Page numbers are missing from the ToC on NST/G in release 1.2.0 and 1.2.1

[#1]

Thanks for the feedback Keriflur. I'm closing this because it isn't necessarily in the vein of this board. The lack of page numbers was by design in 1.2.0 & 1.2.1. However, I've made the suggestion/feature request known to our devs and hopefully this is something we can reincorporate in a future update. - Alex

[#2]

Sorry, Alex, I'm a big B&N and NOOK supporter, but too be very blunt, if the dropping of page numbers was by design, then your design team sucks.

These are books. Peing able to know what page you're on or want to go to is pretty basic. What was the thinking here? Were there numerous complaints about those pesky page numbers? Did in-depth market research indicate that Mary Sue (or whatever the marketing department is calling the hypothetical "typical" NOOK customer this week) just doesn't care where they are in a book, they just pick it up and go to a random point and start reading?

Really, where was the logic in dropping basic functionality that already existed and wasn't in the way of any newer, more desirable functions?

It's not like keriflur was pointing out that NOOK is still lacking other basic functions, like a reasonably adept shelving capability. That would be going too far. (Feel the dripping sarcasm?)

I know this is not likely your fault. It's more than likely dictated by the ever-increasingly out of touch Powers That Be.

But given the recent disappointing sales figures reported in the media, is now the time to be alienating long-time core supporters of your company and product? We've been with you through all the ups & downs and bumps along the road the last 4 years. But having reasonable feedback continually and repeatedly disregarded begins to grow tiresome and wear thin the patience.

Thus endeth the rant. But please pass this along to the marketing geniuses and other higher ups. Occassional customers come and go, but when you cheese off your loyalists, you've got trouble my friends.

[#3]

I second RHWright; I can work around it, but the lack of page numbers in the table of contents is a real pain. With a physical book, I can easily see how many pages I've got left in the current chapter so I can decide whether I can finish or turn out the lights; I used to be able to do this on the Nook, too, and I wish I still could. (I do like the dictionary enhancements that came through recently, though!)

[#4]

I agree that it was a regrettable design decision. And I agree a thousand times more strongly with the sentiment that "when you cheese off your loyalists, you've got trouble."

Keri has contributed countless hours of free customer support here, just because she wanted to. It's hard for me to understand why a reasonable company or person would give her attitude in response to posting this popular request. Alex, I know you tried to soften it. But basically you were saying she was out of order. Obviously not everyone agrees.

[#5]

"Sorry, Alex, I'm a big B&N and NOOK supporter, but to be very blunt, if the dropping of page numbers was by design, then your design team sucks."

Well, it was either that, or lose support for shelves. 

[#6]

Alex, I hope that update happens soon.  Because for readers, taking away basic funtionality in reading is kind of a stupid move on your company's part.  Estranging your core customer base seems like a good way to end up on the unemployment line.  Because of this issue, I've refused to update my NST, and will continue to refrain from doing so.  I got my NST because I like to read (I would guess most NST/G users are similar).  Taking away something that readers actually use while reading makes me really question the viability of your company.

[#7]

Thank you all for the feedback. Again, I totally understand your viewpoints and truly hope we can get this reincorporated into our next update.

Just to shed some light as to why this design choice was made here is an explanation from our devs:

"We added the multi-level table of contents support in the 1.2 release and as a result, we had to drop showing the page numbers.  Ultimately, we took too big a performance hit to display both the multi-level table of contents and the page numbers, so we decided to support multi-level table of contents and still open the book as fast as possible."

Finally, this doesn't mean we won't ever display page numbers again, and certainly with some of the feedback received here and through our other channels. The dev team is well aware of this want and hopefully we can roll it back in.

[#8]

Alex, thank you for filling us in on the back story there.

I hope that with more of the posts on this board, you're able to take the time to get the documentation on why a change was made in hand.

[#9]

What Roustabout said. I really appreciate knowing the thought process behind the decision. It helps to remove the feeling of being subject to arbitrary and capricious changes.

I still disagree with the decision, primarily on the ground that every book has page numbers while only a few have multi-level TOCs. At a guess, most multi-level TOCs are found in non-fiction books, especially textbooks. The NST is decidedly suboptimal for reading textbooks, and B&N's store strongly favors fiction over non-fiction, so the decision to cripple all books for the sake of enhancing a minority seems wrong.

[#10]

It's worthwhile to mention this is the kind of thing that should have been in the 'What's New in this Version' information. 

I am still baffled as to why that information is always the same unhelpful uninformative line. 

It's like 'oh hey, we have an update with some new cool stuff.  Uh it's cool stuff trust us'.  This is the area to scream to the world the new features added, to brag about them, to shout 'Hey, you asked for it?  We got it!  Oh, and those bugs?  Yeah these are the ones we squashed.  Cause that's how we roll'

It can't be that B&N doesn't want to tip off the competition, the features are discovered by users fairly quickly.  It's foolish to think the competition don't examine the software to an nth of its life the second they are able.

All that said, thank you Alex.  The thought process was very good to see.