Beta v2 and the latest look

As I said in another thread, its great now that you managed to get some decent looking features into the v2 beta, especially encryption for me

thanks!

I did wonder though, are you planning on updating the look to be a little more Yosemite native, or is the plan to leave that part alone?

Its looks a little dated

albeit thats secondary to the data of course!

Edit: Perhaps a harsh comment, but not meant to be, as after using a little more there are subtle nice changes.

As a new user I struggle with not seeing for example 'where' the archive is located that is being actioned, in any of the dialogs showing actions being done.

For me it says capture db name to and nothing more.

Thanks

Paul Mann wrote:I did wonder though, are you planning on updating the look to be a little more Yosemite native, or is the plan to leave that part alone?

I plan to do some clean up of the UI, but the focus of this release is data integrity, reliability, stability, compatibility, and security.

Its looks a little dated albeit thats secondary to the data of course!

At this point, I feel it's more important to have a reliable system than a pretty one, although both would be nice. Also, my graphics design guy is currently working on other projects, so I probably won't be able to get any updates to the icons and such until early this fall, and that's squarely in the next release too.

Edit: Perhaps a harsh comment, but not meant to be, as after using a little more there are subtle nice changes.

You're a beta tester. Harsh comments are what I (don't) pay you for.

As a new user I struggle with not seeing for example 'where' the archive is located that is being actioned, in any of the dialogs showing actions being done.

For me it says capture db name to and nothing more.

That isn't a feature. The problem in El Capitan is that QRecall can't seem to create URLs or bookmarks or whatever to the repository. All of the errors you posted earlier are like "archive: (null)". The UI is supposed to show you the name of the archive, but it's broken internally and that's why it's blank.

Ok thanks and updating the gui after seems a perfectly sensible approach.

I recall from v1 thinking that the status dialog box didn't tell me very much either and although I knew the archive name, I didn't know where it was located (as I locate the qrchives on various remote shares)

When the archives are on remote share, it would just fail and I didn't know where to look to open the directory on my server etc.

I may be wrong and to be honest I wanted the encryption, so didn't dig too deep in v1, as I knew you were close with v2

This is what I mean, there are 3 databases in 3 different locations on remote shares and I cannot see where any of them are?

When I right click I do not get 'reveal in finder' if the remote share is not open, but would prefer a 'locate' option to open the share perhaps.

Perhaps having one big archive is the better approach and that is where I am going wrong, but I wanted to separate my archives for specific things and not just have one huge archive.

Paul Mann wrote:This is what I mean, there are 3 databases in 3 different locations on remote shares and I cannot see where any of them are?

As you pointed out, the Reveal in Finder command won't mount a remote volume just to show you where the archive is. I could change that behavior.

Another enhancement would be to add a help tip to the status window that would display the archive's original path.

You could also give your archives different names.

James Bucanek wrote:

Paul Mann wrote:This is what I mean, there are 3 databases in 3 different locations on remote shares and I cannot see where any of them are?

As you pointed out, the Reveal in Finder command won't mount a remote volume just to show you where the archive is. I could change that behavior.

Another enhancement would be to add a help tip to the status window that would display the archive's original path.

You could also give your archives different names.

Thing is it doesn't show you where it is when its on a remote share, as the share ins't mounted

I could give them different names

but they are the same data backed up to different locations, so I'd have to differentiate them by where they are located