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

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Exactly. All that is necessary is to add an extra number(s) in the existing font-change UI option. As you say, that number will be passed along to the existing font rendering process. It's all already there. It's nothing.

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

[Demingy]

Originally Posted by Rizla

As you say, personal documents can be "side-loaded" via whispersync. As such, the USB port is only necessary for charging

I was talking about using Calibre and Calibre Companion.

But I wouldn't advocate for the removal of the USB port.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I see what you mean. Amazon has visually "hard-coded" the font sizes choice in the UI. It's an ugly implementation that makes expandability problematic. Amazon would have to alter the UI significantly to add a gradation, or remove one of the other ones. Ick. Poor design, that. Ick. It really is ugly from a design point of view.

Originally Posted by Rizla

You're right about the code. All that is necessary is to add an extra number(s) in the existing font-change UI option. As you say, that number will be passed along to the existing font rendering process.

The problem lies in the lack of space available to insert another AA in the font-choice UI. They could fit an extra one in there, but it would be tight and ugly. Alternatively they could just put a big or small 'A' instead of both. Ick. The whole thing is horrible. They should just change it to an increment and decrement "button." It seems it's too much work for them.

That is certainly one possible reason, another is that as twowheels posited, the sizes are assumed in the backend as well as the UI.

And Amazon would be far from the only people to have a clumsy codebase which lacks flexibility -- it is somewhat of a tradition.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And Amazon would be far from the only people to have a clumsy codebase which lacks flexibility -- it is somewhat of a tradition.

So is griping about stupid design and implementation decisions that harm the user experience.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

So is griping about stupid design and implementation decisions that harm the user experience.

Very true, that.

[disconnected]

If the code is so poorly written that adding font sizes will cause the whole system to collapse then the collapse is probably destined to happen anyway, probably where and when it's least expected and most inconvenient.

I know management, in general, would rather add flashy new features than stabilize what they already have but it usually comes back to bite them.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by disconnected

I know management, in general, would rather add flashy new features than stabilize what they already have but it usually comes back to bite them.

No, usually it comes back to bite you, although you have warned them. Been there, done that.

[disconnected]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

No, usually it comes back to bite you, although you have warned them. Been there, done that.

You're right!

[Rizla]

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

I see no other likely implementation. You send the value to a function. How else could it be done? Please elaborate.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I see no other likely implementation. You send the value to a function. How else could it be done? Please elaborate.

You're assuming:

1. There's a function
2. The calls are localized
3. No need to further changes

There're a lot of ways you can write software, if you don't see another likely implementation you haven't seen a lot of code.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I see no other likely implementation. You send the value to a function. How else could it be done? Please elaborate.

I gave some examples of alternative implementations in post 236 in this thread, and twowheels gave some in posts 232.

/JB

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That is certainly one possible reason, another is that as twowheels posited, the sizes are assumed in the backend as well as the UI.

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.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by twowheels

That's not what I was addressing with my comments, but that said, the previous programmers could have hard-coded assumptions about the sizes all over the place, making changes very difficult indeed. It is possible, and I've seen such bad code before.

Edit:

For example... if they passed around the values as ordinals indicating which one, rather than the actual size, such as "font_size = 3, margin = 1", then adding a new value would be very hard as the code everywhere (and it could be logic that is poorly duplicated in many places) expects the value to be one of 0...9 for font and 0..2 for margin (assuming 10 font sizes and 3 margin sizes -- I don't remember exactly how many there are, I don't look at the dialog very often). Adding intermediate sizes could be very difficult.

Given how the dialog is laid out, and how the original requirements were probably specified to match the current dialog I would not be the least bit surprised if the first developer coded it exactly like that as I've seen many people do that. As a system architect and lead developer, getting developers (even some with many many years of experience) to think of the problem in generic terms that makes for easily extensible programs in the future is something that drives me to near insanity.

Sorry, but I find your text a bit hard to read, which is why I didn't read it thoroughly before. I think what you're saying is the sizes are "effectively" hard-coded in the software rather than being simply passed via a function and therefore being flexible. I appreciate it's not true hard-coding, but I hope you understand what I mean.

I suppose it's possible. I had assumed Amazon would have used the most basic of good practices in their software. It's hardly rocket-science. I find it hard to believe that Amazon would do what you are suggesting. It flies in the face of common-sense software practice that has existed for the last thirty odd years.

Sorry, I can't believe they would do that. Why would they do that? It makes no sense. Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I suppose it's possible. I had assumed Amazon would have used the most basic of good practices in their software. It's hardly rocket-science. I find it hard to believe that Amazon would do what you are suggesting. It flies in the face of common-sense software practice that has existed for the last thirty odd years.

Sorry, I can't believe they would do that. Why would they do that? It makes no sense. Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying.

Assumptions, assumptions.

I've never seen Amazon's code, but I have worked with people who worked at or went to places like Intel, where you'd probably assume the same. I've seen the code written by these people, and have had some bring me their work laptop to ask for help with the code they've been assigned to work on. I don't have to assume, I know it's as bad as I have described.

The Kindle isn't a device requiring their best and brightest, and I doubt it gets a team any different than an average team anywhere else.

As for my post being hard to read, I specialize in elegant software, not prose.

[twowheels]

Note that I'm not saying that's how the Kindle software is.

This started as a conversation about why adding or changing features isn't necessarily as trivial as some have assumed, with a side conversation in one of these threads about extra features potentially decreasing the stability of the software.

This is all speculation based on average software. It is entirely possible that Amazon hired only the best and that the Kindle software is a shining example of perfect software design, if only it weren't a proprietary secret so that we could all see it and be amazed.