Jump to content
Due to limited holiday staffing, chat will be unavailable from Thursday, July 2 at 5:30 PM (CDT) to Monday, July 13 at 8 AM (CDT). This will allow us to reply to your email requests as quickly as possible. Thank you for understanding. ×


Level 2
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


lhb last won the day on March 7

lhb had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 Good

About lhb

Profile Information

  • Subscription

Recent Profile Visitors

3,643 profile views
  1. Sme problem here. Note shown, sometimes a progress bar appears for a bit, nothing ever happens. Windows (308919) Public (CE Build ce-62.6.10954)
  2. An ancient problem I have the same problem, and it is ancient. It seems to me that some of the "formatting" of "simplified articles" was hardcoded into the client rather than into the note itself, which made further simplification (applying "simplify formatting" on a "simplified article") at one point in the past completely impossible and stopped me from using it. Nowadays it leaves (I'm using the Windows client) this spurious line. This is more usable, but still annoying. But the mileage on "simplify formatting" in various clients seems to vary, also depending on releases. Sometimes "simplify" does leave a weird mess. And for instance in the Windows client it still leaves section titles that are obviously formatted with some "heading" formatting setting not accessible in the Windows client. Workaround: Use the web beta editor As a workaround, I started resorting to the Web Editor Beta, allegedly a beta of the codebase for all further clients. It is in my experience much more robust both for editing and simplification. It also does not show the spurious line for simplified articles to start with. It also shows simplified articles at the width selected in the client, rather than a "hardcoded" width. So I think the problems will be going away in the medium to longer term, which is good. (I'm using Windows public release and Web Beta Editor (~5.31) updated, and am not in the beta program.)
  3. I'm puzzled and would love to get a clarification or some insight. I'm used to "webp" images not being shown in the (standard) Windows client. It's kind of a drag, since many web pages and corresponding clippings or copies may contain them. I did create a note in the Windows client ( (308919) Public (CE Build ce-62.6.10954)), into which I clipped some images from a web browser, and of course they showed up as a "webp" inline "attachment" rather than an inline picture. OK, the Windows client never had web support, so I'm not surprised. However, I was surprised not to see as inline pictures in the web beta version (v5.30 or so, using it on Microsoft Edge, Chromium. I am using the beta editor --- which I love ---- but was still not included into the complete web beta although signing up about a month ago). Web browsers should have "webp" support included. Or should they not? Is this a limitation of the beta editor? I'm curious. Any insights from the discussion forum? Here's how it looks in the Windows client and here how it looks in the Web client.
  4. In addition, what _IS_ beta. I am currently using the web editor beta, but get ~ version 5.30, so I'm not using the same beta, which may make any supposed beta feedback irrelevant or confusing. On a related note: The Windows client has a beta option which I enabled. But that seems not to work anymore. Realizing that, I signed up to the official "beta program" , was accepted into the program and am waiting for new versions.
  5. Thank you for your fast reply. OK, will do. Although it's a beta, so I was not sure if they're expecting that.
  6. I'm using the web client more and more and am very happy with it (v5.29.0). There seems to be a much newer version out, but I would not know how to get it. Who knows, my comment may already have been addressed and not only therefore been superfluous. I find the formatting of note titles confusing. As far as I remember, the title has always been quarantined above the notebook/tags/editing bar. But since there is an extraordinary, unexplainable amount of space between the functional bar and the note title, it now seems to be part of the note body. But remember: it's a different field of the note. I don't mind layout changes, but this leads to other problems: There is also no division to separate it from the note. For the functional notebook/tags/editing bar, there is a thin line separating it from the rest. For the title, there is nothing. It may be useful to at least give it a slightly different background shade, or maybe another thin line. The note title and the article title that may be coming from the clipper, have identical font and background. This is not only confusing and ugly; it looks like a dispensable repetition demanding to be eliminated. I have a lot of clipped notes, and giving in to these demands would create a lot of unnecessary work. You see what I mean in the attached picture. This is a minor temporary annoyance without any impact on functionality. I'm having faith that the trend-pendulum has reached its extreme on the white-out side. Therefore I hurry to bring my comment in and hatch down before the pendulum swings back to the other side, possibly delighting us with photorealistic skeuomorphism featuring an organic reclaimed-wood/cyberpunk finish.
