It really is a shame that my e-reader doesn't have an SD slot

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Okay. I see. The font sizes are hard-coded in the ttf (or whatever) file. Amazon would have to redo the font file as well as update the UI. Is that what you mean by the "backend"?



Still, the changes shouldn't effect the stability of the device. It still looks like Amazon can't be bothered to me.

No, "backend" is a term used in software to mean the code that does all of the real work behind the scenes other than the final stage of displaying the output on the screen, though these responsibilities often aren't separated as cleanly as they should be.

I'm a little confused by your position. Many who clearly have experience with software are agreeing with me. You clearly don't have such experience (please excuse me if that sounds rude, it's not my intention), yet you persist on saying it must be trivial.

[eschwartz]

"common-sense software practice of the last thirty years", x9x10^99999999999999999999999
Such a world would be definitive proof that there is indeed a G-d*.


*NOTE: I do believe in G-d, but this sure as heck isn't my proof...

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

"common-sense software practice of the last thirty years", x9x10^99999999999999999999999
Such a world would be definitive proof that there is indeed a G-d.

Yeah. The +4 example I gave above was a hack that could have killed a patient, but Rizla thinks e-reader software is better?

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

"common-sense software practice of the last thirty years", x9x10^99999999999999999999999
Such a world would be definitive proof that there is indeed a G-d.

I've thought the same, and I have counter-examples every day

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Do you actually know that is the case, or are you just assuming it?

There are many feasible implementations which would make it harder to add intermediate sizes. For example, the font selection code could return an enumeration from a fixed set, where the actual numerical values of that enumeration are arbitrary - adding a new value to that set would involve adding code at every place where that enumeration was used. Or, it could return an index into an array of font descriptors, and other code may make assumptions about the size of that array. Or, any of many other ways. Even if it does return a number which maps directly to the numerical size of the font, it could be that the units of that number are such that it doesn't have the resolution to represent intermediate sizes.

I'm not saying it isn't as you describe, just that unless you have actual inside knowledge of the code, you can't assume that it is - there are many other ways of doing it.

/JB

Kobo works that way because when we change the numbers, we also get font sizes with those new numbers. So yes, it does work that way. If you give the a number in the code of the eBook, it works that way. So unless someone says it doesn't work that way, there's no proof it doesn't work that way. Why would it work allowing a number to be passed from the eBook to the system for a font size and not work that way for the font size selection? That's just stupid. Sony Readers starting with the T1 also worked that way as the fixed font sizes in the selector was a number passed to the system for the font size. So why would Amazon do it a much harder way? They would not. But they are too lazy to give more choices.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Kobo works that way because when we change the numbers, we also get font sizes with those new numbers. So yes, it does work that way. If you give the a number in the code of the eBook, it works that way. So unless someone says it doesn't work that way, there's no proof it doesn't work that way. Why would it work allowing a number to be passed from the eBook to the system for a font size and not work that way for the font size selection? That's just stupid. Sony Readers starting with the T1 also worked that way as the fixed font sizes in the selector was a number passed to the system for the font size. So why would Amazon do it a much harder way? They would not. But they are too lazy to give more choices.

Why do you assume that? Have you seen the code? If you haven't, assuming a company does it in a way because other do it is a biiiig assumption I wouldn't like to be part of my initial conditions for development.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by twowheels

No, "backend" is a term used in software to mean the code that does all of the real work behind the scenes other than the final stage of displaying the output on the screen, though these responsibilities often aren't separated as cleanly as they should be.

Into understatement much?

[JSWolf]

delete post

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jbjb

As I said in my answer to JSWolf - do you actually know that, or are you assuming it to be the case? There are many feasible implementations where it's not that simple. Have you seen their code?

/JB

Actually, yes it does work by sending a number to the system. I remember in another thread on MR, someone modified one of the javascript files (I think that was it) and added in more font size choices and/or changed what was there. So if that can be done by changing numbers, then that's how it works by sending the number to the font sizing code.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, yes it does work by sending a number to the system. I remember in another thread on MR, someone modified one of the javascript files (I think that was it) and added in more font size choices and/or changed what was there. So if that can be done by changing numbers, then that's how it works by sending the number to the font sizing code.

Links and stuff?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Links and stuff?

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=189717

I managed to find the thread and yes, it is numbers that get passed to the system to get the font size. So yes, it works as I said it by passing a number to the system to change the font size.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Into understatement much?

OK, you're right.

Most commercial software is a twisted and tangled pile of illogical .

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Shades

I don't know... Apple has a patent for disappearing scroll bars.

Shows what I know. Never heard of disappearing sliders. SOme kind of burger that is really really good?

[crossi]

One issue about wanting to carry your library with you aside from the convenience of having them all available is organization. Yes, in most cases I can redownload any book I want from Amazon but the biggest problem is finding that book. Say I remember a book I read several years ago, I don't remember the title or the author, just a bit of the plot or subject. Slogging through Amazons archive page by page through 4000 or so books hoping to recognize it would be a pain. With reasonable memory and a file system catagorizing books by genre, series, ect it could cut the search down to something reasonable. I've only had my reader a couple years and only have ~1000 books. If I had had one since I was a child I would by now have many thousands. The organization problem is bad now in ten years it will be a real problem. Except for the read once and toss people I suppose. Those sort have no need to keep their books at all once they've read them so since they'd never have a need to use Amazon's unuseable archive it wouldn't be a problem - for them.

[eschwartz]

So... the solution is to load all 45,000 books onto your reader and wait 17 minutes whle it tries to perform a global search on 256 MB of RAM?

I guess I cannot really speak to the issue -- I can remember the subject-title correlations of all the thousands of books I have read, AFAIR.


That is a solution looking for a problem, and the better solution is to just use google. Vague keyword searches work a lot better there.