Some tear-off browser menus would be nice

[dorayme]

Looking at some style-switching menu in Firefox this morning I was
thinking, wouldn't it be nice if we could tear off the bit of the menu
that we wanted from browsers.

For those unfamiliar with this concept, some image manipulation
software has this: for example, Photoshop. You can drag off some of
the tools, with their optional variations to a convenient spot for
drawing and stuff, saving having to charge off to somewhere at the far
side or top.

The View menu comes to mind as a useful candidate for this, with its
different zoom settings, page display options.

For all I know, it may even be possible, either built in or addable
with some sort of extension or extra.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Looking at some style-switching menu in Firefox this morning I was
thinking, wouldn't it be nice if we could tear off the bit of the menu
that we wanted from browsers.

For those unfamiliar with this concept, some image manipulation
software has this: for example, Photoshop. You can drag off some of
the tools, with their optional variations to a convenient spot for
drawing and stuff, saving having to charge off to somewhere at the far
side or top.

The View menu comes to mind as a useful candidate for this, with its
different zoom settings, page display options.

For all I know, it may even be possible, either built in or addable
with some sort of extension or extra.

Well with Firefox you could probably create an extension to do it. I am
assuming that you mean putting the menu in a separate toolbox-window...
the only problem I see now is that browsers have tabs so it would be
difficultly linking the tab in focus with the satellite-menu window. I
think setting custom hot-keys for personal commonly used settings would
work out better.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Well with Firefox you could probably create an extension to do it. I am
assuming that you mean putting the menu in a separate toolbox-window...
the only problem I see now is that browsers have tabs so it would be
difficultly linking the tab in focus with the satellite-menu window. I
think setting custom hot-keys for personal commonly used settings would
work out better.

Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!

 

[dorayme]

It is actually Illustrator that I have experience with tearing off
tools, not Photoshop. Seems I just assumed you could in latter but
this seems not to be so. In Illustrator, I have the tools in a tall
skinny, mainly two col table. This table floats and can be moved
about. That is one thing and good. The more detailed thing I was
thinking about though was the way you can drag, for instance, just the
pen tool off to float on its lonesome, (its variations then get
displayed in a tiny horizontal strip that can be moved to be wherever
you want on the desktop. Very handy!

Well, I can't see that as a theoretical problem, maybe a practical
coding developer prob. Let's take a specific case, OK? You tear off
the Page Style menu and it displays, like Illustrator pen, all under
it. It would have No Style and a line under this and then a list of
author styles that you could switch between.

If you focussed on another tab, the little floating menu could
disappear permanently or temporarily till you reengaged the tab it was
working on. Or, better, but harder to develop I imagine, it changes to
apply to the new tab. All sorts of smart possibilities.

Oh I forgot, Macs rip the application menu off the application window
and stick it up in the desktop's top panel. A real PITA when you have a
non-maximized window in the lower-right corner of a large wide-screen
monitor. Something that I have been complaining about with Ubuntu's
adoption of this bone-head feature in Unity!

You can look at this another way. Macs don't *rip* the application
menu off the application window. Rather Windows kidnaps the menu and
forces it into slavery.

There are swings and roundabouts in all of this. On a Mac you can drag
Illustrator tools and options to *anywhere* on the *desktop*. On Win
Illustrator, maybe tools have to be confined to the Application
window? For graphic work I find two screens useful, the "app area",
where the real product is fashioned can be on one screen and the tools
and options on another. Perhaps you can do this with Windows without
needing to spread the canvas window over two screens, I have an older
Illustrator on a winbox somewhere, I should look before I throw it
out.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

It is actually Illustrator that I have experience with tearing off
tools, not Photoshop. Seems I just assumed you could in latter but
this seems not to be so. In Illustrator, I have the tools in a tall
skinny, mainly two col table. This table floats and can be moved
about. That is one thing and good. The more detailed thing I was
thinking about though was the way you can drag, for instance, just the
pen tool off to float on its lonesome, (its variations then get
displayed in a tiny horizontal strip that can be moved to be wherever
you want on the desktop. Very handy!

I have the feature in CorelDraw, it is called tear off dockers. They can
either be docked or "torn-off" to maximize layout workspace.

<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/tearoffdockers.jpg>

What I like it the *option* unlike GIMP where everything is a satellite
window. Been available for a decade in Corel, plus it has had a context
adjusting toolbars that change with the operation to help maximize
workspace.

