Marvin page numbering and images

[Faterson]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Using the @Faterson definition of a page does not make it any less subjective than using the @eschwartz definition.

Not true. There is nothing "subjective" about flipping a page and seeing the page-count go up or down by exactly 1 every time, regardless of your screen size or layout settings. That is 0% subjective, and 100% objective.

Also, an e-book does not "change page numbering all by itself". Never. It can only do so if the user initiates that, by changing his or her layout settings – so that it then does not really occur "by itself". Changing layout settings in an e-book amounts to a reprinting of a traditional book – and there is no obligation for reprintings to follow the page numberings of previous editions.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It has a tremendous amount of legacy baggage associated with the term.

I don't see any baggage. If there is any baggage, it's being artificially added by folks suffering under the delusion discussed earlier – that pages in electronic books can be in any way useful for cross-referencing text locations between various layout settings, reading devices, e-reader apps, or platforms. It simply needs to be explained to all such folks that this cannot be accomplished, and that's it. Just as pages are useless for cross-reference purposes in printed books unless everyone uses the exact same printed edition, they are equally useless in electronic books. There's no mystery there – move along, please. The only thing pages are good for in electronic books is the same thing that they are good for in printed books: they give you an idea as to where you are inside the book as you're reading through it.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Having seen more than enough cases of people actually expecting ebook pseudorandom-calculated "pages" to be useful reference indicators

E-books are a relatively recent phenomenon; most people on this planet don't have a clue what an e-book is. And many of those who are convinced they know what e-books are, don't have a clue either. (They consider PDF files to be e-books, for example.)

So, we just need to be patient. Enlightenment doesn't come easily or overnight. It simply needs to be explained, patiently, over and over again, that pages are useless for cross-referencing purposes in e-books. After everyone gets that, pages in e-books can finally be what they truly are – pages. No more – no cross-referencing aid.

(For cross-referencing purposes in e-books, I tirelessly promote the entirely new metric of percentage-into-text, with 2 decimals, based on word count. That is a cross-layout, cross-device, cross-platform metric, and far more precise than pages in printed books ever were. Although it can't be a 100% precise metric, either, of course. Once people understand that the percentage indicator is far more useful for cross-referencing purposes than pages ever were or ever can be, then people can finally let pages be what they are – just pages on the current reading device using its current layout settings, with no usefulness whatsoever for cross-referencing purposes.)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Faterson

Not true. There is nothing "subjective" about flipping a page and seeing the page-count go up or down by exactly 1 every time, regardless of your screen size or layout settings. That is 0% subjective, and 100% objective.

Well, except for the part where it is subjectively your opinion that a page should be exactly 1 per user-defined screenful of text.

I still don't understand what you find valuable about that sort of metric, given how arbitrary it is, in comparison to all the other arbitrary metrics out there, but I don't suppose I will get a good explanation any time soon anyway.

Also, an e-book does not "change page numbering all by itself". Never. It can only do so if the user initiates that, by changing his or her layout settings – so that it then does not really occur "by itself". Changing layout settings in an e-book amounts to a reprinting of a traditional book – and there is no obligation for reprintings to follow the page numberings of previous editions.

Sure, in the thinnest, most narrow-minded view of things.

But given that an ebook is fundamentally designed for reflowability, I would argue that changing the layout settings is an intrinsic part of the book.
An intrinsic part of the book that then causes the page numbering to change is pretty "all by itself" in my mind.

I don't see any baggage. If there is any baggage, it's being artificially added by folks suffering under the delusion discussed earlier – that pages in electronic books can be in any way useful for cross-referencing text locations between various layout settings, reading devices, e-reader apps, or platforms. It simply needs to be explained to all such folks that this cannot be accomplished, and that's it. Just as pages are useless for cross-reference purposes in printed books unless everyone uses the exact same printed edition, they are equally useless in electronic books. There's no mystery there – move along, please. The only thing pages are good for in electronic books is the same thing that they are good for in printed books: they give you an idea as to where you are inside the book as you're reading through it.

