[nookLibrary] Coverflow: suggestions for improvement

[GoogleCodeExporter]

1. The Coverflow is a bit bumpy, it isn't really smooth. I think it's due to 
the fact, that the eInk screen is refreshed instantaneous. There should not be 
any refresh on the eInk screen, until the movement on the LCD screen is  
stopped (with a short delay of 0.2 seconds or something).

2. The active cover (the large one) isn't in the middle of the screen. This is 
really ugly, as the middle of the screen is clearly recognised because of the 
home button (n).

3. The covers are way to small and the margin between the covers is to big. In 
my opinion the covers should use nearly the complete height of the LCD (with 
black background).

4. The border around the covers should be smaller, to gain space and to make it 
more elegant. A 1px border, like in the B&N Coverflow (attached), is a good call

Original issue reported on code.google.com by dominik....@googlemail.com on 1 Sep 2010 at 12:51

Attachments:

• bn_coverflow.jpg

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is not a priority for me now.
If you are interested, send me the changes and I'll update the package. 

Original comment by hari.swa...@gmail.com on 1 Sep 2010 at 2:11

• Added labels: Priority-Low
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium

[GoogleCodeExporter]

never mind. I already got the code from james to make the cover flow look more 
like B&N. I'll merge it in the next build. It probably won't cover all your 
issues. But this is the best we can do right now :)

Original comment by hari.swa...@gmail.com on 1 Sep 2010 at 10:56

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

cover flow modified in version 1.3

Original comment by hari.swa...@gmail.com on 16 Sep 2010 at 9:04

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thank you, I like it! Still bumpy due to refreshing the eInk display, but the 
other aspects are fine. Good on you! 

Original comment by dominik....@googlemail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 12:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Speaking of which...  Hari, do you have any idea why the active cover in cover 
flow looks worse (more pixelated) than when shown by the reader?  This is true 
at least for me with covers pre-scaled to a height of 144 pixels (but I think 
the same is true for larger icons).  To put it more clearly, the "active cover" 
is the one shown enlarged, i.e., with a height of 144 pixels.  I'd expect that 
not to undergo any scaling if it already is 144 pixels (and to not look as bad 
as it does if scaled down from a larger size), so it should be on par 
quality-wise with the one displayed by the B&N Reader app.

Original comment by mgoetze2...@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 12:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

eink is refreshed only when the scrolling stops, just like in the stock 
library. 
the main difference is B&N is using their own gallery class and I'm using the 
android one.

Original comment by hari.swa...@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 1:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

the image quality could be due to some of the parameters set in the gallery 
class. 
Also, to avoid extra calculations, I'm using the smaller icon as the base and 
resizing the selected one each time to 144 pixels. Could be due to that as 
well. 
Just have to play around with the CustomGallery & ImageAdapter classes and see 
which looks better.

Original comment by hari.swa...@gmail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 1:26

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That's strange. On my unit the eink is refreshed immediately. Even if I tap on 
the cover leftmost or rightmost, so it comes to the foreground, skipping the 
cover between, you can see this cover (the one in between) getting highlighted 
on the eink screen. Just took a video clip, to make it more clearly.

Couldn' test B&N gallery cause I don't have any B&N books anymore...

Just tried with a second nook: the same thing.

I've noticed on both units: tapping on the leftmost/rightmost cover sometimes 
(1 out of 100 attempts) skips highlighting the cover in between

Original comment by dominik....@googlemail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 2:02

Attachments:

• 1.mp4

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> (1 out of 100 attempts)
err... should be 1 out of 10...

Original comment by dominik....@googlemail.com on 5 Oct 2010 at 2:04