  7. One little addition: Usually this is only a display issue in the web client; it remains looking OK in the desktop client. However, once I edit in the web client, the boxes do become as they look in the web client; ie, the span and background color will be gone.
  8. Since this is just a beta (I'm running what seems to be v5.29.0 on Edge(Chromium) I'm going to report it here. A minor issue, since I have almost moved to the Web Client for editing purposes. I see a difference in display of the header boxes Evernote generates during merging. I created two notes in the Windows client and merged them. Looks OK on Windows, but the generated header boxes look really different on the Web. Evernote often did some "special" processing of some "Evernote-internally-generated/used" items, so this may be the reason. This is what it looks like on in the Windows Desktop client (up to date for the day, and it always looked like this; it's not a Windows issue) And this is today's Web client v5.29.0. I introduced the note title, which may be confusing. (That's actually another small issue with the web client, that the title practically looks like the text itself. On Windows, the title is well separated, not in the web client.)
  9. Thanks both of you, and I agree. But just to remain on track: My primary question was better protection in "conduit" against editing a locally corrupted note and submitting the result, something which has happened for me in the specific case of mismatched header and body.
  10. Will the redesigned conduit include some data-health/consistency/sanity/anti-corruption/checksum check? At some time I had problems with notes on iOS, in that there were titles and content mixed up. Editing such a note would then of course "cement" such local problems into the database. It was unnerving to see new notes with mixed up titles and content. That kept me off using iOS all together, since I could not trust the data that was copied to the device. One could argue that one could always go back with note history, but for that one has to first see that there was a problem in the first place. In some notes this may be obvious, in others not. (I reported this issue and tried to work with support on finding the problem, but the issue was closed without getting to the bottom of it; much later I read in some release notes that such an issue was fixed.) (There are also rumors of such problems occurring on other platforms, as well rumors of lost resources and the like. I suspected I had some lost resources sometimes, but it seems that this was a case of a resource being integrated into the note through a hyperlink rather than through embedding the resource into the note, so one could blame the particular clipping/copy/paste method (when copying from web sites) rather than a database problem; still, the issue is annoying when one goes offline with a computer for an extended time and finds that notes intended to be complete are not. But redesigning Conduit may not help there.) Somebody is now going to suggest me to make backups and rely on note history, but the reason for using Evernote is so I don't have to rely on my own set-up, records, and fuzzy memory. Anyway, it would be interesting to see whether note-health is now checked before viewing or any edit starts.
  11. Ah, agree. I was merely commenting on my status for those who were pondering which browsers might work. And the _web_ beta might be different from the _editor_ beta, the latter of which I'm happy to use.
  12. Running MS Edge (Chromium) Version 81.0.416.6 (Official build) dev (64-bit) and getting Evernote Web v5.28.0, with the beta editor but no nested tags.
  13. Second that. The new web editor beta (hopefully to arrive on other platforms) is great. "Simplifying" web clips on my Windows Desktop version often leads to problems with images and the like; I started resorting to the Web Editor Beta for most of that work. The clear indication of what is HTML content, and much better results in converting that to editable (simplified) content are far superior. Also, the editor allows for some features like multiple highlight colors (although the yellow for whatever reason is not the yellow of the desktop, but an uglier variant --- at least in my view), better formatting (headers, and correct representation of those, as opposed to the broken spacing on the desktop editor), etc. Bit shout-out to the creators of this web editor. After many years as premium user and on the verge of jumping ship, I've become more enthusiastic about the recent improvements and the roadmap.
  14. I've got the same problem in the Microsoft Edge Developer Build (which is now based on Chromium) that was released this week. The same issue, it used to work, now it doesn't, and gives the same unwarranted message regarding 3rd party cookies. Here the version information: Version 81.0.396.0 (Official build) dev (64-bit)
  • Create New...