What the bleeding cunt is wrong with software developers? I mean, other than being fat, unwashed, poorly-socialized nerds with the moral development of a snake. For about the ten billionth time, ZoneAlarm stole focus from me to pop up… some warning about something, for about a nanosecond, in the middle of me typing something, stealing focus and causing the window to vanish, I having told ZA to do something indeterminate with a random keypress.
Do a Google search on “stealing focus” and you will see I am just one tiny voice, a single drop in the ocean of rage directed at stolen focus. WHY DO THEY DO IT? It baffles me, it beggars my imagination, to conceive of any reason beyond either deliberate sadism or total incompetence why ANY software developer would steal focus, given so many years of so many people howling with rage about it.
There seems to be an underlying belief among IT types that your computer belongs to them, and that you use the computer you bought and paid for only at their whim. It starts with Micro$oft – the ones who fail to give you any control over applications stealing focus to begin with – and continues on down the chain through application designers and on to webmasters and malware developers (which really brings us full circle back to M$ again). It’s as if every part of every piece of software on my computer is conspiring to take control away from me, to make me subservient to something I have purchased with my own hard-earned money.
Why? Why do they do it? I don’t get it. Has anyone, anwhere in the world, in the entire history of computing from the UNIVAC on up, said: “I really wish someone would make random things appear on my screen at unpredictable times while I’m typing”? What on EARTH makes software developers decide that the best way to determine the wishes of the user is to, randomly and without warning, fling a box in front of whatever the user is currently doing and interpret a random keypress as some kind of Oracular command to format the hard drive?
A productive information age life is pretty much a nonstop exercise in focus-stealing. The most valuable skill a human can possess is being able to have one’s attention constantly fragmented, diverted, and distracted, and still snap to every time.
I have to agree, I hate when that happens. And the worst part is when they don’t return focus after vanishing, but just leave the focus hanging there in limbo so you have to click or alt-tab back to the window you were in before!
Wow, stereotypes. At least (in the US) not we’re not bleeding heart, wage stealing, whiny, uneducated, card carrying socialist, union members with the ability to effectively exploit new technologies reminiscent of a trained ape minus the training.
Hey, maybe if you RTFM, you would learn how to use the software without it bothering you so much.
They do it because it needs to be done. Software is developed on the wobbly table of Reliability(includes usability), Cost, and Security. Would you prefer that it silently blocked all new processes trying to access your computer necessitating that you look through a list of all processes trying to talk to other computers to allow something new to happen? Or better yet if the software didn’t “Steal Focus” but also didn’t prevent unauthorized access? Or maybe you’d be happy to pay 10x.
There is also the other issue: You are not the only person in the world that uses that software and your needs are not paramount. The needs of the highest payer are. You as a user are insignificant. Your special needs do not matter.
This whole paragraph shows just how little you know and understand about computer systems and the people involved with their design and implementation. As for the last sentence, it’s the same with all owned things of value; the things you own end up owning you.
Also lumping developers and “IT types” together is horribly inappropriate and shows your lack of knowledge and relegates you to the kiddie pool of stupid users who will be ignored and shit upon. Don’t like it, then write your own damn software, or pay people to it for you and see how much it costs. Or you could try and be more selective in the software that you do use.
Why? Because that’s how the software was designed. Some guy who understands computers about as much as you do decided that he wanted the software to work that way, then he told some developers to make it so. So in effect someone as completely clueless as you actually said “I really wish someone would make random things appear on my screen at unpredictable times while I’m typing” because it meets the goals designed for the software. And they did, and they got paid to do it, and then you use the product that bothers you so much.
There is a simple solution to all your computer related problems you know… Don’t use it.
ETA: You would’t begrudge your buglar alarm for going off at 4am when some one is breaking into your house would you?
Wait, Red Skeezix; you’re defending focus stealing and all the other weird appropriative acts developers inexplicably like to stick in their products, and you’re accusing other people of not being familiar with computers? Weird.
The pop-ups that the OP is talking about are a primary function of the software that he/she is using. Zone Alarm lets you know when some process that it has never seen before (or you’ve never established a rule for) is trying communicate with your computer, possibly causing it and your data harm. (Zone Alarm has worked this way for near a decade it seems.)
Also, I’m stating that it’s usually not the developers fault that these things exist in software, or if it is, it is usually because there is a cost or security issue that was deemed more important (correctly or incorrectly).
In defense of pop-ups, they were an exploitation of a previously useful feature, but they did provide advertising revenue for the sites that generated them. Advertising revenue that supported the hardware and software that made the desired content profitable and therefore able to be displayed on a web page. Much like the banner ad’s that appear on many forums for users who have a paid subscription (like me) they provide needed revenue. Revenue that is needed for maintenance and developers, revenue that creates profits that justify the venture.