Well, I can't see that as a theoretical problem, maybe a practical
coding developer prob. Let's take a specific case, OK? You tear off
the Page Style menu and it displays, like Illustrator pen, all under
it. It would have No Style and a line under this and then a list of
author styles that you could switch between.

If you focussed on another tab, the little floating menu could
disappear permanently or temporarily till you reengaged the tab it was
working on. Or, better, but harder to develop I imagine, it changes to
apply to the new tab. All sorts of smart possibilities.

It could be done, but it was just an issue to be addressed. The problem
with web browsers and windows and tabs is the need to keep cross
communication strictly controlled. You do *not* want a tab with your
bank account "talking" to that other one with the website hijacked by
underworld hackers...

You can look at this another way. Macs don't *rip* the application
menu off the application window. Rather Windows kidnaps the menu and
forces it into slavery.

Okay, here is my complaint in a nutshell. The Mac uni-menu is efficient
if your screen real-estate is limited and if you tend to only have one
or two applications open at a time. My screenshot shows that is rarely
how I work. I often have several things open at once because my work
requires multiple references. Like in the old days when you did research
papers for school with many open books, note cards and a notebook open
across a large table.

I have two monitors, so if the app-menu is *always* in the far left-hand
corner regardless of the window's location the association is a bit
obscure. I guess I could get use to it, but it also means to switch
access from one window to another requires you must *first* click the
desired window first to put it in focus to switch the uni-menu. If it is
in the right monitor in the corner, well that means sweep over then
click go all the way over to the left monitor to the upper-left to make
the choice. Now to the next window in the right monitor click it to
switch the uni-menu again and then back again to the left....RIIIIIGHT!

Whereas now I click *directly* on the window's menu wherever it happens
to be, to the next maybe just above it with *one* click. No playing Pong
with my mouse!

Now for an iPhone or iPad, iToy, or whatever jabbing your finger here
and there and everywhere is no big deal, but not with my computing
requirements. It is the one-size-fits-all UI that I object to...

There are swings and roundabouts in all of this. On a Mac you can drag
Illustrator tools and options to *anywhere* on the *desktop*. On Win
Illustrator, maybe tools have to be confined to the Application
window?

Probably the same. Haven't used Illustrator in years. As I said before I
use Corel where this feature has been available for some time.

For graphic work I find two screens useful, the "app area",
where the real product is fashioned can be on one screen and the tools
and options on another. Perhaps you can do this with Windows without
needing to spread the canvas window over two screens, I have an older
Illustrator on a winbox somewhere, I should look before I throw it
out.

Again it depends on the app.

 

[dorayme]

I have the feature in CorelDraw, it is called tear off dockers. They can
either be docked or "torn-off" to maximize layout workspace.

<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/tearoffdockers.jpg>

I see the floating options/tools windows but can't quite see the other
more detailed thing I was referring to, floating off a particular tool
(or closely related set of tools). In Mac Illus.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>

See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.

....

It could be done, but it was just an issue to be addressed. The problem
with web browsers and windows and tabs is the need to keep cross
communication strictly controlled. You do *not* want a tab with your
bank account "talking" to that other one with the website hijacked by
underworld hackers...

Well, fine, but I can't see why it would be so hard to have the
simplest implementation: the floating facility but it quits completely
if another tab is focussed on. That would do if it can't be made to
safely logically attach itself to a particular tab and lose focus or
lose visibility and refocus when the tab comes back.

Okay, here is my complaint in a nutshell.

It's OK, I understand your complaint. There have been calls by others
in Mac groups to be able to duplicate the menu on whatever screen is
wanted, fair enough. I think there are actually facilities you can add
to do this.

I am used to having the main menu on the screen directly in front of
me, the other one or two screens are never central (I don't sit
*between* screens, I did that once and worried too much about getting
sucked through the crack). The sorts of things I do on the non-mains,
I have this clever way of turning my eyes (or neck if I am feeling
athletic) to see what is what on them and the mouse happily goes
wherever at a nudge. And there is always keyboard commands to help
out.

The Mac uni-menu is efficient
if your screen real-estate is limited and if you tend to only have one
or two applications open at a time. My screenshot shows that is rarely
how I work. I often have several things open at once because my work
requires multiple references. Like in the old days when you did research
papers for school with many open books, note cards and a notebook open
across a large table.

