Quote:
Originally Posted by jackie_w
@chaley, I'm creating this post primarily FYI rather than expectation of change.[LIST][*]It's quite interesting how widgets/shortcuts can look quite different on different devices, or possibly different screen resolutions. For instance the 2 attached images both show shortcuts from 4 reading apps for the same book:
(Left to right) - CC, Mantano, Moon+, Pocketbook.
1st image - Galaxy Note 3 phone, res 1080x1920
2nd image - Galaxy TabPro 8.4 tablet, res 1600x2560
As you can see, on the Note3, the CC shortcut compares favourably with the other 3 shortcuts. However, on the TabPro, the CC cover image is rather small compared to the other 3.
|
Oh, I love Android.
Apparently there are two values one can obtain: the "icon size" and the "preferred icon size". The "preferred size" can be larger.
In 3.6.3a I handled an icon that was 2.5 x icon_size so that systems could grow it if needed. This broke Lollipop, so in 3.6.3b I limited the icon to "icon_size". Apparently I must choose the larger of preferred size or icon size. Sigh ...
Quote:
[*]Change to Mantano open book
In the last couple of days I've opened a lot of epubs, both from within CC Book Details and from a CC widget/shortcut. I thought I ought to report that when choosing to open via Mantano I've had quite a lot of occurrences of 'Unfortunately, Mantano Reader Premium has stopped'. I don't think the epubs are at fault as I always make sure they are error-free in calibre Editor before transferring to CC. Also a book which fails to open in Mantano may open with no problem after a few attempts. I have a gut-feel that once Mantano has succeeded in opening the book then it is less likely to fail ever after, however I'm not totally sure about this. Perhaps other Mantano users can offer their experiences.
|
The change in CC was to add an extra parameter to the open request, telling Mantano to do something special. This was suggested by another user who did all the heavy lifting to determine what worked.
Are you saying that incidence of failure has changed for the worse? If so, then perhaps I should remove the "fix"?