The future of Logos and Faithlife: Help us make the right decisions!
Comments
-
David Paul said:
Going to make a suggestion that I don't expect will be picked up and developed, but it's worth a shot. As I've made clear many times for the last decade or so, I still use L3 as my primary Logos tool, but I still use more recent L# versions are needed, which are sufficiently different such that they can run side-by-side. I actually find this very useful for many reasons, so my suggestion to FL is that they create a relatively (not completely) stripped-down version of the L# software that allows newbie users to use that (effectively separate) program for simple daily use while having the bulkier and more adept and powerful version waiting in the background to provide help when basic isn't enough. That way, folks can get plenty of daily use out of the simpler program, while being able to dip their toes into the meatier issues as circumstances require.
Here's my pitch for the basic version: make it more like L3. There are so many searches and whatnot that can be accomplished on L3 in 0-2 clicks and 1-5 seconds that take 4 or more clicks and 10-30 seconds--or longer--in later versions. I am definitely making this pitch in the hopes that I can comfortably lay L3 to rest by transitioning to a supported (non-deprecated) product while being able to keep and utilize the numerous benefits and features that were inexplicably abandoned when moving to L4 and beyond. I won't get into specifics here, although I am happy to do so if asked. Mainly, what I want to do is emphasize that a simplified version of the software would eradicate a major perceived downside to the current software, and provide a camel's nose that could eventually turn customers of "the basics" in eventual power users. As is currently possible with L3 and L-current, both programs should be able to run side-by-side. The idea is that a person's library would be accessible in both versions, but the procedures for using the software would be far more simplified as a result of having fewer options for use.
In a nutshell, being all things to all people is not likely to come to pass. Providing a slimmer, quicker version of the software could resolve many issues and concerns and open up Logos to a much wider client base.
Is the web app a possible solution to this need, or is offline support essential?
0 -
Hi Bob,
Somewhat late to this, but here goes:
- Make it modular with separate prices. We cannot migrate wholesale (or afford the whole package if I am paying for other services) but I would love to use the educational part of this and maybe in time other parts.
- Allow integrations into other platforms as you have done with Planning Center and Proclaim. It helps enormously.
I've been using Logos since v1.2 and not been disappointed so far! Keep going brother.
0 -
Peter Comont said:
Make it modular with separate prices.
I would second that. I am a member of a small (~50) lay-run church. We do not need nor could we afford any subscription like what you're offering, even for small churches. The only thing we might want, and would want to purchase once and be done with it, would be a simple church directory software. Our volunteer who currently does it using a Word document could enter the names and contact info and photos and generate a nicely laid-out printed directory which she would update twice a year. We wouldn't want the member info stored in the cloud (Canada has strict privacy laws that prevent such stuff from being stored in servers in the US). That would be all we'd want. And we might pay $100 to $150 for it. I'm guessing it wouldn't be cost effective for you to produce such a module for small churches.
0
