W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Proposed deletion of checkpoint on spawning windows

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:33:08 -0400
Message-Id: <199908251934.PAA21908@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
At 03:02 PM 8/25/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>So I think I'm close to agreeing that the user needs to be able to say "no,
>don't open a new window. Does this mean "force the new window content into
>this window instead"? Or "forget it"? which is what happens in lynx when I am
>reading a page written by some clown who thinks
>javascript:popout_window('some_uri') is a URI. (Should we specify an answer
>to that question at all?)
>
>Charles McCN
>

I think that the ideal answer is that the structure for indexing currently
open processes is part of the desktop, not the kernel.  Then the user has a
prayer of recalling how it works.  Emacs and screen are close what one
would do in speech; I have not read Raman's book to see how much he
develops this topic.

One option in the above scenario is "pop it on the stack" a_la what has
been considered in SMIL: current process suspends and resumes when added
process terminates, all if the user OKs.

Al
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 1999 15:25:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC