Calibre Companion 3 beta for Android released

[chaley]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

@chaley,

I'm sorry but I couldn't make anything go wrong on my Samsung Galaxy Note with android 4.0.4 Everything was very speedy, however, I only have 70-ish books on there.

Oh no! It worked! What a catastrophe!

I downloaded a couple of books via the Content Server with no problem. This is not something I would normally use, but it was very intuitive. I noticed the books don't use the same save template filename as send-to-device but perhaps that is nothing to do with CC.

The content server doesn't use save templates. It is up to the client to make up a file name. We can't put calibre's template language into CC, so we used a basic path.

I don't bother with file names, and instead use the "Use Book ID as file name" option. This makes both the content server and the wireless connection use the same file name (the UUID). It also makes syncing reader positions across devices more reliable, at least with Moon+'s sync.

I love the new Grouping drawer! Because I have relatively few books, I especially like that I can choose whether to use First-letter grouping or not. What would be really nice is if there was a toggle (like the Cover/List button) in the top bar to quickly switch this on/off rather than in Settings. This is mainly because, when viewing by Author I like F-L grouping, but as I have very few Tags, the whole list fits on one screen so I don't need F-L groups.

That is a good idea, basically adding the same boolean toggle that is in preferences to the group drawer. Perhaps at the bottom ...

I was able to add a Custom column as a new grouping item. This was the only thing which was not speedy but, as a warning to that effect popped up, I wasn't left wondering if something had gone wrong.

Yea, it takes almost a third of a second to update the db entry for a book, so this can indeed take a while.

Thank you for adding the Cover view. I like that it's only a one-click switch between List and Cover. I tried all 4 cover sizes. It seemed pretty fast to create the various sized thumbnails for me, but with only 70 books that's perhaps what you'd expect.

The number of books in the library doesn't matter. What does matter is the number of covers being displayed.

There's always a 'but', though. My first reaction to the Cover View was "Too much wood, not enough books". I really wanted to close those horizontal gaps I've attached examples of the 4 different sizes with my library. The gaps seem particularly noticable with the 'small' and 'large' sizes. I did read your earlier reply about the difficulties but thought I would include my initial thoughts as Joe Public.

The only way we will be able to fill that space is to play with aspect ratio. The four choices implied by DoctorOhh (below) seem reasonable:
- Square, respect aspect ratio filling largest dimension (what it does today)
- Square, don't respect A/R
- Portrait, respect A/R, fill one dimension
- Portrait, don't respect A/R

According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Standard_s...paperback_book, there are three sizes of paperback books, with A/R ranging from .62 to .65. I might try an experiment using .63.

Finally, nice-to-haves for your future consideration:

• I agree with PatNY that a dark background option would be a nice alternative to the current light wood. Personally, I don't care whether it's wood-effect or not. A plain black background would do for me.
• The Mantano reading app has an option to create shortcuts to individual books on the Home screen. This is very handy as it gives one-click access to your current book(s).
• First-Letter grouping toggle, as mentioned above.

Looking at 1 and 3. I don't understand what #2 is. Are you asking for CC to support home screen shortcuts? Or to generate Mantano shortcuts?

I think this new version is a real step forward and I think I'm now at the stage where I'll use CC for all my library requirements and use the various reading apps only for the actual reading. Thank you for all your efforts

Thanks for the feedback!

[chaley]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

The following is only fodder for future updates.



Three things come to mind.

1. Allow an option to ignore aspect ratio.
2. Allow the option to Limit the width of the covers and keep the aspect ratio. This would mean Square and landscape covers will be shorter than their neighbors.

• The first 2 options should allow, as a possible example, for large covers to have a 3 by 3 grid of covers (would be nice if it expanded to eliminate a partial 4th row).

3. Default, leave it as is.

As I said in my response to Jackie, there are 4 options here:
- Square, respect aspect ratio filling largest dimension (what it does today)
- Square, don't respect A/R
- Portrait, respect A/R, fill one dimension
- Portrait, don't respect A/R

I will look at this.

