close dialog by mouse click out of dialog area

[andrew_b]

Minor UI enhancement: active dialog may be closed by single mouse click out of dialog area.

[andrew_b]

312_close_dialog_by_mouse branch is created. Parent branch: master.

[andrew_b]

Look at changeset:014e37ecefb95aac8511faa09639ec374fffcfa5

[angel_il]

look good

[angel_il]

but in FAR right click work as default button. What you think about this in mc?

[andrew_b]

Replying to angel_il:

but in FAR right click work as default button. What you think about this in mc?

Left click -- Cancel, right click -- OK. I believe I can realize such behavior.

[ossi]

i wouldn't do such overloading of right-clicks. it is highly undiscoverable and unexpected.

[styx]

Replying to ossi:

i wouldn't do such overloading of right-clicks. it is highly undiscoverable and unexpected.

+1
andrew_b plans to create an option what to do or not to do with clicks.
As sources will be changed, votes are removed

[ossi]

uh, such micro-options make config dialogs a proper nightmare. even it if is in no dialog, one should ask oneself whether it *really* makes sense to add an option.
i think it should simply resemble the behavior of modern GUIs. this essentially means that a left-click outside something with popup-behavior closes (cancels) it, while dialogs should not be affected (a simple miss-click can cause annoyance and even some minor data loss). applicable examples are menus (works already, except that the last item spans the entire free area) and drop downs.
specifically regarding the suggested right-click behavior, i can only say that it is utterly counter-intuitive - why would you click *outside* a dialog to *confirm* what is *inside* the dialog? what scenario brings you in a situation where it would be actually desirable? other than "because we can"?

[angel_il]

this option will be turned off by default. Why it will be for you a nightmare, i dont understand.
...btw such option exists a long time in FAR and many use such behaviour of the mouse in FAR dialogs. And it is not counter-intuitive.

PS: i realy not often use it, but "i can"!

[ossi]

configuration dialogs (and also man pages) with hundreds of options *are* a nightmare. everyone who knows something about usability will tell you that. so before introducing an option, think twice whether it really makes sense to make it optional. and when the answer is "yes", then think three times whether the feature makes sense in the first place. for counter-intuitive ui features which are inconsistent with about everything else out there (except some particular nc clone), for which no-one seems to be able to come up with a *real* use case, the answer is a very clear "no".

PS: you don't seem to have understood the "because we can" allusion. you should look up the term "feature creep" and related topics in wikipedia.

[angel_il]

i mean "because we can" what "we can use feature" not "we can make feature".

[ossi]

i know. and it is exactly besides the point. the question is not "could i use it once it is there", but "would i miss it if it was never there". this is called collecting uses cases, which is part of requirement engineering.

[angel_il]

I can use mc without it :) if you so bring an attention to the question.

[andrew_b]

Implemented option to enable/disable close dialog by mouse click outside of it: mouse_close_dialog. Disabled by default. This option is available in ini file only.

Please review changeset:8255495537b4121192e0ec94f28e2ec7d19501ff

[slavazanko]

looks good.

[andrew_b]

Commited to master. changeset:92353b384842c4a6ee4044e8b219697fada55f5a

[nikecitycn]

​Nike air force ones
​Air Jordan shoes
​Nike Dunks
​Nike Shox
​Nike Shoes