A crossover post

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144489#Comment_144489

[Y]

Rosie Perera

[Y]

Michael, I agree with you 100% that the File menu is hard to use as it is and I've been lobbying for changes. I'm a Windows user and don't know what the Mac Logos 4 File Open menu looks like, but I'm guessing it's pretty similar to what we have on the Windows side.

Were you aware that you can filter the contents of the right side of this menu (like you can the library or the collections tab) by typing a few letters from the name of the file you're looking for. (At least that works on the Windows version; not sure if they have it implemented yet on the Mac version.) You can either type the kind of document/file you're looking for (e.g., note to filter the list so it only shows your notes, and so forth), or the actual name of the file (or part of it). I've finally gotten used to to using this feature and it does indeed make finding the files I want easier, though I still wish they'd sort the files alphabetically instead of in the random order I created them, or better yet give me the choice of what sort order to use. And I wish they'd organize it into subfolders of file type like the L3 File Open dialog.

As for working like a standard Windows/Mac File Open dialog, it can't exactly do that, because those allow us to navigate around on our hard disk looking for the file to open, but Logos "files" are not stored on our hard disk directly; they are in a database somewhere and only Logos has access to them. They aren't OS level files.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144493#Comment_144493

As for working like a standard Windows/Mac File Open dialog, it can't exactly do that, because those allow us to navigate around on our hard disk looking for the file to open, but Logos "files" are not stored on our hard disk directly; they are in a database somewhere and only Logos has access to them. They aren't OS level files.

I too would welcome a review of the design of the Files menu. I don't know if the future PBB feature will have those appear as resources in the Library, files in the File menu, or somewhere new. If as files, this will increase the need for a review to cope well with the numbers.

As for "... it can't exactly do that ... are in a database ...": Well, no matter how or where something is stored, the application could present any kind of structure it wants. It can look like a file tree if it wants, even if its all in one XML text file called C:\big_file.txt.

I do like the "filter" idea we have at present, but it somewhat forces us to name everything in ways to allow the filter to be used well, rather than focus on a natural good name for whatever it is. Naming overload has scalling issues.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144496#Comment_144496

As for "... it can't exactly do that ... are in a database ...": Well, no matter how or where something is stored, the application could present any kind of structure it wants. It can look like a file tree if it wants, even if its all in one XML text file called C:\big_file.txt.

Sure, it could present any kind of hierarchical structure it wants, and I have no problem with that. But there's no point in it presenting the structure of my hard disk because I as a naive user (assuming I were one) would have no clue where to navigate in the folder hierarchy of my hard disk to find the one file where Logos stores all my notes documents, and even if I did know where it was, it's always the same file (notes.db). Logos knows what it is. I shouldn't have to select it from my C:\ or "My Documents" or "lzwex2n6v.m1u" or whatever the equivalent is on the Mac. I'm not sure about the Mac, but the "File Open" dialog in Windows apps is a common dialog that apps don't have control over -- they just use the standard one that lets people navigate freely around on their hard disk to open the OS-level file in their application. That is fine for apps like Word and Excel where each file you open in the app maps to a discreet file in the OS level file system. But in Logos that isn't the case, so using the built in File Open dialog of Windows or Mac would not make sense. If they were to create their own that looked like it somewhat, it still wouldn't fool people into thinking it was the standard one, because it wouldn't have all that stuff about selecting the drive and folder from the folder hierarchy on the disk.

So in summary, let them present a virtual hierarchy of different types of documents (in tree form even): Clippings, Notes, etc. But we shouldn't need to know what folder these things are stored in on our hard disk in order to open them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144502#Comment_144502

So in summary, let them present a virtual hierarchy of different types of documents (in tree form even): Clippings, Notes, etc. But we shouldn't need to know what folder these things are stored in on our hard disk in order to open them.

[Y]

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144550#Comment_144550

Yes..I agree

DOWN WITH FILE MENU CLUTTER!

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144555#Comment_144555

First, [Y]

Second, have you thought about using your "favorites" folders to organize your various files?

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144550#Comment_144550

So in summary, let them present a virtual hierarchy of different types of documents (in tree form even): Clippings, Notes, etc. But we shouldn't need to know what folder these things are stored in on our hard disk in order to open them.

Yes, just like Jack likes.

I was suggesting that Logos4 could present its user-content, as if it was some kind of directory tree structure. I.E. Nested levels with some kinds of layouts. So we could have a subdirectory where all of one kind of Notes go, that is different from where a different kind of Notes go. It does not matter to use humans that Logos4 might store them all in some giant database somewhere. Its the human concept of the layout that matters.

