Jump to content

Evernote 10 ignores image transparency. (Evernote 7 doesn't.)


Recommended Posts

I've been using Evernote 7 because I prefer it. But it's broken in Ventura, so I've installed Evernote 10—and already there's an obvious bug:

Evernote 10 doesn't properly display transparency in images (but Evernote 7 does). In all this time, has no one at Evernote noticed this bug?

Please see the attached images. In Evernote 7 (green box), the Finder images with transparency correctly "float" over the background. But in Evernote 10 (red box), transparency is ignored, and a white border is drawn around the Finder images.

Why would functionality be removed in a newer version?

image.thumb.png.3927a73d338776d59a7695574c1a5484.pngimage.thumb.png.b09fc662ed6688f851dc9b2cfd89d900.png

Link to comment
  • Level 5

Why should every unnecessary detail be duplicated before one is „allowed“ to roll out a new version ?

There is no need to replicate the old client, and in fact it would have been impossible. The old clients were so inconsistent among each other that what one would claim is missing another would not even notice. The new clients are much more homogeneous in their user experience, and (maybe more important) in their feature set.

But congratulations: I don’t remember anybody noticed this transparency handling in 30 months with the new clients. A sharp eye indeed !

Since the forum is user2user, to initiate a fix you need to issue a support ticket.

Link to comment
Ensuring that newer versions of software retain all features of previous versions is not "impossible." The very statement is illogical.
 
Most developers actually prioritize feature parity. It's unusual for features to be removed from newer versions of most applications. That's literally why it's called "development." And when circumstances dictate that a feature be removed, most developers inform customers and explain the removal. (Needless to say, it's more likely that the transparency bug is an inadvertent omission.)
 
One could be forgiven for forming the impression that it appears to escape you that others' needs might actually differ from yours. Perhaps a graphic designer stores images with and without transparency and needs to be able to see—at a glance via the thumbnails—which versions are which. Perhaps someone else stores or collects icons and wants them correctly displayed. Someone else could be gathering images for a presentation on transparency techniques. Scenarios abound.
 
We remain grateful that it's not up to you to decide which features are necessary or unnecessary.
Link to comment
  • Level 5

Yeah, be happy. Always a good thing to start with. If you wanted thumbnail transparency preserved, that’s a good example of wasting dev resources on something useless.

Why useless ? Well, v10 is out 30 months now, and from my observation you are the first who took notice. You can’t explain why it is a problem at all. For you the problem seem to be it’s „different“.

If the team responsible would have decided they will clone the legacy clients in all their glory, and only launch when this was reached, the service would likely be dead by now.

Good there are differences - most of them mean progress by new features. Not having transparent thumbnails is a price I am willing to pay.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...