavior when launchbox looses focus is to hide with the same speed as when one uses defined K’s shortcut again or presses Esc (escape_always_closes = yes), i.e. immediately.

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Apr 20, 2016

Member

You don't seem to understand the reason why this delay exists and why it is of interest. Just eluding it and putting the big "Conventions" word up front won't make it disappear!

I welcome this single-minded side of your argumentation but I find it a bit edgy to associate the "conventions" subject with a feature that is everything but conventional (i.e. a main application window that closes itself on focus loss). Furthermore, your comparison with the escape_always_closes setting seems inappropriate to me in the sense that it offers a functional tweaking.

You deployed some energy to make your point so if I'm not too lazy (EDIT before the next release I mean), I'll change the type of the hide_on_focus_lost setting (bool to enum; something like immediate, delayed, no; with yes being an alias to delayed to keep compatibility), instead of adding a new option. That way, the only blocking reason I had against your request is obsoleted.

Member

polyvertex commented Apr 20, 2016

You don't seem to understand the reason why this delay exists and why it is of interest. Just eluding it and putting the big "Conventions" word up front won't make it disappear!

I welcome this single-minded side of your argumentation but I find it a bit edgy to associate the "conventions" subject with a feature that is everything but conventional (i.e. a main application window that closes itself on focus loss). Furthermore, your comparison with the escape_always_closes setting seems inappropriate to me in the sense that it offers a functional tweaking.

You deployed some energy to make your point so if I'm not too lazy (EDIT before the next release I mean), I'll change the type of the hide_on_focus_lost setting (bool to enum; something like immediate, delayed, no; with yes being an alias to delayed to keep compatibility), instead of adding a new option. That way, the only blocking reason I had against your request is obsoleted.

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 20, 2016

Explanatory note on escape_always_closes for others who might be reading our conversation: I mentioned it not as a comparison, but to notice that single-time ESC doesn’t close launchbox by default.

As for current delay when hiding launchbox, obviously there is a reason for it and, even without diving deep under the hood, I do respect you implement features for a reason. The thing is, no reason could convince users whose expectations are shaped over the years by other launchers that visible software delay is for better. Well-grounded annoyance is still annoyance. Full train of thought as follows: “previous launcher does not carry much about mysterious erroneous behavior, but it caused no troubles so far and seems to be a rare case, then why should I sacrifice smoothness and accept the delay now?”

Proposed evolution of hide_on_focus_lost is promising!

sergeevabc commented Apr 20, 2016

Explanatory note on escape_always_closes for others who might be reading our conversation: I mentioned it not as a comparison, but to notice that single-time ESC doesn’t close launchbox by default.

As for current delay when hiding launchbox, obviously there is a reason for it and, even without diving deep under the hood, I do respect you implement features for a reason. The thing is, no reason could convince users whose expectations are shaped over the years by other launchers that visible software delay is for better. Well-grounded annoyance is still annoyance. Full train of thought as follows: “previous launcher does not carry much about mysterious erroneous behavior, but it caused no troubles so far and seems to be a rare case, then why should I sacrifice smoothness and accept the delay now?”

Proposed evolution of hide_on_focus_lost is promising!

@polyvertex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polyvertex

polyvertex Apr 20, 2016

Member

You just make my point and rephrase your arguments. This behavior is an annoyance for you, and a group of people who would tend to agree with that. Your request is just about personal preference and we're outside the scope of any convention here. As for the other launchers, again, it's not because millions of people have been enjoying Elvis Presley's music for years that it means it's good music... (I'll try to find a new one each time you come up with the same argument but rephrased. I promise. That makes two already). Besides, should KP be fully designed like other launchers, you would most likely not be using it or arguing because of exactly 250 milliseconds of frustration due to visual annoyance.

Member

polyvertex commented Apr 20, 2016

You just make my point and rephrase your arguments. This behavior is an annoyance for you, and a group of people who would tend to agree with that. Your request is just about personal preference and we're outside the scope of any convention here. As for the other launchers, again, it's not because millions of people have been enjoying Elvis Presley's music for years that it means it's good music... (I'll try to find a new one each time you come up with the same argument but rephrased. I promise. That makes two already). Besides, should KP be fully designed like other launchers, you would most likely not be using it or arguing because of exactly 250 milliseconds of frustration due to visual annoyance.

@sergeevabc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sergeevabc

sergeevabc Apr 20, 2016

Choosing fresh fruits over rotten is not a personal preference, but natural. Vice versa is a deviation. One of the core ideas behind hi-tech is to reduce human frustration by automating tasks, so willingness to cut delays as much as possible is also natural, isn’t it? For example, why did I choose to change Executor for Keypirinha? Indexation speed, to cut another delay. But here comes the visual delay…

sergeevabc commented Apr 20, 2016

Choosing fresh fruits over rotten is not a personal preference, but natural. Vice versa is a deviation. One of the core ideas behind hi-tech is to reduce human frustration by automating tasks, so willingness to cut delays as much as possible is also natural, isn’t it? For example, why did I choose to change Executor for Keypirinha? Indexation speed, to cut another delay. But here comes the visual delay…

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment