Calibre Companion 3 beta for Android released

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by chaley

There have been so many changes that a new beta release seems wise. We should have the release today or tomorrow. I will send this to all of you who have commented on the first beta.

Sounds great!

[chaley]

@jackie_w (or anyone else, really):

I have an implementation that has a checkbox option in the grouping drawer to turn on/off first letter grouping. It works, but there is a side effect that might not please. When you change the grouping, it must back out of whatever group you are looking and show the top-level list so that it can recompute the values. For example, if you are looking at tags beginning with "T" and then uncheck the checkbox, you will need to tap "Tags" again to see tags then scroll down to "T"s. I haven't found a reliable way to simply change the display and remove/add the first letters.

Is this acceptable?

Standard disclaimer: Steven & Annie haven't weighed in yet, and they might prefer not to have the checkbox.

[Steve_Haley]

Originally Posted by PatNY

The Nook HD and HD+ come with a software back button. Right out of the box. No hacking/mods needed. But thanks for thinking of us!

When DoctorOhh mentioned these devices might not have a back button I wondered if B&N had done something similar to the original Kindle Fire. All Android devices *must* have a back button, but nothing says that back button has to be easily accessible... The Kindle Fire sometimes hid the button hidden inside a very small "show more" button along the bottom of the screen. That caused no end of difficulty when the rest of the user interface is designed with the expectation that that button is easily reached.

Anyway, I'm glad that's not the case with the Nook devices!

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by chaley

@jackie_w (or anyone else, really):

I have an implementation that has a checkbox option in the grouping drawer to turn on/off first letter grouping. It works, but there is a side effect that might not please. When you change the grouping, it must back out of whatever group you are looking and show the top-level list so that it can recompute the values. For example, if you are looking at tags beginning with "T" and then uncheck the checkbox, you will need to tap "Tags" again to see tags then scroll down to "T"s. I haven't found a reliable way to simply change the display and remove/add the first letters.

Is this acceptable?

Standard disclaimer: Steven & Annie haven't weighed in yet, and they might prefer not to have the checkbox.

Anything which gives me extra options is always good

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by chaley

I have an implementation that has a checkbox option in the grouping drawer to turn on/off first letter grouping. It works, but there is a side effect that might not please. When you change the grouping, it must back out of whatever group you are looking and show the top-level list so that it can recompute the values.

...~~~...

Is this acceptable?

I don't know. My gut says no, but until you try something you can't tell.

I would suspect it wouldn't be acceptable to your partners. Moving a configuration looking item like a check box off of the settings page seems inconsistent to me.

On the other hand your new release of the beta looks and acts great.

The switch between the grid and the list always takes the book from the top left corner, of course sometimes it is the book that is only partially on the grid. Well done with that coding.

By your description I thought the dark grey would be too dark, but it looks great as do all of the other choices. Also the decorative line was the right call.

When I first brought the app up and had 4 covers across on large I was surprised. I thought they were a little small, but then I reviewed the settings and changed to Portrait distort and they were back to what I expected. Now onto the updating the FAQ mentioning all these little options.

Well Done All.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

I would suspect it wouldn't be acceptable to your partners. Moving a configuration looking item like a check box off of the settings page seems inconsistent to me.

I stand corrected I didn't even notice the check box so it definitely isn't detracting too much from the consistency of the product and does make one option more discoverable to folks.

My first impression is that I like it and will most likely use it on occasion.

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

When I first brought the app up and had 4 covers across on large I was surprised. I thought they were a little small, but then I reviewed the settings and changed to Portrait distort and they were back to what I expected.

Update: As it turns out (right at this moment in time) I like the Square Box preserve AR best. This shows three books across on my tablet and seems less cluttered to me. Folks can't complain about not having an option that works for them.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

On the other hand your new release of the beta looks and acts great.

Good!

By your description I thought the dark grey would be too dark, but it looks great as do all of the other choices. Also the decorative line was the right call.

I should never try to describe color. I am mildly color blind (have a red/green deficiency) and the devices all show the colors differently.

When I first brought the app up and had 4 covers across on large I was surprised. I thought they were a little small, but then I reviewed the settings and changed to Portrait distort and they were back to what I expected.

I was a bit worried about this. One side effect of changing the AR to .65 is that your .75 covers will appear shorter so that the entire width fits in.

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

I stand corrected I didn't even notice the check box so it definitely isn't detracting too much from the consistency of the product and does make one option more discoverable to folks.

My first impression is that I like it and will most likely use it on occasion.

That was mine as well once I had it coded. It is certainly more convenient than going to preferences.

The right way to do this might have been to make first letter display a field-by-field option. Doing that requires some major surgery, which is why I went for the check box.

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

Update: As it turns out (that right now) I like the Square Box preserve AR best. This shows three books across on my tablet and seems less cluttered to me. Folks can't complain about not having an option that works for them.

That will give you full height with a bit of extra space between the covers (the missing .25), consistent with your description.

I am considering talking to Steven and Annie about making the aspect ratio a preference. Certainly the code doesn't care -- it just wants a number. The hard part is working out how to ask for it. I don't think asking for a ratio such as .65 will work, because then people need to know what a ratio is and how how to compute it. Asking for 2 numbers might be problematic because it raises the questions "what are these numbers and what do they mean"? Perhaps the right way is "skinny (.60), normal (.65), wide (.75), extra wide (.85)" and of course the existing square, adding these to the "portrait/square" list. That would be 10 choices (w/ & w/o distort), which might be overkill. We will see...

[DoctorOhh]

Originally Posted by chaley

That was mine as well once I had it coded. It is certainly more convenient than going to preferences.

I knew it was yours and after reviewing the settings this is really the only setting that can benefit folks by being more assessable.

