Quote:
Originally Posted by kguil
@wellesradio The fact that M2 highlights can only be imported as free-form journal entries in M3 is described as a limitation in the Marvin Classic import screen (the screen you used to import M2's backup). M3's highlighting system is considerably more robust than M2's but isn't backwards compatible. Unfortunately, it is a design requirement and not a glitch.
|
I'm pretty sure wellesradio was not talking just about backwards compatibility, but also – and perhaps primarily – about the inability, as such, to go from the annotations list in the journal to the original book locations. Wellesradio and I aren't the only ones who have spotted this and pointed it out to you, which I really find to be a very grave functionality gap in Marvin 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kguil
Just to clarify certain misconceptions being promoted here regarding Marvin's beta testing... [...] its purpose is to identify defects (crashing, unintended behaviour, etc...) and not as a place to make feature requests.
|
Talk about misconceptions, Kris. Who said Beta-testing was to be about "feature requests"? But when you introduce brand-new features to Marvin, such as the Journal in Marvin 3, then Beta-testing is definitely the place to get feedback on the new features before they are released to the public at large, right? And yes, even using your definition of Beta-testing, I consider the current Journal in Marvin 3 to be
defective. I literally have
zero use for the Journal in Marvin 3, other than I'm required to open it whenever I wish to
export annotations, but the Journal as such is of no use for me because it's just unpalatable to be unable to tap an annotation and go back to the original location/context inside the book. I'm stunned how Marvin 3 could have been designed that way, and to me, rectifying the current situation would be the
removal of a show-stopping defect, and it's
not a "feature request" by any means.
But why split hairs over this? The point is, when Beta-testers are allowed to provide
collective feedback, or at least to discuss things together before getting back to you, the results of the Beta-testing process are likely to be more beneficial for all sides. It's your call, Kris, of course – I'm simply providing my feedback as a Beta-tester, that I'm seeing a significant drop in quality of the Beta-testing process in Marvin 3, compared to Marvin 2 and Marvin 1. If you yourself are happier today than previously, then good for you, I guess – but that doesn't mean that the
product will also be better.