I have two monitors, so if the app-menu is *always* in the far left-hand
corner regardless of the window's location the association is a bit
obscure. I guess I could get use to it, but it also means to switch
access from one window to another requires you must *first* click the
desired window first to put it in focus to switch the uni-menu. If it is
in the right monitor in the corner, well that means sweep over then
click go all the way over to the left monitor to the upper-left to make
the choice. Now to the next window in the right monitor click it to
switch the uni-menu again and then back again to the left....RIIIIIGHT!

Whereas now I click *directly* on the window's menu wherever it happens
to be, to the next maybe just above it with *one* click. No playing Pong
with my mouse!

Jonathan, I know are you are getting close to succumbing to the
temptations of the delicious Macs, these your final gasps of protest
before surrender. <g>

About many apps open, many of us have to do this. but the number of
visible app windows gets to have a limit for those of us needing more
than tiny screen fonts, or who get confused easily. I use the dock
(minimization) a lot and other facilities to clear the apps
temporarily. I use the tab key to clear some programs of all floating
tools. We all work differently and, as I said, there are swings and
roundabouts.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I see the floating options/tools windows but can't quite see the other
more detailed thing I was referring to, floating off a particular tool
(or closely related set of tools). In Mac Illus.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/floatingTools.png>

See the pen tool ripped off from the already floating tool menu.

Can do the same, including toolbox and menus

Well, fine, but I can't see why it would be so hard to have the
simplest implementation: the floating facility but it quits completely
if another tab is focussed on. That would do if it can't be made to
safely logically attach itself to a particular tab and lose focus or
lose visibility and refocus when the tab comes back.

It would depend on how the "windows" are generated and linked.

[tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]

but you wouldn't want

[tab or window with URL2] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]

or

[tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with URL2]

With your graphics app messaging among all its associated windows is not
a security risk, but for a web browser it is not the case. It may not be
so simple without rewriting the browser app.

It's OK, I understand your complaint. There have been calls by others
in Mac groups to be able to duplicate the menu on whatever screen is
wanted, fair enough. I think there are actually facilities you can add
to do this.

Yeah in Ubuntu it's call Cinnamon.

I am used to having the main menu on the screen directly in front of
me, the other one or two screens are never central (I don't sit
*between* screens, I did that once and worried too much about getting
sucked through the crack). The sorts of things I do on the non-mains,
I have this clever way of turning my eyes (or neck if I am feeling
athletic) to see what is what on them and the mouse happily goes
wherever at a nudge. And there is always keyboard commands to help
out.

True, but there was a *design* reason for redundancy of keyboard and
pointer commands. If you hand is on the mouse, it is less convenient to
switch to the keyboard to finish the action, and the converse is also
true. That is "search" is not a total substitute for a start menu imo

Jonathan, I know are you are getting close to succumbing to the
temptations of the delicious Macs, these your final gasps of protest
before surrender.<g>

Now that is funny!

About many apps open, many of us have to do this. but the number of
visible app windows gets to have a limit for those of us needing more
than tiny screen fonts, or who get confused easily. I use the dock
(minimization) a lot and other facilities to clear the apps
temporarily. I use the tab key to clear some programs of all floating
tools. We all work differently and, as I said, there are swings and
roundabouts.

Well when I am putting together newsletter and pamphlets and such I am
pulling from several sources, from emails, word docs, images, then my
layout in CorelDraw so a have a few open with some folders...even when
doing websites I have a code window, resource windows and browsers
going... I am just used to visually composing with all laid out. I
haven't gotten used to the Win7 taskbar yet. I am more at home with
Linux multiple desktops.

 

[dorayme]

Can do the same, including toolbox and menus

<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/floating.jpg>

That does not look to me quite the same? I don't mean exactly the
same, OK. I mean some equivalent level of detail. Let me put it this
way: can you tear off the pen tool set like illustrated in my url
above?

With the browser case, it is a level of detail that would be very
useful; for example, tearing off the zoom set from the menu, tearing
off Page Style from the FF menu.

Well, fine, but I can't see why it would be so hard to have the
simplest implementation: the floating facility but it quits completely
if another tab is focussed on. That would do if it can't be made to
safely logically attach itself to a particular tab and lose focus or
lose visibility and refocus when the tab comes back.

It would depend on how the "windows" are generated and linked.

[tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]

but you wouldn't want

[tab or window with URL2] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with menu1]

or

[tab or window with URL1] <=== messages ===> [tab or window with URL2]

With your graphics app messaging among all its associated windows is not
a security risk, but for a web browser it is not the case. It may not be
so simple without rewriting the browser app.

Well, maybe it would be hard, I just don't know. But I wonder if
anyone has thought to do this? Perhaps not many see a use for it? All
I can say is that it would be a nice enhancement

....

Well when I am putting together newsletter and pamphlets and such I am
pulling from several sources, from emails, word docs, images, then my
layout in CorelDraw so a have a few open with some folders...even when
doing websites I have a code window, resource windows and browsers
going... I am just used to visually composing with all laid out. I
haven't gotten used to the Win7 taskbar yet. I am more at home with
Linux multiple desktops.

Fair enough. There are pluses and minuses to open app windows having
their own menus. Me, I like that space is not wasted on them, the
relevant menu (and dropdowns) appearing at top of desktop when an app
is active, (click on the browser window, or click on the Image
software window). on Macs, btw, one can Command Tab through apps, they
come up as a strip of big icons, you stop on the one you want to do
something on, let go and you are on and the icons disappear. There are
other facilities to help too.

Jonathan, trust me, watching a skilled Mac user operate is like
watching a concert pianist perform, a beautiful sight to behold. I am
trying to organise a performance of this in some big theatre, Carnegie
Hall maybe, I will shout you a ticket if it ever happens. It's OK, I
know, you can't wait!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

That does not look to me quite the same? I don't mean exactly the
same, OK. I mean some equivalent level of detail. Let me put it this
way: can you tear off the pen tool set like illustrated in my url
above?

Like this?

<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/curveflyout.jpg>

Yes I can. Now each application has different naming convention and
arrangement. BTW I can customize everything and can "theme" my Corel
workspace to be like Illustrator if I wished. I have my own custom
toolbars with automation VBA function that I developed to assist my
workflow.

With the browser case, it is a level of detail that would be very
useful; for example, tearing off the zoom set from the menu, tearing
off Page Style from the FF menu.

I guess I am just used to CTRL+Scollwheel or CTRL +/- and I have the Web
Developers Bar for the style changer but other that debugging posts
here. The only time I need to change/disable the style is if the page am
on is a styling train wreck and I would really need the info for I would
just typically bail on it.

Well, maybe it would be hard, I just don't know. But I wonder if
anyone has thought to do this? Perhaps not many see a use for it? All
I can say is that it would be a nice enhancement

I remember in the early days of tabs the security issue of
cross-communication that allow XSS issues that had to be patched. It may
have be considered, but frankly I don't see the the enhancement value.

Fair enough. There are pluses and minuses to open app windows having
their own menus. Me, I like that space is not wasted on them, the
relevant menu (and dropdowns) appearing at top of desktop when an app
is active, (click on the browser window, or click on the Image
software window). on Macs, btw, one can Command Tab through apps, they
come up as a strip of big icons, you stop on the one you want to do
something on, let go and you are on and the icons disappear. There are
other facilities to help too.

Same with Windows and Linux. When I am doing more than one thing that
process works well. Actually for that scenario Linux's multiple desktops
works best for me...I really used the compiz cube! MS's implementation
of multiple desktops just sucks. But when I am doing one then that the
creative composing process pulls from multiple sources flipping through
windows is not as efficient as seeing them all at once. Just the way I
work. As soon and I can swing it I will probably get a third monitor.

Jonathan, trust me, watching a skilled Mac user operate is like
watching a concert pianist perform, a beautiful sight to behold. I am
trying to organise a performance of this in some big theatre, Carnegie
Hall maybe, I will shout you a ticket if it ever happens. It's OK, I
know, you can't wait!

Again it depends on what you are doing, and what you are doing it with.
My fear is, and this is OS-independent because they are all trending
this way, that the quest for the single universal UI is folly. What
works for a phone may not for a desktop. Touch is the new sexy thing,
but I have no need for a touch for my work, but all the new UI are
leaning towards touch at the *expense* of mouse and keyboard. I just
want choice and control of how I work.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote: ....

Like this?

<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/curveflyout.jpg>

Yes, I think that is it! I assume you can grab that specific "Curve
Flyout" and drag it around to anywhere you are working.

....

I guess I am just used to CTRL+Scollwheel or CTRL +/- and I have the Web
Developers Bar for the style changer but other that debugging posts
here. The only time I need to change/disable the style is if the page am
on is a styling train wreck and I would really need the info for I would
just typically bail on it.

OK, I was just illustrating the concept with the zoom bit, I mostly do
as you do in fact. But even with the zoom bits of the menu, I am
increasingly switching from zoom text only to zoom, partly for my own
comfort and uses of website pages, and partly because I want to see
how various things that I am doing in website production function
under the two different modes. Now this is not so easily switched
without going to the View menu and boring through the dropdown. Yes, I
could make workarounds I guess. But I am just saying... be nice if it
was built in to tear off.

Another example: FF and some other browsers provide the ability to
flip through styles for the same doc, but every time you want to look
at a different "alternate" style, you have to charge off to the
dropdown again. Be nice if it was just handy, all open and inviting,
ready to please.

....

... the
creative composing process pulls from multiple sources flipping through
windows is not as efficient as seeing them all at once. Just the way I
work. As soon and I can swing it I will probably get a third monitor.

I understand. It is one of the main reasons I have gotten used to
multiple screens though for a while now, I have had to be more
disciplined because my laptop does not support anything but its tiny
miserable self as second screen and it is less than useful as a
result. I am hoping to remedy this a purchase of a machine that will
support two independent big screens (like my old now not much used
non-Intel Mac tower that sits under a desk nearby). But one thing, I
had three screens once, but found it promoted indiscipline and neck
problems.

....

My fear is, and this is OS-independent because they are all trending
this way, that the quest for the single universal UI is folly. What
works for a phone may not for a desktop. Touch is the new sexy thing,
but I have no need for a touch for my work, but all the new UI are
leaning towards touch at the *expense* of mouse and keyboard. I just
want choice and control of how I work.

Me too! And in the trendy Mac world, the danger may be greater.

Talking gadgets, btw, I am thinking of a book reader. I want one that
I can put PDFs that I have or can get, as well as downloading from
commercial and *public* libraries. I don't get straight answers from
salesmen in shops about their capabilities and restrictions so need to
research it. A friend bought a Kindle, loves it, but was surprised at
how expensive so many books cost to put on it. That worried me, she is
no cheapskate like me!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Yes, I think that is it! I assume you can grab that specific "Curve
Flyout" and drag it around to anywhere you are working.

Yes



I understand. It is one of the main reasons I have gotten used to
multiple screens though for a while now, I have had to be more
disciplined because my laptop does not support anything but its tiny
miserable self as second screen and it is less than useful as a
result. I am hoping to remedy this a purchase of a machine that will
support two independent big screens (like my old now not much used
non-Intel Mac tower that sits under a desk nearby). But one thing, I
had three screens once, but found it promoted indiscipline and neck
problems.

...


Me too! And in the trendy Mac world, the danger may be greater.

It is not confined to Mac, although I do blame Jobs and his disdain for
button and labels and sold the multitude on style-over-function that MS
and Linux feel compelled to follow...Unity, Metro, ugh!

Talking gadgets, btw, I am thinking of a book reader. I want one that
I can put PDFs that I have or can get, as well as downloading from
commercial and *public* libraries. I don't get straight answers from
salesmen in shops about their capabilities and restrictions so need to
research it. A friend bought a Kindle, loves it, but was surprised at
how expensive so many books cost to put on it. That worried me, she is
no cheapskate like me!

PDFs don't work well on the readers because they are like
pixels-perfect-websites where they don't re-flow, especially where aging
eyes need to increase the font size... If you can get it in another
format like ePub or HTML it is better.

I got my wife Kindle, the B&W e-ink type. Very, very easy to read. Now
this if for text because of the nice contrast and it does no glow like a
Fire or iPad. If you want multimedia, then they are the ones to get but
for *reading* the e-ink is better.

First thing is there are tons of free books out there, especially if you
look beyond the latest best-seller publications. Places the like
<http://www.gutenberg.org/>. A must browse site.

Next, Kindle to date does not support the ubiquitous ePub format. The
*must-have* software is Calibre <http://calibre-ebook.com/> It runs on
Win|Mac|Linux and is a great library management and format conversion
tool. I don't get books via my Kindle, but use Calibre and then sync the
Kindle. I give it 5 stars. I can find all kinds of ePub books and I just
convert to mobi for the Kindle.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote:

PDFs don't work well on the readers because they are like
pixels-perfect-websites where they don't re-flow, especially where aging
eyes need to increase the font size... If you can get it in another
format like ePub or HTML it is better.

