Does anyone know how to remove the focus rectangle on this item? I have used successfully the WM_UPDATEUISTATE message with buttons but it has no noticeable effect on syslinks.
I'm going to guess and say that because SysLink controls have a definite focused state (LIS_FOCUSED), they ignore the UI state flag which would otherwise make them suppress the focus rectangle.
If this is the case then I'd say you could use the LM_SETITEM message with LF_STATE to remove the LIS_FOCUSED state from the control. You would probably need to sub-class the control and do this immediately after it processes the WM_SETFOCUS message, although the control may set this state after other messages too so some experimentation would be required.
Related
I have a semi-transparent form (using AlphaBlend) that acts as an overlay. For the user to still be able to interact with the window below I have set WS_EX_NOACTIVATE on my form so all right and left clicks go through to the other window.
However I have a few clickable labels on my form. Clicking those and performing the appropriate action works fine since despite the WS_EX_NOACTIVATE flag the OnClick methods are called, but the click will (obviousely) also propagate to the other window, which I do not want in this case.
So, does anyone know how to "stop" the click being sent through to the window below in case I already handled it in my form ? Basically I would like being able to chose whether the click "belongs to me" and does not get propagated or whether the window below mine receives it.
As Rob explained, WS_EX_NOACTIVATE is not relevant here. Most likely you used WS_EX_TRANSPARENT and that made your window transparent to mouse clicks.
To get finer grained control of mouse click transparency, handle the WM_NCHITTEST message in your top level window. Return HTTRANSPARENT for regions that you want to be "click through". Otherwise return, for example, HTCLIENT.
Wm_ex_NoActivate should be irrelevant here. That just controls whether your window receives the input focus. Indeed, if you start with a scratch program and do nothing but change the extended window style, you'll see that when you click within the bounds of that program's window, the clicks are handled in the usual way, except that the window is never activated; programs behind that window do not receive any click events.
Therefore, to make your label controls eat click events instead of forwarding them to the windows behind them, you need to find out what you did to make them start forwarding those messages and simply stop doing that, whatever that is.
I am trying to insert a custom widget into the Internet Explorer 8 url bar, next to the stop and reload buttons. This is just a personal productivity enhancer for myself.
The "window model" for this part of the IE frame is an "address bar root" window that owns the windows which comprise the IE8 url bar: an edit box, a combo control, and the stop and reload buttons.
From another process, I create a new WS_CHILD window (with a custom class name) that is parented by IE's address bar root window, thus making it a sibling of the edit box and stop/reload. I call SetWindowPos with an hwndInsertAfter of HWND_TOP to make sure it appears "above" (i.e. "in") the urlbar. This works nicely, and I see my window painted initially inside the IE urlbar.
However, when I activate the IE window, the urlbar edit control jumps back in front of my window. I know this is happening because I still see my window painted behind the urlbar, and because when I print ->GetTopWindow() to the debug console on a timer, it becomes the HWND of the urlbar edit control.
If I update my message loop to call SetWindowPos with HWND_TOP on WM_PAINT, things are better -- now when I activate the IE window and move it around, my control properly stays planted above the edit control in the urlbar. However, as soon as I switch between IE tabs, which updates the text of IE's urlbar Edit control, my control shift backs behind the Edit control. (Note: This also happens when I maximize or restore the window.)
So my questions are:
1) Is it likely that IE is intentionally putting its urlbar edit control back on top of the z-order every time you click on a tab in IE, or is there a gap in my understanding of how Windows painting and z-ordering works? My understanding is that once you specify z-ordering of child windows (which are not manipulable by the end-user), that ordering should remain until programmatically changed. So even though IE is repainting its Edit control upon tab selection whereas I am not repainting or otherwise acting upon my window, my window should stil remain firmly on top.
2) Given that the z-order of my window is apparently changing, shouldn't it receive a WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGING/WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGED? If it did, I could at least respond to that event and keep myself on top of the Edit control. But even though I can see my window painting behind the urlbar Edit control when I click on a tab, and even though my debug window output confirms that the address bar root's GetTopWindow() becomes the HWND of the Edit control when I click on a tab, and even though I see WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGING/WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGED being sent to the Edit control with an hwndInsertAfter of HWND_TOP when I click on a tab, my own window receives no messages whatsoever that would allow me to keep the z-order constant. This seems wrong to me, and addressing it would force me to run in IE's process and hook all messages sent to its Edit control just to have an event to respond to :(
Thank you for your help!
It's quite likely that IE is juggling the Z-order of the controls when you change tabs. In IE9, the URL bar and the tabs have a common parent. When you select a new tab, it activates the URL bar (and activation usually brings the window to the top of its local Z order).
No. You get WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGED when a SetWindowPos function acts on your window. If some of the siblings have their z-orders changed, you don't get a message. Nobody called SetWindowPos on your window. You can see this by writing a test program that juggles the z-order of some child windows.