In fact, its no different to how Macs, Windows, Unix, Linux and so on stores files. They are not really on the disk in the way we think, in nested trees of subdirectories. The computer does that for our sake. To the hardware, its just a whole bunch of sectors somewhere.

Dave Hooton

And please, can anyone back me up here?

[Y]

Matt Blackmon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144555#Comment_144555

I agree with the above. I think, for me, the two main questions are of design and function.

In terms of design, if I find myself wondering whether something is a "file" or a "tool" then the criteria for either are probably not clear. This is not all that new of an issue as Logos 3 suffered from some of the same issues with some movement across the various choices in various software releases.

In terms of function, it seems, by menu, that visual filter is not a tool but part of a file. I can understand why, sort of, in that it relates to something that you can create/open/modify, but if we can eventually share some of the other items that will be part of the "tools" context, that separation seems to breakdown.

I can sort of offer some experiential proof of this confusion. My students, once they understand the nature and function of the different "tools" still refer to the wrong menus searching for those tools. That seems to me to imply a lack of clarity in the workflow process.

That said, I am not sure that I have a good solution to suggest, but that more discussion needs to occur.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144496#Comment_144496

Thank you for listening for the upteenth time. And please, can anyone back me up here?

[Y] Yes, Michael. This is the first time I've heard this raised. Glad you've persisted.

I do like the "filter" idea we have at present, but it somewhat forces us to name everything in ways to allow the filter to be used well, rather than focus on a natural good name for whatever it is. Naming overload has scalling issues.

I don't know if the future PBB feature will have those appear as resources in the Library, files in the File menu, or somewhere new. If as files, this will increase the need for a review to cope well with the numbers.

Very good points. With shared user notes and PBBs on the horizon it could get wild & wooly. Once upon a time it was difficult to manage files under DOS (with short names.) A file manager called XTree Gold made life wonderful.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144597#Comment_144597

wondering whether something is a "file" or a "tool"

Interesting observation. For myself I think of 'tool' as something that has to be applied to something else to have meaning and 'file' as something that has meaning in its own right. I'd never noticed that Logos' tool and file menus don't actually implement my understanding. [:$]

Dan

Second, if you are going to make a Mac application at least stick to the standard form of a Mac menu, namely the File menu. Aren't there some form of human interface guidelines here?

I've thought that since I first saw Logos 4. Too much of the GUI looks like a Windows program and ignores standard Mac conventions, i.e. the Preferences command should open a Preference window, NOT a pane in the program! Why are the scroll bars a non-standard size? Why do the scroll bars not show the up/down arrows together on one end--even though it leaves a blank space for them. I could go on and on... But Logos4Mac needs to look and operate like a Mac program and not a port from Windows!

William

can anyone back me up here?

[Y] [&]

Bob Pritchett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144723#Comment_144723

But Logos4Mac needs to look and operate like a Mac program and not a port from Windows!

If it's any consolation, it doesn't look like a Windows app either. :-)

Our first loyalty is to ease of use, and with Logos 4 we decided to do "what's right for Logos 4" even when it broke from the rigid platform UI guide. (Our observation of both Apple and Microsoft applications is that they do exactly the same thing when they feel it's necessary, and other major apps -- like Adobe's -- also use their own, app-appropriate, UI paradigms.)

I know that on the Mac there may be a bit more conformance in general, but I don't think we're getting that far off, and we value consistency between platforms for our app. (Reduces training costs, makes it easier for Windows users to "Switch", etc. ;-) )

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144772#Comment_144772

makes it easier for Windows users to "Switch"

I'm for that. They have suffered long enough. [8-|]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145235#Comment_145235

makes it easier for Windows users to "Switch"

I'm for that. They have suffered long enough.

The main form of suffering is all the heckling from you insufferable Mac users who keep trying to get us to abandon ship. I'm gonna go down with this ship! Seriously, though, I'm very happy with Windows and the variety of apps available for it. Mac is catching up, but it'll always be The Little Engine That Could in my mind... [;)]

Okay ... I'm done. Thank you for listening for the upteenth time. And please, can anyone back me up here?

Yes, I will. And thank you for the opportunity. I don't think Logos has a clue how to design an intuitive, easy to use interface. For some reason they have to make things difficult to use. As one example, I can find out what version software I am using on ANY Windows-based software package on the market (File menu > Help > About), but I have no clue how to tell you what version L4 I am running. NO CLUE. I do not want to have to spend time and energy trying to figure out something that a standard already addresses. What has Logos accomplished by producing something like this? Nearly two decades of Windows software development has settled on conformity to intuitive, easy to use standards that for some reason Logos has decided to ignore. This feels oh-so-Detroit. Spend decades perfecting something that works really well, then throw it out the window for some marketing agenda.