I am not convinced that expanding vertically is useful. Putting aside technical challenges to get the "right" height, you see partial shelves all the time while scrolling.

I still would like to see on the main list view either the option of changing the font and background colors or an alternate selection of a dark grey background with white fonts, similar to your menu bar.

This is on the list, but we keep pushing it back. Sorry.

[chaley]

It turns out that most covers in my library have an aspect ratio closer to 7/10. Is this true for all of you as well? I am trying to decide the shape of a "portrait" cover.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by chaley

It turns out that most covers in my library have an aspect ratio closer to 7/10. Is this true for all of you as well? I am trying to decide the shape of a "portrait" cover.

All of mine are .75 because I re-sized (wasn't too concerned about AR) them to 600x800 a long time ago, .7 sounds like a fine compromise to me.

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by chaley

- Square, respect aspect ratio filling largest dimension (what it does today)
- Square, don't respect A/R
- Portrait, respect A/R, fill one dimension
- Portrait, don't respect A/R

According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Standard_s...paperback_book, there are three sizes of paperback books, with A/R ranging from .62 to .65. I might try an experiment using .63.

I've just taken a random sample of covers downloaded recently via Google Images. The range .62-.65 is indeed most common. I notice in your post #1 images that many of the covers have what looks like sidebar padding some of them coloured to blend with the main cover portion. Is that, perhaps, why you see the bigger .7 ratio? BTW even though I'm not hung up on maintining aspect ratio, even I would draw the line at distorting all covers to square

I'll be happy with anything you can do to make the covers less sparse

Originally Posted by chaley

Looking at 1 and 3. I don't understand what #2 is. Are you asking for CC to support home screen shortcuts? Or to generate Mantano shortcuts?

The former. Home screen shortcuts to individual books (to CC details page?) would be an option not available in most reading apps -- maybe Mantano is the only one? I'm sure it would be popular with CC users who don't have Mantano.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

I've just taken a random sample of covers downloaded recently via Google Images. The range .62-.65 is indeed most common. I notice in your post #1 images that many of the covers have what looks like sidebar padding some of them coloured to blend with the main cover portion. Is that, perhaps, why you see the bigger .7 ratio?

I only used 600x800 (.75) because once upon a time the cover browser was optimized for 600x800 and having the covers set to this size increased the speed of the app when the cover browser was showing.

Originally Posted by jackie_w

BTW even though I'm not hung up on maintining aspect ratio, even I would draw the line at distorting all covers to square

I agree.

Originally Posted by jackie_w

I'll be happy with anything you can do to make the covers less sparse

......

Originally Posted by jackie_w

The former. Home screen shortcuts to individual books (to CC details page?) would be an option not available in most reading apps

Moon + also shows the last books opened by the app on a shelve on its home page. But since I use CC to launch my books it requires extra work to get back to the home page so I never see this area of Moon +.

In CC the books I'm reading are under the "To Be Read" tag so CC always shows the books I am currently reading when I open it because CC opens to the section I had selected when I last launched a book so I never found this to be an issue.

[chaley]

I have been prototyping some changes to account for feedback. At this point I can't make promises that everything below will be in the release, but there is a good chance that it or something like it will be there.

First, cover size and aspect ratio. There are the four choices mentioned above. Here are screen shots for square w/aspect ratio, square w/no aspect ratio, portrait (7/10) w/aspect ratio, and portrait w/no aspect ratio. Note that one cover is in landscape, and shows the differences most starkly.



Here are the shelf colors/materials I am playing with. First the colored woods, light, medium, and dark. The center image, medium wood, is what is there today.


And the grey woods, light, medium, and dark:

[DoctorOhh]

Excellent start.

Originally Posted by chaley

portrait (7/10) w/aspect ratio

I think this is the best because it give total control of the aspect ratio to the individual. That said I would be happy with either of the portrait solutions since all of my books are already the same size.