This makes sense because there might be an arbitrary number of sibling windows, and it could be an unbounded amount of overhead to notify all of them. It also would be nearly impossible to come up with a consistent set of rules for delivering these messages to all the siblings given that some of the siblings could react by further shuffling the z-order. Do the siblings that haven't yet received the first notification now have two pending notifications? Do they get posted or dispatched immediately? What if the queue grows and grows until it overflows?
This is different from WM_KILLFOCUS/WM_SETFOCUS notifications in that it affects, at most, two windows. That puts a reasonable bound on the number of notifications. Even if there's a runaway infinite loop because the losing control tries to steal the focus back, the queue won't overflow because there's only one SetFocus call for each WM_KILLFOCUS delivered.
Also, it's reasonable that windows might need to react to a loss of focus. It's much less likely that window C needs to know that B is now on top of A instead of the other way around, so why design the system to send a jillion unnecessary messages?
Hacking the UI of apps you don't control and that don't have well-defined APIs for doing the types of things you want to do is anywhere from hard to impossible, and it's always fragile. Groups that put out toolbars and browser customizations employee more people than you might expect, and they spend much of their day probing with Spy++ and experimenting. It is by nature hacking.
This may be a basic question, but I have to admit I've never truly understood what the difference between the Control.Enter and Control.GotFocus events is.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.control.enter.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.control.gotfocus.aspx
Is it a differentiation between capturing keyboard or mouse input or something else?
The GotFocus/LostFocus events are generated by Windows messages, WM_SETFOCUS and WM_KILLFOCUS respectively. They are a bit troublesome, especially WM_KILLFOCUS which is prone to deadlock. The logic inside Windows Forms that handles the validation logic (Validating event for example) can override focus changes. In other words, the focus actually changed but then the validation code moved it back. The logical state of your UI is that it never moved and you shouldn't be aware that it did.
The Enter/Leave events avoid the kind of trouble these low-level focus change notification events can cause, they are generated when Winforms has established the true focus. You almost always want to use these.
Control.Enter event happens when a control gets focus for the first time. While Control.GotFocus happens EVERY time a control gets focus. For example, you have 'textBox1' that already has focus and you call textBox1.Focus(), the GotFocus event will always fire in this instance, unlike for the Enter event that will only fire if a control doesn't already have the focus and receives it for the first time.
When using icon images without text captions, should the icon represent the current state or the next state? For example I have a block of text that I want to minimize / maximize or I want to toggle showing All User Records or just My Records. I'm sure there are compelling arguments for either side and know that consistency is key, but what are the arguments related to good intuitive user design?
There is neither standardization nor general human tendency on this. For example, MS Windows UX Interaction Guidelines specifies four basic kinds of toggling progressive disclosure control. Three out of four show the state-when-activated, while one shows the current state.
I believe if you test a particular approach on your users, you'll get different results depending on what you ask. If you show them a control and ask them what state the app is in, they'll tend to read the icon as if it were indicating the state. If you show them a control and ask them to change the state (where in some cases the state is already changed), they'll read the icon as if it were the state to achieve. It's precisely because of this they invented toggling buttons.
If you're lucky, users use the icon primarily for either reading the state or setting the state, and not both. Then let the icon indicate whatever the users use it for.
If they indeed use it for both reading the state and setting the state, you're basically hosed, but there are a few things you can try to minimize hosehood:
Use text in addition to or instead of an icon. When labeled with a verb (e.g., "Connect"), the control indicates the state the user gets. When labeled with an adjective or noun (e.g., "On Line"), it implies the current state.
If your lib doesn't support toggling icons, then consider using a checkbox control, if that's allowed.
If your lib doesn't support checkboxes, then consider two controls, one to set each state, where the current state is disabled. Not too good for reading the current state, but there's some precedence for this in pulldown menus.
Fiddle with graphic design or placement to make it consistent with the meaning you've chosen. For example:
Command buttons are always labeled with the action they commit, so if your icon indicates the state the user gets, then give the icon a raised appearance like a command button. If the icon indicates the current state, then give it a flat appearance.
Toolbar controls usually show the state they bring about, so put the icon at the top of the window if indicates the state the user gets. In contrast, icons in the "work area" of the window indicate objects or attributes, so icons there should show the current state. Icons at the bottom of the window (in the status bar) should also show the current state.
This has not been truly standardized. Folder icons, for example, show open folders when they are open and closed folders when they are closed. Same for disclosure triangles, etc.
However, in other contexts, this is not always true. In a movie player, the "Play" arrow shows when the movie is not playing, and it shows the pause icon when it is playing. Probably the thing to do is use your best judgment, then poll your users. If a preponderance of the people you test are confused by your icon choices, switch them around. Then test them again and see if your initial test holds up. :)
If you are just going to have one button to toggle between two states, then the button should represent the next state, because that is the action that the button will take when clicked.
