Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
The best page numbers are ADE style page numbers.
|
Definitely not. To me, they are only slightly less silly than Marvin's current pseudo-"page" scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Without them, Marvin is really really annoying to use.
|
I agree that Marvin 3 is
very annoying to use due to all the fake page-counts, but switching to
another type of fake page-counts (ADE) would not make it any less annoying, to me.
I think we agreed in one of the previous threads, Jon, that the proper solution for this issue is
not to enforce a
single solution for
all Marvin users.
That is the hallmark of execrable software, exemplified by Apple and the other corporations. Marvin aspires higher – I really hope so.
The proper solution for this page-count issue, Jon (I believe we've agreed on that), is to give each Marvin user the
choice of whichever page-count method he or she prefers: you would select the ADE method, I would select the pages=screens method (so that "pages in chapter" and "pages in book" in Marivn is, at long last,
consistent), and other Marvin users might stick with Marvin's current default scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Trying to go from a book you were reading with Marvin to read on my H2O using ADE, it's hard to do.
|
No wonder, but I believe
pages shouldn't ever be used for this purpose. Instead, I propose "percentage into the text" (using the 4-digit 72.48% format) as a cross-platform metric to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle91
multiple arguments about the page number issue in multiple other threads....please don't bring it to yet another one...
|
That is exactly why I've been maintaining that these MobileRead forums, much as they're nice for chatting with like-minded folks, are
not a professional environment to discuss complicated software issues such as e-book page-counts.
I agree: discussing the same issue in multiple threads is abominable, and can never be productive. That is why I've been patiently waiting for Kris to give us the "all clear" signal, so that we can once again start using
Marvin's GitHub to discuss Marvin issues in a serious manner. After all, the main organizing principle of GitHub is the crucial one you're demanding here:
a single thread per software issue. That is the way to go about resolving software issues in a
serious manner – not this MobileRead chit-chat. In Marvin's GitHub, a dedicated
single thread can be set up for discussing all page-count issues, proposals, user requests and concepts, and all future discussions of Marvin page-counts can be referred to that single thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
I'll be happy to take the lead for the "down with all pagenumbers" side, if you cannot find anyone else.  |
Such a nonsense lead is not needed, if you ask me.
I find page numbers are
essential in
all books – printed and electronic. But it will
never happen for
all Marvin users to agree on a
single page-count scheme/calculation method to oblige
all Marvin users' expectations. That is why Marvin definitely should give us a choice of the page-count method we prefer. It's as simple as that.
(Conceptually, that is; I realize it will not be quite as trivial for Kris to implement multiple page-count methods, so I'll just be waiting patiently for that fine day when they finally are made available in Marvin.)