Wait, are you arguing that the only thing page numbers in printed books are good for also, is to give you an idea as to where you are in it?

Regardless, the baggage is there, I've seen a lot of it in many people, and if you actually believe that you can simply explain it to them and they will snap out of their "delusion", then you are a bigger fool than I think. Because people really aren't that fixable.

E-books are a relatively recent phenomenon; most people on this planet don't have a clue what an e-book is. And many of those who are convinced they know what e-books are, don't have a clue either. (They consider PDF files to be e-books, for example.)

Um, well, yeah. Because PDF is an ebook format, on account of they can contain the contents of a book and they are electronic.

It isn't a very good format, mind you. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, merely that it shouldn't exist.

So, we just need to be patient. Enlightenment doesn't come easily or overnight. It simply needs to be explained, patiently, over and over again, that pages are useless for cross-referencing purposes in e-books. After everyone gets that, pages in e-books can finally be what they truly are – pages. No more – no cross-referencing aid.

Get back to me when you've succeeded convincing them. And I will freely agree to call your arbitrary reference locators "pages".

(For cross-referencing purposes in e-books, I tirelessly promote the entirely new metric of percentage-into-text, with 2 decimals, based on word count. That is a cross-layout, cross-device, cross-platform metric, and far more precise than pages in printed books ever were. Although it can't be a 100% precise metric, either, of course. Once people understand that the percentage indicator is far more useful for cross-referencing purposes than pages ever were or ever can be, then people can finally let pages be what they are – just pages on the current reading device using its current layout settings, with no usefulness whatsoever for cross-referencing purposes.)

There are actually some nice standards for specifying location in a very fine-grained manner which is vastly superior to your proposal. e.g. http://www.idpf.org/epub/linking/cfi/epub-cfi.html

The only problem is that no one actually uses it.
So why would they be any more likely to use your percentage-into-text metric?

[Turtle91]

[eschwartz]

I live to entertain.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, except for the part where it is subjectively your opinion that a page should be exactly 1 per user-defined screenful of text.

I still don't understand what you find valuable about that sort of metric, given how arbitrary it is, in comparison to all the other arbitrary metrics out there, but I don't suppose I will get a good explanation any time soon anyway.

I happen to like knowing how many 'page' turns particular book or chapter will have (how many times will I be paging forward?). At this point it also gives me a fairly good idea of length as I've been using the same device for some time.

I haven't spent enough time with other clearly defined 'pages' so I can't say the same for them. Pages based on paper editions are annoying when I don't know the size of the paper edition in question.

Going back to Marvin, it would be nice to have a clear distinction between types of 'page' counts.

[Faterson]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I live to entertain.

Keep your day job, because you fail miserably in that regard.

Originally Posted by ekbell

I happen to like knowing how many 'page' turns particular book or chapter will have (how many times will I be paging forward?).

Of course – that's the common-sense, everyday reader's use of pages, not for the outlandish, geeky purpose of cross-referencing them to other layout settings, devices, apps, or platforms. But don't you dare use common sense here in MobileRead forums – it's the geeks' playground here, scratching each other's backs, and common sense is decidedly frowned upon here.

Originally Posted by ekbell

it would be nice to have a clear distinction between types of 'page' counts.

Exactly. I have nothing against the current pseudo-"page" count method in Marvin, as long as it's not the only one, because if it's the only available page-count option, it constitutes an in-your-face internal conflict within Marvin itself, in that it calls pages in chapters and pages in books the same thing, but calculates them in radically different manners, on the same reading device, using the same layout settings, within a single footer (!) on the same screen. Really, what could be more glaringly unacceptable, from the point of view of software consistency?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Faterson

Keep your day job, because you fail miserably in that regard.

If that is all you have to say to my last two posts...

But I beg you to keep in mind this thing called a "joke".

Of course – that's the common-sense, everyday reader's use of pages, not for the outlandish, geeky purpose of cross-referencing them to other layout settings, devices, apps, or platforms. But don't you dare use common sense here in MobileRead forums – it's the geeks' playground here, scratching each other's backs, and common sense is decidedly frowned upon here.

