Renaming this issue since the term "visible and focused" is ambiguous.

It would also be nice if APIs that already rely on "transient activation" would get this assurance for free. #6212

Unifying this seems like a good idea. I wonder to what extent implementations are unified.

It sounds like this is probably a property of top-level browsing contexts? (Although it might be convenient for specs to ask about individual Windows or Documents, e.g. to ensure that it returns false for non-fully-active Documents.)

I guess the main question is what invariants this has with regard to other already-specced primitives. For example:

• If the browsing context has system focus, then it definitely has this thing. (But, the URL bar case means the converse is not true.)

• Any relation with https://w3c.github.io/page-visibility/#visibility-states ? Heck, maybe visibility state is what you're looking for?

Any relation with https://w3c.github.io/page-visibility/#visibility-states ? Heck, maybe visibility state is what you're looking for?

Yeah, I am wondering the same thing.

But given that we’ve got three different editors who have each independently/coincidentally created solutions for this — then even if visibility state is what would actually solve the same problem for all of them, there would still be an issue that we’re in a situation where editors are simply unaware of visibility state.

And if so, that’d suggest maybe we should have something more in the HTML spec to help raise awareness about visibility state. (And also really about the page lifecycle stuff in general.)

Heck, maybe visibility state is what you're looking for?

On desktop, a page mostly obscured by other windows is "visible" if just a single pixel of its browser chrome shows. I don't think this would match a "When is a window in the foreground?" user poll.

In mediacapture, we tried to answer when users would be surprised by camera or microphone being turned on, and we conservatively said: from any app other than the one they're currently using. i.e. in focus. This lines up well with transient activation (modulo #6212) which in hindsight we should have required for getUserMedia like we do for getDisplayMedia, as well as permissions (which need someplace to hang prompts), and effective privacy indicators (which tend to reside in window chrome).

The same answer fit well with insertion of USB cameras & mics, which we treat like a key press (i.e. requires focus).

I notice other specs like https://w3c.github.io/sensors/#concepts-can-expose-sensor-readings list both visibilityState and focus as criteria, so I gather they arrived at a similar conclusion? @rwaldron

It sounds like this is probably a property of top-level browsing contexts?

I think so. Something like:

• a TLBC has focus if its active document has focus steps or active-document-related system widgets have focus

The only thing that gives me pause are mobile devices that display two apps side-by-side.

I don't think you want to put this on the TLBC because then you have to check if your document is the TLBC's active document. It seems easier if you can just check if your document or settings object is "good to go".

I don't think you want to put this on the TLBC because then you have to check if your document is the TLBC's active document. It seems easier if you can just check if your document or settings object is "good to go".

I think the state is on TLBC (like system focus is), but I agree from specs it should be easy to call it given a document or settings object.

On desktop, a page mostly obscured by other windows is "visible" if just a single pixel of its browser chrome shows. I don't think this would match a "When is a window in the foreground?" user poll.

Alright, I'm more or less convinced. So in terms of spec restrictions, I think we have:

• If the TLBC has system focus, then the TLBC is in the foreground. (But not vice-versa; it could be that the URL bar has focus.)

• If the TLBC is in the foreground, then its active document must be "visible". (But not vice-versa; it could be that the document is "visible" but mostly occluded.)

• Only one TLBC can be in the foreground at a given time? (I think mobile devices displaying two apps side-by-side also have a focus model, so we can treat them like desktop.)

Putting these together, I'd suggest spec text something like:

At a given time, either zero or one of a user agent's top-level browsing contexts is in the foreground. Exactly which top-level browsing context is considered in the foreground is partially implementation-dependent, and generally relies on platform interaction paradigms. However, it must obey the following constraints:

• If a top-level browsing context has system focus, then it is in the foreground.
• A top-level browsing context can only be in the foreground if its active document's visibility state is visible.

Note: these implications do not go in the other direction. For example, it's possible for no top-level browsing context to have system focus, but for one still to be in the foreground; this happens in some implementations when the URL bar or other user agent UI is focused. Similarly, it's possible for a document to be visible, but for its top-level browsing context to not be in the foreground, for example if the contents of the document are occluded.

A document is in the foreground if its browsing context is a top-level browsing context, and that top-level browsing context is in the foreground.

We should also update the definition of system focus to make it clear only zero or one TLBCs can have system focus.

Only one TLBC can be in the foreground at a given time?

What if you put two windows side-by-side? I guess the note tries to account for this, but I think we need to make that a little bit more explicit. E.g., only consider user agent UI directly related to the TLBC in question as @jan-ivar did. I also think that might make "foreground" a bit fraud and something like "has indirect system focus" and "has direct system focus" might be better.

What if you put two windows side-by-side?

Then, only one of them should be considered foreground still, at least according to the specs that currently exist, so I think it's fine?

only consider user agent UI directly related to the TLBC in question

I'm hesitant to write too much spec text about user agent UI, myself.

What specification defines foreground? I thought you were trying to define it?

@annevk I think he's just referring to the three specs in the OP and their needs. Maybe "foreground" is the wrong word, but so was "visible and focused" when applied to the document or its viewport. In layterms I think all three were trying to say "visible and focused" applied to the browser window, but we don't know what to call that in specs.

Would a new window.hasFocus() serve this need? Since document.hasFocus() seems to be only applicable to the document.

We're not looking to introduce a new public API here, just a low-level primitive that specifications can hook into.

I'm renaming this issue from "foreground detection" to "browser window has focus" which is the part not covered by #7238.

I'm not sure we'll be able to reconcile differences between desktop and mobile for all specs, so it may be up to individual specs whether they want a browser focus requirement, a browser visibility requirement or both.

How about something like:

"A top-level browsing context has proximate system focus when it has system focus or when user agent widgets directly related to it can receive keyboard input channeled from the operating system.

Note: Proximate system focus is lost when a browser window loses focus."

No takers. How about s/proximate system focus/tentative system focus/ or s/proximate system focus/user attention/ ?

I like the idea of "user attention" and then define what we expect to minimally be true for that to be the case (e.g., visible, foreground, focus).