From: Ellen K. 

If it were me, I would put the output of what I was tracking in a tiny (=
height of one line of text) window and put that at the top or bottom of my
screen.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:22:51 +1200, dmhills{at}attglobal.net (Don Hills) wrote
in message :

>In article , "Rich"  wrote:
>>   I don't see what you describe as intuitive.  I'm accustomed to
>>translucent windows that are translucent so you can see both the content
>>of the translucent window and of the underlying window.  When you mouse
>>over them the window becomes opaque.  Even without becoming opaque, your
>>light metaphor is not one I would expect.  When I click on a real glass
>>window I expect to act on it even though I can see through it.  Don't
>>you?
>
>No. To me, a translucent window is a ghost. It isn't really there.
>If it became solid when I moused over it or clicked on any area within it,
>it would severly impact my use of the windows behind it. I could accept the
>borders being always clickable as a means of giving focus, and any part of
>the window on the base desktop (not overlaying another window). To me, this
>would provide the closest UI to the way "standard" windows work.
>
>I'm assuming that one would be monitoring the translucent window while
>working on a solid one. Does anyone think that the opposite would be more
>intuitive - monitor the solid window(s) while working in the translucent
>one?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5