You don't have to assemble any code. Put the text cursor where you want the link and use the Link button.The program assembles the url you provide along with the text into the BBCode.
Shouldn't need to enter standard text. Just needs a set of input fields. Insert insert insert insert. Make. A lot of people will do what I'm doing and look at a big blank box and think WTF do I do with this? Even with the explanation for links, it still doesn't make intuitive sense.
A set of titles with a url insert box is simple, everyone understands it, and should be simple to make into the code to display it.
The more you get people to have to do themselves, the less they either will do, or the more they will just write it off as too hard.
And I've also suggested instead of having to forward and back the pages, he puts each line of returned covers down the screen so all are visible at once.
The amazon search engine doesn't allow that. Even their own searches don't do that. You get ten at a time with an enforced delay between queries. If you try to go for the next ten too quickly, they shut you down for a while. It is what it is. We have to abide by their rules.
Your missing my point. At the moment, you hit next, and the 2nd group get displayed over the top of the first. I'm saying display them UNDER the first, and keep displaying them under the last down the screen, so all are visible all the time.
You just need to save each lines query data each time. Its still the same number of queries, just accumulating the data instead of overwriting it.
And it should auto make the requests, not wait for a button press. Send queiry, display, wait, send, display, wait etc. The whole thing building an array of covers.
No-one is going to worry about a slow load time, when it saves a lot of actual work. They set it loading, and go do something else while it loads.
Also, associate codes is still not implemented.
That's on the list as the next thing to be done. It will affect screen shots, so I need to do it before continuing with the user's doc. You can keep bugging me about it, but it won't hurry anything up.
And until its done, a large portion of the people wanting a signature tool wont use what it currently generates, because the associate code is something they want in it.
For me at the moment, the tool is not usable.
1. Associate code is not an option, but a requirement.
2. The blank box is too difficult, and not intuitive. Too much work for the person who has no clue what you even put in the blank box, let alone how to get a link in there.
3. Takes far too long to find covers in the order you want them, across 7 or 8 lines of return. Especially takes too long to go backwards for a cover displayed on page 1 when your on page 7.
I like the way it looks, but functionality and ease of use (without needing any instructions) is far more important.
And this is for people with 100+ or 200+ books to use, and not just under 20. I'm finding it cumbersome and slow for my 40+ books. For someone with a big catalog? It wont be worth the time it takes to find what they want.