Yeah, but it’s stupid to steal focus like that, because, as the OP points out, if you’re typing at the time it’s quite likely that you will dismiss the popup without meaning to. Hit enter at the wrong moment and you’ve just approved god-knows-what without even having had the chance to read it. There are ways to alert the user’s attention to something without doing this. Avast’s anti-virus has hovering windows that don’t steal focus, for example, so you’re notified without running the risk of having your input directed to a window it wasn’t intended for.
The OP is right in general, too; many software companies take a ridiculously proprietary view of computers their software is lucky enough to get installed on. Irrelevant toolbars, changing your browser homepage, unremovable auto-updaters that always run on startup… the list goes on and on. Security software is particularly intrusive; many AV programs exist (IMO) solely to remind you at five minute intervals what a bang-up job they’re doing.
Whether it’s the actual coders’ fault these behaviours get inserted or not is immaterial; the point is that many commercial software houses view your computer as their personal playground, and once invited in track shit everywhere. It’s not as bad as it used to be, but the usual culprits are still at it.
I love the irony of this thread. OP mistyped something because he wasn’t paying attention, and then decides a whole industry has the moral development of a snake because of this. Then further goes on to insult innocent people who had nothing to do with the incident.
If your firewall is objectionable why not uninstall it? What’s that, you need it? Those evil programmers making you something you need.
Hmmm something may amiss here, and RR, boy detective, will let you in on it. The OP of this thread refers to software developers as “fat” in a derogatory fashion. However, if you cruise over to the doper pic thread, you will see several shots of a rather corpulent (and neckbearded, of course) Smashie.
Therefore, I deduce that (i) Smashie is a complete troll or (ii) those weren’t pics of Smashie. I guess a third possibility is that he is a self-loathing fattie.
I am a developer (a rake-thin one, mind you), so am probably one of the rare few who actually could take that option, and I still think that’s a fucking stupid attempt to dismiss a complaint. Proper programmers put so much effort into usability, working out best practice, and finding ways of actually appealing to the user rather than merely annoying them just less than the amount that’ll drive them elsewhere, and your best response to a perfectly valid user complaint is, “if you don’t like it, fuck off?” I like to hear what pisses off users, so I know full well to avoid it. Acting as if valid complaints are an insult to your honour is just weird (although I’ve met enough developers like this to know they’re not rare).
Also: a stereotype in the Pit? Say it ain’t so! This shall not stand, I tell you.
Apparently my intent was not clear. It’s not an affront to my honor if the user complains about how software works. It is that as soon as you begin developing a user interface, User A wants the app to steal the focus so that he can immediately determine what the appropriate action is. User B doesn’t want the focus stolen and is adamant about that. So which solution is correct? What usually happens is both and one is set as the default behavior on installation with the option to change that behavior through menus, wizards or what have you.
Take the case of zone alarm. There is a nice setting called program control, which is by default set to “Programs must ask for Internet access and server rights.” I can change this setting as I as a user see fit for the workings of my computer. Huh, maybe if I read the manual/help files/other assorted documentation, or at least browsed it when the software did something unexpected, I would know how to enable or disable this feature. Expecting a user to attempt to refer to the manual when encountering a problem is obviously too much to ask.
Also: an inflamed response to the use of stereotyping in the pit and bitching about usage of stereotypes? [Wiggam] Move along people, nothing to see here. [/Wiggam]
But even user A presumably types occasionally, and thus is going to run into the problem that if something steals focus without warning, it invites mistaken input. It’s not the user’s fault if he’s not psychic; if you’re typing away, and suddenly lose focus, it’s very likely indeed that you’re going to send keypresses to the new window.
It’s perfectly possible to hover something that is visible, yet doesn’t steal focus, so why not do that? It seems pretty obvious, particularly in a security context where you really don’t want people approving or denying things in error.
Could it possibly be that software that blocks access to a resource waiting for input from a user, if it doesn’t steal focus could lead to the situation where a full screen application (not maximized, but full screen maybe even directly to the video drivers) like a video game, would cause an equal amount of frustration if it wouldn’t run properly because it was waiting on a network connection, that was being blocked waiting for prompted input where the user has no idea of the existence of the prompt because no context switch between applications has taken place since the prompt didn’t request focus.
I would argue that stealing the focus is a necessary annoyance in some cases. Some cases not. If an application steals the focus where it does not need my direct intervention, then you are right it is probably inappropriate for the focus to be stolen.