# How to enable focus-follows-mouse?



## Kartoffel (Jun 28, 2001)

Is there any way to enable FFM?


----------



## endian (Jun 28, 2001)

I sure hope not


----------



## Kartoffel (Jun 28, 2001)

Oh come on.  A lot of people happen to like FFM.

You'd rather exclude it just because it's not your cup of tea?  Gee, that'll sure help to attract new users to OS X.


----------



## marmoset (Jun 28, 2001)

How to?  Install X11 and some godawful WM,
I guess.  Otherwise, yecch, I'm with Endian.

In all seriousness, though, I haven't seen
any such hack yet for OS X.


----------



## davidbrit2 (Jun 29, 2001)

As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like it would be technically practical. With OS X's window manager, can a window be made active without bringing it to the front? Even if it could, the applications would still have to redraw menu bars, so just moving the mouse pointer across the screen would thrash the system like crazy, and create all sorts of visual chaos.


----------



## rharder (Jun 29, 2001)

I like FFM, but I can just see it: I'm in TextEdit, going for the menu bar, when the menu bar changes to the Finder menu bar because my mouse passed over the desktop!  

Okay, maybe not.

-Rob


----------



## davidbrit2 (Jun 29, 2001)

Heh, it would sort of be a "mouse running through a maze." The single menu bar setup was definitely not intended for mouse focusing.


----------



## Kartoffel (Jun 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by davidbrit2 _
> *As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like it would be technically practical. With OS X's window manager, can a window be made active without bringing it to the front?*



Sounds like Apple has painted themselves into a corner if Aqua can't handle that.



> Even if it could, the applications would still have to redraw menu bars, so just moving the mouse pointer across the screen would thrash the system like crazy, and create all sorts of visual chaos. [/B]



That's why you do *sloppy focus-follows-mouse* instead of strict FFM.  Say you've got a Terminal in focus and you move the mouse cursor out of the Terminal window and on to the desktop.  *Focus would remain with Terminal.*  To change focus to Finder, you'd have to click the desktop.

If, however, you moved the mouse cursor out of Terminal, across the desktop, and then onto some other app (say, iTunes or another Terminal window), focus would shift to that window as soon as you entered it.  Sloppy FFM is the bees' knees, IMHO.

I agree that strict, non-sloppy FFM on 10.0.x would get _very_ tedious simply because the GUI is dog slow.  That's not the fault of FFM; that's Apple's fault!  Defend Aqua if you wish, but few people would dare to say that Aqua is particularly fast.  I still like Aqua, though ;-)


----------



## davidbrit2 (Jun 29, 2001)

I'm not positive how Aqua handles active windows that aren't in front. It might be completely possible; I just haven't seen it done yet.


----------



## Kartoffel (Jun 29, 2001)

There probably aren't any major issues with making an active window that's not in front.  I dunno how Aqua manages that stuff.

I have my other GUIs set up so that right clicking a window's title bar will lower the window if it's raised or raise it if it's lowered.  Autoraise is turned off.  Left clicking in any part of a lowered window will always raise it.  And just like Aqua, doubleclicking the titlebar minimizes.

FFM is a sticky subject.  People usually end up either loving it or hating it.


----------



## strobe (Jun 30, 2001)

Drag&drop sees FFM and beats it to a pulp

At least when somebody figures out how to remove that anoying delay in Cocoa's implementation of drag+drop text.


----------



## endian (Jun 30, 2001)

what's annoying is having to do a tapdance with the mouse in order to place the insertion point into selected text.


----------



## strobe (Jul 2, 2001)

tap dance? Just click anywhere in the selection to place the insertion point where you want it.

The delay in Cocoa's implementation of drag+drop text makes it useless. Might as well have not implemented it.


----------



## Gnarled (Jul 5, 2001)

Is it a coincidence that any window manager more advanced than TWM ( the WM x11  comes with) dropped FFM?  Maybe it was too damn annoying.


----------



## Kartoffel (Jul 5, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Gnarled _
> *Is it a coincidence that any window manager more advanced than TWM ( the WM x11  comes with) dropped FFM?  Maybe it was too damn annoying. *



You are wrong.  Nearly every windowmanager that came after TWM *includes* FFM.

It's perfectly OK not to like FFM, just don't put your foot in your mouth.


----------



## kilowatt (Jul 6, 2001)

I for one would love to see a way to do ffm in osx. It just doesn't seam likely (except under XF86 and a nice window manager).

As for you morons who think twm is the only ffm window manager, check out enlightment, and afterstep.

IMHO, FFM allows for a much more efficiently useable computer.


----------



## rharder (Jul 6, 2001)

As long as we're pining for other window managers, I wish in Aqua I could embed application menus in the window. I seriously doubt I'll ever see that on a Mac though, and I'm sure that makes some people happy, but I don't care if you don't like it--I like it.

-Rob


----------



## strobe (Jul 6, 2001)

Gah, the relentless posts from mac haters is getting to me...

But seriously, FFM is the worst system ever hacked. I can understand moving windows in the background, dragging items from background windows into the foreground, and being able to cut+paste without the mouse. I could do all these with a command-click-through (or other modifier) which is currently imperfectly implemented in Cocoa, plus drag+drop text clippings. However the last thing I ever want to worry about when I'm typing is where the goddamn mouse cursor is. 

Whenever I use X11 the challenge is always to determine which friggin window am I typing in. In MacOS it's clearly evident which window is active, it's the foreground window which has active controls which belongs to the foreground application and has it's associated utility windows in the foreground.

Why on earth would one want to merely move, but not click the mouse to activate a window? It's not like you'll save any time, and activating a window is more likely to be accidental. At least I've suggested a method to switch windows with the keyboard to complement the mousing methods.

What next, not having to click menus?


----------



## mr_mac_x (Jul 6, 2001)

> _Originally posted by kilowatt _
> *As for you morons who think twm is the only ffm window manager, check out enlightment, and afterstep.*



Being a moron myself, I would like to know how to actually install those. I'm sick of twm, but I don't know how to get anything else working. Sorry about changing the subject and all.

Anyways, I really don't care if ffm is implemented, as long as it's an option. And if it makes some people happy, then I suppose they should put it in. I could get used to it.

Strobe: Not having to click menus might actually be useful (if the system could handle it without making a major slow down). Good idea.


----------



## Kartoffel (Jul 6, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *Gah, the relentless posts from mac haters is getting to me...*



I'm no Mac hater.  MacOS has a great traditional UI that works very well.  I accept it for what it is, a finely polished and functional UI.  Unfortunately, any time someone whispers about something GUI-related that doesn't jive with the MacOS party line, a hundred frothing Mac zealots jump out and "beat them to a pulp".  

Some Mac people get a holier-than-thou attitude that their UI is the One True Way(tm).  Get a life!  I can accept your UI without attacking it.  Can't you folks chill out and understand that other people actually _prefer_ GUI systems that are different from your own?



> *But seriously, FFM is the worst system ever hacked.
> ...
> Whenever I use X11 the challenge is always to determine which friggin window am I typing in.*



Have you tried *slopppy FFM*?  It's a bit different from what you describe.  The focus doesn't leave the current window then the cursor moves onto the desktop.  Focus only changes when you enter a new window.

Besides, _most_ windowmanagers make it easy to see which window has focus by changing the color of the window border or title bar.  The visual distinction between focused and not-focused is usually pretty clear.  Aqua's white title bars just become translucent when they're not focussed, but since the foreground window is currently garuanteed to be the focussed one, it's not bad.



> *
> In MacOS it's clearly evident which window is active, it's the foreground window which has active controls which belongs to the foreground application and has it's associated utility windows in the foreground.*



Well, some people can handle working with an active window that is not in the foreground.  If you don't like it, use something different.  All I ask is that you try to contain your bigotry.  

"Think different"... hah! at your own peril!


----------



## endian (Jul 6, 2001)

> I wish in Aqua I could embed application menus in the window.



Ick, I'd hate that, but I wouldn't mind a NeXT style menu palette with tear-off menus as an option.


----------



## apb3 (Jul 6, 2001)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't there an old shareware app for 7.5ish that enabled this behaviour?

I'm sure there was some extension or something that did that. I remember trying (for about 2 seconds) it... It did truly suck.

