GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 162010
"show desktop" mode needs to provide visual indication of hidden windows
Last modified: 2004-12-22 21:47:04 UTC
1. Click "show desktop" applet button, (or press CTRL-ALT-d) 2. All currently open windows become "hidden" A "hidden" window is in a state disctint from either a visible or a minimized window. The distinction is most apparent in that only hidden windows become visibile again if the show desktop mode is toggled off. However, the current behavior is that hidden windows are provided with no (or incorrect) visual cues as to their state. For example, the workspace switcher and the window selector display the windows as if they were still visible. There should perhaps be bugs opened for those components, but metacity will need to set the right property first. (This bug is part of a family of bugs I'm filing now in an attempt to get "show desktop" to act sanely. I'll try to link the new bugs all together along with pointers to relevant history when I can figure out how to do that).
Makes sense, but I can't think of any visual cue for this. Any suggestions? I'm cc'ing usability, hoping that maybe they have some bright ideas. (Any new bugs you add could probably be marked as blocking bug 155453, though perhaps it may make sense to just file a new tracker bug that tracks all the ones you file)
Wait...I just tried this out. Hidden windows are given the same cue as minimized windows--i.e. they disappear from the workspace switcher and are bracketed in the tasklist. Isn't that what you want?
That would be an improvement from what I see. For me, hidden windows remain visible in the workspace switcher, and unbracketed the tasklist. This is particularly confusing after "show desktop" is implicitly disabled when a new window is opened. At that point, the switcher and the tasklist tell me the window is there, but I just can't see it. ;-) So, did I find something new, or an old bug that has since been fixed? I'm running metacity-2.8.6-2 in Fedora Core 3.
Fixed in bug 105665 (and I forgot about it at first...); it wasn't put on the stable branch for fear of "risky changes". It should apply pretty cleanly, though.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 105665 ***