Originally Posted by chaley

Here are the shelf colors/materials I am playing with. First the colored woods, light, medium, and dark. The center image, medium wood, is what is there today.

I like the medium wood.

Originally Posted by chaley

And the grey woods, light, medium, and dark

As it sits now I lean toward the darke grey, but I think the dark grey should be classed as medium grey and I vote for a darker grey to be created.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

I think this is the best because it give total control of the aspect ratio to the individual. That said I would be happy with either of the portrait solutions since all of my books are already the same size.

The user will almost certainly have all four choices.

I like the medium wood.

As it sits now I lean toward the dark grey, but I think the dark grey should be classed as medium grey and I vote for a darker grey to be created.

These are guesses I made by coloring the existing wood images. I didn't pay any attention to resolution so the wood is rather pixelated. Our graphics artist person, Annie, will make the final color choices and do the real images for multiple resolutions sometime later this week.

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by chaley

First, cover size and aspect ratio. There are the four choices mentioned above. Here are screen shots for square w/aspect ratio, square w/no aspect ratio, portrait (7/10) w/aspect ratio, and portrait w/no aspect ratio. Note that one cover is in landscape, and shows the differences most starkly.

If users have a choice of all 4 that should keep everyone happy. My personal choice is
1. 0.7 without A/R
2. 0.7 with A/R
I wouldn't ever choose either of the square options

Originally Posted by chaley

Here are the shelf colors/materials I am playing with. First the colored woods, light, medium, and dark. The center image, medium wood, is what is there today.

And the grey woods, light, medium, and dark:

Dark/Med/Lgt personal choice:
1. Dark
2. Medium
I wouldn't pick light in either wood-colour

Grey vs. Brown Wood:
Grey for me but the brown isn't objectionable.

Any kind of user-configurable -- even better

[theducks]

I am a Portrait w/AR fan (I hate visible streach distortion shown in #4)

Cherry wood please to match my other furnishings

[DoctorOhh]

So far it has been functioning great.

Cosmetically I have two things left. I would like the ability (if possible) to hide the grey/white line down the left side, maybe coloring it black would hide it. And the second you are already working toward, it would be great if on large covers the grid can show 3 covers across. Although 2 covers per shelf is growing on me.

This version change looks to be shaping up as an outstanding step forward. Now if only I could give the app a higher rating...

[PatNY]

Charles, thanks for your work on this release and for your very receptive ear.

My 2 cents ...

I like the layouts in this order:

1) Portrait with AR
2) Square with AR
3) Portrait no AR
4) Square no AR (this is the worst!)

I agree with Dr. Ohh that a darker gray shade would be preferable. Perhaps something closer to the shade used for the library shelves in Moon+ or what's already used in the menu bar of CC?

--Pat

[chaley]

Here are my newest greys. The old "dark" is now medium. The new dark is darker than I like, but that is why the other two exist.

I don't know if Annie will agree ...

[chaley]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

Cosmetically I have two things left. I would like the ability (if possible) to hide the grey/white line down the left side, maybe coloring it black would hide it.

That line has seen a lot of controversy in house over the last weeks.

The main problem we face with the drawer is discovery. How does someone know that there is something there that can be opened? Over time we had little handles, big handles, flashing icons, pull tabs, and the like. At some point one of us added a button at the top to make it obvious (and it did), but the button was really ugly. Then Annie had the idea of using text with the animated chevrons, which is much nicer looking. We also added the dialog that appears after opening the group drawer three times, telling you that the buttons can go away.

Perhaps with the chevron buttons we no longer need any visual indication on the left to indicate that "something" (the grouping drawer) is hidden there. The problem could be occasional users who turn off the buttons then forget that the grouping drawer is there and send email asking what we did with it (yes, this will happen). For that reason, removing the line is a decision I will leave to Annie and Steven.