https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=491037
--- Comment #5 from Nate Graham <n...@kde.org> --- Thanks. I've left a comment at https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/pull/2690/files#r1707724506, to correct the record about something that wasn't quite accurate there. Ultimately the problem here is that apps offering a rich UX for things covered by the portal system aren't well-supported by it. Spectacle is only one example; another one is OBS, which expects to have total control over every aspect of screen recording, and to not have to ask permission for every single thing you use it for one at a time. The portal API simply wasn't designed with apps like these in mind. Instead it was designed for apps with a more minimal UI, where the thing you use it for is to take *some* kind of screen or record *some* kind of screen activity, and then the portal UI is used to let you negotiate the specifics. For apps where you choose the specifics in the app itself, this doesn't make sense, and ruins their UX — leading to bug reports, negative reviews, public complaints, etc. This is why you see both KDE and GNOME figuring out their own way to bypass these restrictions. In our case, opening a screenshot backdoor for Spectacle. In their case, adding a dialog to whitelist whole apps that want to take screenshots. These developments indicate fundamental flaws in the design of the portal API, IMO. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
