[Faterson]

Originally Posted by JBaby

I don't care about highlight, annotations, or bookmarks. I read strictly for pleasure.

Congrats. I also earn my living with (proof)reading (and annotating).

Originally Posted by democrite

Highlights and annotation are incredibly useful for research and non-fiction.

Not just non-fiction. I annotate fiction every bit as much as non-fiction.

Originally Posted by cocolinlin

I can't find the way to make visible (in the menu popping when you tap and hold on a word) the custom commands buttons.

Ditto here. It now takes 2 taps to access the custom commands instead of one tap. But Kris has said he'd bring back the one-tap access, so that's great.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, obviously anything is "possible", given enough man-hours of programming.

Please don't make mountains out of molehills. I'm pretty sure this is a trivial fix, if only Kris could be persuaded to implement it. He just doesn't like the idea, that's all – and for some reason unfathomable to me, Kris prefers the current crude mode of operation: sorting authors by their first names, even when the user explicitly selects the opposite option in Marvin settings.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I don't recall him saying it is impossible, ISTR he said it wasn't going to happen, "for technical reasons".

And I maintain that no such "technical reasons" exist. Or if they do, please state some specific examples. The scenarios analyzed earlier in this thread are no "technical reasons" for not implementing the fix. They are quite natural scenarios that would occur as a result of incorrect meta-tags in the Library. What could be more natural? Marvin 2 could sort authors reasonably, Stanza could sort authors reasonably, Calibre can sort authors reasonably – but Marvin 3 as the only e-reader will insist that the crude sorting of authors by their first names is the only possible option "for technical reasons"? Sorry, but that's preposterous.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And once again, @kguil might simply disagree with you about which is the superior UI.

Absolutely. If Kris insists on making Marvin 3 dumber than Marvin 2, that would be his choice – though an extremely unfortunate one, wouldn't you say? There's enough dumb software on this planet – why multiply it? Apple's philosophy is to make their software as low-IQ as they can possibly get away with. Why compete with Apple in this race to the bottom?

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The best solution is simply not practical.

I disagree – it's extremely hands-on and practical. When you see multiple listings for a single author in the comprehensive authors listing in your Library, this is a very practical alert for you to fix your meta-tags. What more could anyone wish for? Do you really believe that a user would prefer to see authors sorted according to their first names instead, even though he/she checked the "sort by last names" preference in Marvin settings?

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Can I assume you have backed down from that position

Nope, sorry. (Please see above for the explanation.)

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Also, FWIW, my ideal solution involves assuming regular English-style FN [MN] LN and sorting by the last word in the name. But I am noted for my US-centrist views on everything...

Nope, that wouldn't work at all. Many authors have several last names, and many books have several authors.

Why would you wish to re-invent the wheel, eschwartz? Everything Marvin 3 needs to produce reasonable authors sorting already is available in Marvin 3: namely, the (unfortunately labelled) "author sort" meta-tag field. That is all that is needed. The unacceptable flaw in Marvin 3 is that despite Marvin 3 having such a meta-tag field, it chooses to ignore the data entered in that field in the comprehensive authors listing. And that's a big no-no, as I believe even you admitted.

And I must say it again: Marvin has always misused that "author sort" field, even in Marvin 1 and Marvin 2, because (I apologize to Kris) I believe Kris has misunderstood the field's true purpose all along, ever since Marvin was born. But, in Marvin 1 and Marvin 2, we could at least get around that misunderstanding on the part of the software developer, due to there being (absurdly), in Marvin 1 and Marvin 2, two sets of author sortings, titled (absurdly) "Author..." and "Author sort...". Please believe me, eschwartz, that I was alerting Kris to this anomaly 4 years ago, 3 years ago, and 2 years ago... to no avail. Kris is, overall, an extremely responsive and forthcoming developer, and a very nice guy to talk to, but in certain matters, when he sets his mind on something, he can be (my apologies to Kris again) phenomenally muleheaded, and he just won't budge a milimeter, and that's too bad. But, I'm not giving up hope. We may yet see the light one day, especially collectively. So, now Kris believes he has improved authors sorting in Marvin 3, thanks to removing those double menu items for authors sorting (which truly never were necessary) – but in reality, authors sorting is now in an even worse state in Marvin 3 than it ever was in Marvin 1 or Marvin 2.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And I still don't have any way of knowing whether that comes with performance penalties that @kguil deems not worth it.

Well, all I know is that the fix I'm proposing does not come with any performance penalties whatsoever – because it's a trivial fix, fully logical and reasonable, and because I simply wish for Marvin 3 to work like Marvin 2 and Marvin 1 in terms of authors sorting: allowing us to sort authors either by their last names, or by their first names – whichever option the Marvin user prefers. And this is perfectly possible even with the current menu options in Marvin 3 – if only Kris finally agreed to put the meta-tag fields, primarily that (unfortunately labeled) "author sort" field, to their proper use!