Nothing outlandish or geeky about it. You have completely misunderstood my position it seems.

"Pages" are inconsistent enough that I want to see them disappear entirely. And for cross-reference purposes, there are better ways introduced by the electronic age (cf. EPUB CFI).
Those new methods also provide ways to reference your current location in a standards-based manner which can be (but unfortunately isn't) implemented in any reading system.
With hyperlinks!

I will grudgingly admit that for the purpose of legacy compatibility with pre-existing paper-based cross-referencing instances, a Real Page Numbers mapping possesses some use, and therefore we might as well standardize on that as much as any other legacy "pages" concept.

Exactly. I have nothing against the current pseudo-"page" count method in Marvin, as long as it's not the only one, because if it's the only available page-count option, it constitutes an in-your-face internal conflict within Marvin itself, in that it calls pages in chapters and pages in books the same thing, but calculates them in radically different manners, on the same reading device, using the same layout settings, within a single footer (!) on the same screen. Really, what could be more glaringly unacceptable, from the point of view of software consistency?

I happen to agree that Marvin should consistently call the same thing the same thing.

But you seem to spend more of your time arguing about other aspects of your "pages" crusade.

[Faterson]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I happen to agree that Marvin should consistently call the same thing the same thing.

Hooray!

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But you seem to spend more of your time arguing about other aspects of your "pages" crusade.

The essential thing is for Marvin to allow us to treat "pages in book" in the same way that Marvin has always treated "pages in chapter", for 5 years running: screen flip = page turn. That's the only thing that matters in this regard, and everything else is unimportant.

If, in addition to giving us this natural page-count option, that is consistent with how Marvin has always calculated pages in chapters, Marvin also introduces 1000+1 fully arbitrary, abstract, alternative "page" schemes such as the current one, or Jon's beloved ADE "pages", etc. etc., I wouldn't mind that at all. I'd simply ignore those abstract "page"-count options, in all likelihood. But before you give us any of those arbitrary schemes, please first give us the natural page-count option, the one that's consistent with how Marvin has always calculated pages in chapters, for 5 years running.

[eschwartz]

Or else modify "pages in chapter" to act like "pages in book" now does.

Consistency can go either way.

[Faterson]

Of course: you can make a half-dysfunctional feature fully dysfunctional, or fully functional. The latter course of action is doubtlessly preferable.

But most of all: these options are not mutually exclusive. Even Jon, the greatest Adobe lover the universe has ever seen, admitted he wouldn't mind if Marvin gave its users several page-count options to choose from. So, what's the big deal? All the current turmoil stems from the fact that one particular "pages in book"-count option is currently being enforced for all Marvin users – and, it also happens to be internally inconsistent and causing conflict with how Marvin has, for years, treated page-counts since version 1.

Give us both (or 3, 4, 5...) page-count options to choose from for both "pages in chapter" and "pages in book", and everyone will be happy.

[eschwartz]

I'm sure they will be. And from a technical perspective, choice is always awesome.

But I still think page numbers are a bad idea.
And I still think that this thread has been dragged to an inspiring degree.

And I notice you are still skipping large parts of my post -- can I take it you no longer find that topic interesting?
(I don't mind, it's not like we were bringing anything new to the table, plus I even technically got the last word so I get Internet Points or something...)

[Faterson]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But I still think page numbers are a bad idea.

Because you're a geek. (And I don't mean that in a bad way – I'm a geek myself. But I like to think of myself as "geek with common sense", which is likely an oxymoron.)

But ask any non-geek reader of books if pages are superfluous while reading books. Oh no, sir! They'd think you're crazy to even ask a question like that, and rightly so. Why has there been so much backlash against Kindle's abstract "locations"? No doubt, it's largely because non-geek book lovers just love page numbers – they love them so much they're even willing to swallow Amazon's current sorry excuse for "page" numbers (cross-referencing e-book page-numbers to an arbitrarily chosen printed edition – what could be more irrelevant in the digital, e-book age?).