I got my wife Kindle, the B&W e-ink type. Very, very easy to read. Now
this if for text because of the nice contrast and it does no glow like a
Fire or iPad. If you want multimedia, then they are the ones to get but
for *reading* the e-ink is better.

First thing is there are tons of free books out there, especially if you
look beyond the latest best-seller publications. Places the like
<http://www.gutenberg.org/>. A must browse site.

Next, Kindle to date does not support the ubiquitous ePub format. The
*must-have* software is Calibre <http://calibre-ebook.com/> It runs on
Win|Mac|Linux and is a great library management and format conversion
tool. I don't get books via my Kindle, but use Calibre and then sync the
Kindle. I give it 5 stars. I can find all kinds of ePub books and I just
convert to mobi for the Kindle.

Thanks very much for this, downloaded already, and passed on links to
friend with Kindle, and will very probably go and get a Kindle for
myself. Yes, I have already worked out that it is the B&W e-ink type
that I want.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Thanks very much for this, downloaded already, and passed on links to
friend with Kindle, and will very probably go and get a Kindle for
myself. Yes, I have already worked out that it is the B&W e-ink type
that I want.

Yes I have been happy with the Kindle. I want to get the Touch, but the
store was all out so I got the cheapy with the page buttons. It fine as
long as you don't have to enter much in...it's like texting. My only
wish is that I wish it was a little bit larger, but not as large as an
iPad. More like 1 inch. What I do is rotate the text 90 degrees.

 

[dorayme]

Yes I have been happy with the Kindle. I want to get the Touch, but the
store was all out so I got the cheapy with the page buttons. It fine as
long as you don't have to enter much in...it's like texting. My only
wish is that I wish it was a little bit larger, but not as large as an
iPad. More like 1 inch. What I do is rotate the text 90 degrees.

Yes, last time I saw one I was thinking a tad bigger would be nice.
But I rate highly light and easy to carry. For me, it will be a mere
reader, I have enough computing on my desk already, the idea is for a
quite different life outside.

Yes, iPad seems to me too large, but really and above this (though
they, of course, tend to go together*) too heavy to add as an extra
when on the move. It is nice, of course.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Yes, last time I saw one I was thinking a tad bigger would be nice.
But I rate highly light and easy to carry. For me, it will be a mere
reader, I have enough computing on my desk already, the idea is for a
quite different life outside.

I got a nice leather cover so it is like a small thin book. If you turn
off WiFi (I use Calibre via USB to load it) the battery lasts a long
long time, in the order of a month...

 

[dorayme]

I got a nice leather cover so it is like a small thin book. If you turn
off WiFi (I use Calibre via USB to load it) the battery lasts a long
long time, in the order of a month...

That's a good tip! When I get mine, I will have a running start,
thanks to you.

Have been looking at where to get, seem cheaper direct from Amazon
rather in a local store here. But I need to check this out, and local
comes with easy guarantee (meaning if it has anything wrong for a
while, you just take it back, they never argue).

These touch ones I am always thinking have more to go wrong, and your
paws are always groping all over where you read, I am *half* thinking
to go for a touch one.

Just might be nice to navigate and look cool while at it. You can't be
too careful, with the increasing interference of govts, they might
have spotters to round up old fashioned types and send them to camps.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

That's a good tip! When I get mine, I will have a running start,
thanks to you.

Have been looking at where to get, seem cheaper direct from Amazon
rather in a local store here. But I need to check this out, and local
comes with easy guarantee (meaning if it has anything wrong for a
while, you just take it back, they never argue).

I was surprise at how robust they feel. Really solid.

These touch ones I am always thinking have more to go wrong, and your
paws are always groping all over where you read, I am *half* thinking
to go for a touch one.

It might be easier to page turn and not to use that 4-way button to move
the pointer. But other than that for $80 USD the non-touch is quite a
bargain. I think that is Amazon strategy, keep it cheap and you you mind
getting more than one. You can get a standard Kindle and a Fire for less
that an iPad and with the two do the same...except fulfill the
I-have-an-iPad smug factor!

Just might be nice to navigate and look cool while at it. You can't be
too careful, with the increasing interference of govts, they might
have spotters to round up old fashioned types and send them to camps.