Anyway, I agree that, if possible, sloppy FFM could be a preference for some (not me) and should be implemented as an optional addition to the X GUI - and I'm one of those frothing mac zealots... 
However, this is not something I think Apple should waste a lot of resources on at this time. There's too much to fix that is, I would think without objection, of a much higher priority.

People hated not being able to move/adapt the dock to their liking. Someone hacked out docking prefs or whatever it's called. I use it. I just don't like the dock at the bottom - the right side and hidden seems more mac-like and useable to ME.

You like sloppy FFM. Great. Get to work or find someone else who shares your belief to code it (which, I suspect, is probably one of the reasons you posted this - to find like minded individuals to help figure it out or someone who already did). 

So, here's a mac zealot who will cut you some slack.

Aside: I'm actually kinda interested in what was mentioned earlier - issues with Aqua making a window not in front active. I think davidbrit started to get into it. Any actual technical references? Seems like it would probably thrash the sys rather brutishly with X in its current form, but I'm thinking there might be something above and beyond FFM, sloppy or otherwise, that might make use of this...


----------



## kilowatt (Jul 10, 2001)

Lets say you are surfing the web. Full screen. But you want to chat with your buddies in another program. Rather than loosing the chat window every time you wish to scroll the web browser, or click on a link, you can just move the mouse over on top of the chat window, type, hit return, and then just move back into the web browser. and the chat window stays over top of the web browser. if its in the way, you just move it around. No docking tricks. 

FFM is also nice when you are following a tutorial on line. You can have a terminal window over your web browser (especially a *transparent* terminal.. hehe) and just move between the apps. And see them both at the same time. 

So, it is useful. I'm not saying its desirable all the time, but it is addicting. ;-) I can't wait for afterstep/another level for XDarwin. That will be cool.

And yeah, I know ffm can be annoying. Like when you think you're logging via ssh into a server, but you mistakenly type your password into an irc chat room. Yeah, that is annoying.


----------



## strobe (Jul 10, 2001)

That example illustrates why a command-click-through would be a far better idea. Instead of having to bring the browser into the foregroud in order to use it, why not command-click (or other modifier) to click though or command-drag to drag objects from background windows?

command-click-through is imperfectly implemented now in Carbon and Cocoa. In Carbon you can command-click background title bars and in Cocoa command-click background windows. However the command isn't being removed so it doesn't work when a command-click gesture is being used by the program. For example command-click an explorer or finder title bar will pop open a menu. Also command-clicking a list in a background Cocoa window will select/deselect it instead of clicking it. 

OmniWeb doesn't use command-click gestures so you can see how my proposal would work by command-clicking a background OmniWeb window. You can click buttons, select text, drag links, etc. This would work in all applications if the command were removed from the event!

(send feedback NOW guys |-)


----------



## kilowatt (Jul 11, 2001)

Strobe,
I wasn't aware that you can do that command-click stuff with background apps. I just tried it, and WOW, that is cool.

However (obviously), command-click is only applicable to mouse-driven commands. What about if you have 6 terminals open at once (it happens). And you need to quickly switch from terminal to terminal. Rather than command-tabbing (cycling through all the windows), you could just move the pointer over the terminal you want to type in.

I realize that it is not at all practical to impliment application-to-application FFM in mac os x, but what about intra-application ffm? Like in my terminal example?

With intra-application ffm, menus would not have to be redrawn. I think that an intra-application ffm would be a great option. 

Does anyone know if this is something possible with current development tools (building an application where moving the mouse over that apps different windows causes keyboard focus to change with out bring the window over-top of existing windows)?


----------



## apb3 (Jul 11, 2001)

kilowatt's idea seems more palatable to me and I can think of many instances where INTRA app ffm could be useful...

But how hard would it really be to use a modifier with the mouse (like command-click)? I always saw using a modifier with the mouse as a way to make sure that's what I really wanted to do. Just 'cuz my knee hits the desk and the mouse moves over another window - even in the same app - doesn't mean I want that window to be active. Inadvertant mouse movement seems to me (maybe I'm just clumsy) to be more of a common occurance than my actually wanting to switch focus to another window while keeping the foremost window foremost.