You gave the example of text that is minimized/maximized. Think of any expandable tree interface you ever see in Windows. A minimized tree has a [+] next to it, because clicking the button will expand the tree. And a maximized tree has a [-] next to it for the same reason.
You could also try to make a toggle that is highlighted or "pressed down" like mihi says, but that might be more confusing.
I prefer the "next state" approach (click plus to expand, click minus to collapse).
One reason is that this is the most widely used approach, so doing anything else would confuse users (and me as well).
Another reason is that the "next state" approach looks more inviting for the user to click.
May I present Zoom's mute button:
It shows the current state, as an icon, and the action that will occur when you push the button, as text. In other words, the icon on the button is the current state and the label on the button is the new state. The current state and the new state are opposites, so the button appears to contradict itself unless you read it very carefully.
(I hate that button.)
In MFC a double-mouse click event triggers the following sequence of messages
WM_LBUTTONDOWN
WM_LBUTTONUP
WM_LBUTTONDBCLK
WM_LBUTTONUP
So responding to the WM_LBUTTONDBCLK message allows you to detect a double-click. But if I just want to detect a single-click how to I distinguish it?
But just looking at the WM_LBUTTONUP message isn't enough as it could be a single-click or it could be the first click of a double-click.
How can I successfully identify just a single-click?
(Please allow me to call these events Mouse Up and Mouse Down. My MFC is a little rusty. And there's this stuff called .NET who's been messing up my terminology lately ;-)
Short story: You don't simply want to know about Mouse Click. You need more.
Long story:
Although this is counter-intuitive, it appears that simply wanting a mouse-click is fairly uncommon. Most often, you'll want to perform some processing on Mouse Down and do some further processing on Mouse Up. The trick is that simply tracking Mouse Up messages is not enough: Mouse Down may not have happened in your window. Do you consider it a valid click then? Especially considering that the Mouse Down processing (such as selecting an item) did not occur.
Going further up the reasoning, you should not rely on receiving a Mouse Up after you processed Mouse Down: User may have moved the mouse and released the button somewhere else (think drag'n'drop), in which case, you don't receive the MouseUp event... unless you capture the mouse on MouseDown to make sure you get mouse event up to Mouse Up even if the mouse left your window.
All in all, you end up tracking Mouse Down, capture the mouse and when you receive Mouse Up, just check if you own the capture. If not, the mouse was either double-clicked (no 2nd mouse down) or Mouse Down happened somewhere else hence you most likely don't care about this Mouse Up.
In conclusion: There's no MouseClick message simply because you wouldn't go very far with it: You need to handle more messages and implement more mechanics anyway.
Oh! And if your dealing with an existing control which already handles all this items and selection stuff, such as a listview, chances are it provides with a similar custom notification such as Item Activate or Item Selection Changed.
I just tried this in Delphi, the behavior is the same: even when a double click is happening, a single click event is issued right after the first one of the two.
I solved it using a timer, which works like this:
deactivate timer on WM_LBUTTONDBLCLK (and set bDbl to true)
activate timer on WM_LBUTTONUP if bDbl==false
deactivate on WM_LBUTTONUP if bDbl==true (and reset bDbl)
I set the interval of the timer to the time returned by GetDoubleClickTime.
MSDN says:
The GetDoubleClickTime function
retrieves the current double-click
time for the mouse. A double-click is
a series of two clicks of the mouse
button, the second occurring within a
specified time after the first. The
double-click time is the maximum
number of milliseconds that may occur
between the first and second click of
a double-click.
If the timer happens to fire then you have the real click. In my case the double click interval is 500ms, so any "real click" will be delayed this long.
You could check WM_LBUTTONDOWN has not been called more than once before WM_LBUTTONUP. In practice Windows does this for you, in that if you get a WM_LBUTTONDBCLK you tend not to get a WM_LBUTTONUP.
You can use PreTranslateMessage() to count the messages as they appear. If you've received only the mouse messages corresponding to a single-click, and the system-configured time for double-clicking has expired, you can safely assume it's a single-click.
As far as I know there is no way to know that this is the case as it is happening, which makes sense -- until the time is expired, there's no way to know that a second click is or isn't coming.
that's a little tricky.
I would detect the WM_LBUTTONDOWN & WM_LBUTTONUP combo, store that event somewhere and set a timeout for a second or so. If there isn't a WM_LBUTTONDBCLK during that timeout then you have a single click.
This might imply you need to have another thread running but I think you could accomplish it with one thread.
I think the solution is to start a timer after the first click & then check the elapsed time after at the next immediate click, this will tell you if it is a single click or double click.
You typically look at #MLButtonUp and you would not have single click and double click behavior on the same mouse button.