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And I notice you are still skipping large parts of my post -- can I take it you no longer find that topic interesting?

No – it's because I'm an extremely busy person, and I have not a minute to spare to talk about non-essential things. In my post #38 above, I've just explained what I find to be essential in this discussion, and that everything else is unimportant. I apologize I lack the time to debate non-essential ramifications of this debate. If you, for starters, send $100 to my PayPal account, hiring me to chat with you about irrelevant things, I'm willing to consider that option. I might kick one of my clients in the ass and chat with you instead. But as it is, the day only has 24 hours, unfortunately, so I apologize again.

[mattcurtis]

[Faterson]

Yeah... that appears to be the optimal mode of interaction with the MobileRead forums... or with the Internet at large... or with the human race.

You, Matt, opted for ADE pages as the (only) page-count option in your Hyphen e-reader, and while I disagree, it's definitely a superior solution compared to Marvin's totally random invention of "250-word 'pages'". Conversely, Marvin's footers, and especially their newly added (though still incomplete) footer customization options are clearly ahead of Hyphen's footers. Generally, I love seeing the "XXX pages left" data rather than "I'm on page XXX", so I'd like to see that display option in Hyphen; as well as the ability to have (optionally) 1 or 2 decimals displayed for the "percentage read" indicator.

(with apologies)

While you're here, Matt, it's definitely nice to see yet another e-reader clearly inspired by Stanza and/or Marvin. My compliments. Hyphen still has some catching up to do before it reaches at least Marvin's level, but it seems to be on the right path. Now, I've only briefly tested Hyphen for now, and perhaps it's due to that being a free version, but some things didn't seem to be working right. The only book I could open was Moby-Dick, but reducing paragraph spacing in this particular e-book appears to be impossible. It's possible to make a highlight, but it's unclear how to change the highlight color, or in fact how to add an annotation to the highlight, other than by accessing it via the highlights list (a terrible runaround). On the plus side, Hyphen offers 8 highlight colors as opposed to Marvin's 6 colors. In terms of annotations export, Hyphen is only slightly less glitchy than Marvin: unlike Marvin, Hyphen does preserve paragraph breaks from the original highlight when exporting, but just like Marvin, Hyphen fails to preserve basic formatting (such as italics or bold) inside the highlight, and just like Marvin, Hyphen fails to preserve line-breaks in user annotations. There – that's a single-paragraph mini-review of Hyphen first impressions for ya.

[mattcurtis]

I replied to you over here on Hyphen's thread, Faterson, so as not to derail Marvin's.

On topic, though:

Reading this thread has been enlightening. The best form of page counting within eBooks is more highly contested than I thought, apparently

So far I've primarily seen two different aspects, or purposes, of page counting advocated for:

1. Page numbers that match to the number of screens left, for purposes of knowing how many screens remain before the end of the book end/chapter/section.
2. Page numbers that serve to act as approximate references to places in the text, which alternative page counting solutions (such as ADE pages or Marvin's current system) attempt to address this.

What sucks is that you can't have both, in the sense that there isn't (yet!) any digital page numbering system that accurately relates both the remaining screens and gives you a page number that can be used to get to roughly the same place in text.

The nature of eBooks forbids this, as they are subject to any number of variables, from how the rendering system displays and formats them, the size screen they're displayed on, any preferences of the user, any preferences of the publisher (some publishers even choose to have different font sizes and other things depending on screen size! ) to device orientation. eBooks are often fluid, responsive things (and have to be, since they don't control the specifications of their medium) and because of this they tend to defy things like page numbering systems.

Due to all of this, in my opinion one page numbering system isn't really better than the other. I like to use ADE pages as they're static and can serve as references, but can also absolutely see how others would prefer to use screens as their digital literary distance metric (and I occasionally switch to them, too).

What I really would want to know, is if a poll were created based on the two aspects I mentioned above, which would win (in other words, which do most people value more highly?)