Re: [Usability] Resizability of windows

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 5/4/06, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt myrealbox com> wrote:
> It seems that the wm-spec's definition of a utility window is vastly
> different from the HIG's definition of a utility window. What the
> wm-spec calls a utility window, the HIG calls a "toolbox", though
> that's not an ideal name either -- the same window style is used for a
> variety of palettes, not just toolboxes.
>
> Were/are any interaction designers involved in the wm-spec? I mean, it
> has a special window type for *splash screens*, of all things, but no
> type for progress windows. What the hell?

I don't know; you can check the Contributors section if you happen to
know all the relevant people.  I don't (yet?), but as far as I can
tell, it's mostly toolkit and window manager authors.  (Also, a
special type for splash screens makes a _lot_ of sense -- they need
special handling too such as no window decorations, don't give them
focus, place them centered onscreen, don't allow them to be
closed/shaded/resized/moved, don't put the window in the taskbar or
pager, etc.)

Note, though, that the spec can always be extended.  For example,
Søren already has a proposal to extend the window types
(http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2006-April/msg00013.html),
though his proposal is aimed just at improving the compositor rather
than the window manager.

Cheers,
Elijah