Originally Posted by chaley

The hard part is working out how to ask for it. I don't think asking for a ratio such as .65 will work, because then people need to know what a ratio is and how how to compute it.

Would likely confuse most folks and lead to a lot of questions.

I decided to test the search function and didn't see it on the menu bar so I looked in the drawer and I saw "Search not active" I thought ok I want to activate it where should I go? Shortly I went back and pressed it and was able to test search fine. Possibly I'm the only one that will be confused but I would suggest "Search - not active" or "Search [not active]" or "Search (not active)" or "Search - not active" etc...

Then again maybe it is just me.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

I decided to test the search function and didn't see it on the menu bar so I looked in the drawer and I saw "Search not active" I thought ok I want to activate it where should I go? Shortly I went back and pressed it and was able to test search fine. Possibly I'm the only one that will be confused but I would suggest "Search - not active" or "Search [not active]" or "Search (not active)" or "Search - not active" etc...

Then again maybe it is just me.

I forgot about that one. We have received emailed questions asking how to activate the search function.

What about leaving it empty and letting the magnifying glass be the indication? Or having it contain simply the word "Search"?

Have you noticed that long-pressing on a category item (such as a tag) will search for that item? This behaves a lot like a virtual library, restricting what you see and what grouping operates upon to the results of the search. And they are fast because we can guarantee that we can search directly in the DB.

This is one reason that I introduced the "virtual_libraries()" template function in calibre (new_db only). The idea is to make a composite column (acts like tags) that calls that function (e.g., {:'virtual_libraries()'} ). The function returns the names of the VLs that the book is in. You would then add that column to CC's grouping, which would allow you to select your calibre virtual libraries in CC with a long-press. We (Kovid and I) did a lot of work to try to optimize the performance of that function in calibre, using caches and the like. It is hard to know if we succeeded.

[DoctorOhh]

Simply having the word search would be fine. While playing with the check box discussed previously I did notice pressing tags etc... did bring up a search, very nice.

[PatNY]

Charles --

Wow, this revision is terrific!

I love the light gray. This is what I had in mind when I mentioned “white washed.” It looks so clean and modern, but the wood grain and shelving prevent it from appearing plain and stark. This or the dark gray will be my default.

Like Dr. Ohh, I am gravitating back to your original layout -- the square/AR layout. It is just cleaner and nicer looking to have a little more visual spacing between the books. So your instincts here were right all along.

One thing that may or may not be a glitch:

When in square/AR layout, I don’t notice any difference in cover size when I switch between large and medium covers. It appears to only show medium even if “Large” is selected. For both large and medium, I get 4 full shelves showing, top to bottom. Whereas in portrait/AR with large covers selected, only 3.5 rows show. Is this by design for the square/AR layout? If so, no biggie, as I think I might stick to medium covers in this layout anyway.

Perhaps the right way is "skinny (.60), normal (.65), wide (.75), extra wide (.85)"

I find the current options sufficient enough, but if you offered this additional tweaking, I would likely use it. You might want to use the word “thin” or “narrow” instead for the .60 ratio.

Thanks to you, Steve and Annie for all the great enhancements!

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Steve_Haley

Anyway, I'm glad that's not the case with the Nook devices!

On the HD/HD+, the software back button appears anytime you are in an app, and it’s easy to see – a small white arrow on the bottom black menu bar. It’s possible the first firmware version of the Nook HD/HD+ released last Fall -- before Google Play was added this Spring – may not have had it. But it’s always been there on mine.

--Pat

[chaley]

Originally Posted by PatNY

One thing that may or may not be a glitch:

When in square/AR layout, I don’t notice any difference in cover size when I switch between large and medium covers. It appears to only show medium even if “Large” is selected. For both large and medium, I get 4 full shelves showing, top to bottom. Whereas in portrait/AR with large covers selected, only 3.5 rows show. Is this by design for the square/AR layout? If so, no biggie, as I think I might stick to medium covers in this layout anyway.

This is caused by my "fudge factor" to squeeze books if another cover can fit by adding 1/2 a cover. That factor is too large, causing the large covers to get "squeezed" down to medium. I have changed the factor to 1/5th a cover, meaning that if 4/5ths a cover amount of empty space is already there we will "squeeze", and I now see the differences in sizes.

I find the current options sufficient enough, but if you offered this additional tweaking, I would likely use it. You might want to use the word “thin” or “narrow” instead for the .60 ratio.

I suspect that fewer options is better. I might want 2 portrait sizes, but probably not 4 as I was proposing. That way we would have "normal", "wide", and "square". I will discuss this with Steven & Annie once things settle.

[jackie_w]

@chaley,

I'm thrilled with the new beta!

Cover View: The Cover view Portrait 65% ratio setting is perfect for me - more books & less background. Even when I choose 'Portrait distort' the actual distortion appears negligible (for my covers), plus it has the added benefit of all thumbnails being a uniform size. BTW a small suggestion, the word 'distort' sounds a bit negative, perhaps 'stretch' or 'stretch-to-fit' sounds less of a bad thing (of course many believe it is A Very Bad Thing ) If you do add a 3rd option perhaps 75% would be good for those, like DoctorOhh, who have taken a lot of time over the years to make covers look good for their 3:4 ereaders.

The choice of wood colours is great. I'll pick the dark grey for myself but there should be something for everyone there.

Keeping place when switching between Cover and List works as well as I will ever need.

First Letter grouping: I like it! I'm glad you sceptics have seen the light Customising for each group field would be perfect but I think the 80/20 rule probably applies here.

One thing I did notice is that if you choose 'Title' it always groups by FL no matter whether the box is ticked or not. But perhaps this is deliberate?

Thanks to all for your service with a smile. Luckily we can't see the gritted teeth each time one of us says 'I've had this really great idea...'