----------



## strobe (Jul 12, 2001)

The command-click-through behavior is cool, but it's horribly broken. Nobody mentions it so Apple probably won't fix it. They're probably busy working in a more useless Apple Menu or something.

The problem with command-click-through is the command isn't removed from the event when it's passed to the background window. In Carbon it's even worse in that it only works for title bars, not window contents. I fail to see the logic in any of this and unless people express a desire for this feature Apple will likely remove it than fix it.


----------



## Kartoffel (Jul 12, 2001)

I tried command-click and command-drag and I like it!

It's better than dragging a folder from Finder to a Terminal only to have the Finder window automatically raise and obscure the Terminal window.  OTOH, having to press command is _slightly_ less elegant than simply leaving the window in the background by default.  I don't expect a window to raise just because I clicked on it, but I _do_ like a window to accept my first click whether it's got focus or not.  YMMV of course.

Command-click is nifty.  It's not FFM nor does it work as a complete substitude for FFM, but it's a good thing.  Yay, Apple, for making something cool! 


Now, if only we could get multiple workspaces.  In BeOS I usually keep one app per workspace and toggle between them with alt+F-key or one of the several GUI switchers available.  You can drag windows and clippings from one workspace to another and with tons of workspaces, there's rarely a reason ever to minimize a window.

My favorite benefit of multiple workspaces is that you can set a different screen resolution, bit depth and gamma for each workspace.  It's _insanely_ useful to check an image or a web page at different screen sizes and bitdepths.


----------



## strobe (Jul 12, 2001)

If you don't like using the command key why not get a multi-button mouse and use that instead? It wouldn't have to emulate command-clicking but rather the system would have an arbitrary HID event to take it's place.

But I fear Apple will just remove the feature than improving/fixing it. In fact I believe it to be very likely.


----------



## kilowatt (Jul 15, 2001)

I'd love multi desktops, too. I doubt that apple will ever implement this, though. There is some rogue app (I don't mean rogue in a bad way) that will sort of do this by hiding different windows in different workspaces.

Also, lets say apple was going to implement multipul deskspaces.
What about users with more than one monitor? I think that would be weird.
Its doubtful that resolutions, gama, and color depth will change between them.

Personally, I'm waiting for a solid AfterStep/Another level build for XDarwin. Then its down the drain for Aqua. Hello >console!


----------



## Molest0r (Aug 8, 2001)

I guess this is a forgotten feature of the MacOS, but you know, if you hold the command (apple) key down and click on a window's menu bar, you can move it around without bringing it to the front, I think it also gives the window focus, but I'm not too sure (I'd try, but I'm not on an OSX machine right now).

...spike


----------



## strobe (Aug 9, 2001)

Did you even read the thread?

command-clicking is half-assed implemented


----------



## pbrice (Aug 9, 2001)

There are two (2) ways of handling different 'virtual' workspaces in OS X (that I know of)...

The 'softer' one is to go to www.macpoweruser.com and download MenuStrip.  It's a shareware that pops up a timed panel asking you to register evey once in a while.  It puts a series of gummi buttons up by your MenuBar clock that allow you to:
1. Hide All - Takes you right to the desktop
2. Show All - Shows all open windows
3. 'Single App' Mode - this is the one that you might like...

SIngle App mode is accessed through a simple on/off toggle.  When 'on', only one application will show at a time.  SO if you are browsing the internet (say, OmniWeb), and you then click on Mail in the Dock, OmniWeb and all of its windows/panels are hidden and Mail is shown.  CLicking on Omnieb in the Dock then hides Mail and shows OmniWeb.

The second one is a dockling called "Spaces".  I believe I originally got it from the Apple DOwnload pages.  It creates customizable desktops that you access through the dockling's menu.  You can have one application per 'space' or multiple apps--it's completely customizable.

Enjoy!


----------



## kilowatt (Aug 11, 2001)

The third is to dump aqua and head for afterstep.... LOL.

Thanks for the shareware titles, I'll give em a shot. 

Also, dual monitors works out nicely, except it really drags down open-gl screensavers. 

But screen savers are for wimps, right? (Uh, no, they are for saving your screen..... -unknown Apple 22" cinema display user)


----------