I just don't get it. I do not want to stumble all over an application to get it to do what I want
just because somebody decided I should do it a certain
way. No, I'm sorry. That's not the way it works. That's the way you make people angry. I live with this scenario because I develop user
interfaces for machine/equipment operators. I know it is my job to make
the operator's job as easy as possible by giving them an interface that
is intuitive and simple to use. And I know plant operators hate developers who have no clue what the real world is like and produce something that makes their life difficult. Justifiably so.

Every time I use L4, Proverbs 25:19 comes to mind. It looks great, but for me is unusable. Case in point. When I do a word study on פִי ... Well forgive me ... you see I can't do a word study on פִי because whenever I try I can only select from a drop-down list, and פִי isn't on it. Didn't have that problem with L3. I'm tired of fighting it.

Bottom line, I truly think something is really, really wrong with their
organization. This isn't just happenstance. I see the same pattern in L4 that I have seen in L3.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144772#Comment_144772

If it's any consolation, it doesn't look like a Windows app either. :-)

Our first loyalty is to ease of use, and with Logos 4 we decided to do "what's right for Logos 4" even when it broke from the rigid platform UI guide. (Our observation of both Apple and Microsoft applications is that they do exactly the same thing when they feel it's necessary, and other major apps -- like Adobe's -- also use their own, app-appropriate, UI paradigms.)

I know that on the Mac there may be a bit more conformance in general, but I don't think we're getting that far off, and we value consistency between platforms for our app. (Reduces training costs, makes it easier for Windows users to "Switch", etc. ;-) )

In a lot of respects it doesn't act like a Windows app either. Does the smiley face at the end of your first sentence confirm my suspicion that the Logos strategy is to merge the Mac and Windows UIs? If it is I think it will prove to be a bad decision.

I think your second sentence is self-contradictory. Ease of use for who? Dispensing with Windows UI functionality for the sake of Mac conformity doesn't serve Windows users, but it possibly does serve Logos need for reduced costs.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145251#Comment_145251

I am using on ANY Windows-based software package on the market (File menu > Help > About), but I have no clue how to tell you what version L4 I am running. NO CLUE.

My windows often has the version under Help>About which Is just where I find it in Logos:

And when I do a search on פִי I get 54 occurrences - none of which are independent words/lexical units/lemmas which strikes me as a pretty solid reason for not being able to do a word study. So would you like to give some more examples of why you find it frustrating and have us help you through the learning curve? Remember that it is much easier to build an intuitive interface for a uniform set of users - a luxury that Logos does not have.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/144723#Comment_144723

Second, if you are going to make a Mac application at least stick to the standard form of a Mac menu, namely the File menu. Aren't there some form of human interface guidelines here?

I've thought that since I first saw Logos 4. Too much of the GUI looks like a Windows program and ignores standard Mac conventions, i.e. the Preferences command should open a Preference window, NOT a pane in the program! Why are the scroll bars a non-standard size? Why do the scroll bars not show the up/down arrows together on one end--even though it leaves a blank space for them. I could go on and on... But Logos4Mac needs to look and operate like a Mac program and not a port from Windows!

I've thought just the opposite. I think the GUI looks Macish and ignores standard Windows conventions

You see Bob P., this is the kind of problem you run into when trying to merge Windows with Mac. They are incompatible; they are different mindsets. Try to morph the two, and you will make people angry, and will probably fail. What's the saying? Try to make something do everything, and it ends up not being able to do anything very well?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145258#Comment_145258

My windows often has the version under Help>About which Is just where I find it in Logos:

Well, shazaam. There it is. Please forgive the software fatigue that caused me to not register the icon. It's what happens when you make your living fighting with poorly designed software. I'm serious.

And when I do a search on פִי I get 54 occurrences - none of which are independent words/lexical units/lemmas which strikes me as a pretty solid reason for not being able to do a word study. So would you like to give some more examples of why you find it frustrating and have us help you through the learning curve? Remember that it is much easier to build an intuitive interface for a uniform set of users - a luxury that Logos does not have.

As I said, word study does not give me the option to search for פִי. When I paste פי into the window a list appears that does not include פי. It means mouth. It is a legitimate candidate for a word study. Psalms 109:2 is an example where it occurs by itself. Even if it is tied to some other word, it should come up (as it does in L3).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145263#Comment_145263

And when I do a search on פִי I get 54 occurrences - none of which
are independent words/lexical units/lemmas which strikes me as a pretty
solid reason for not being able to do a word study.

Hebrew lexical items meaning mouth i.e. in appropriate from for word study:

If a word isn't working, the easiest way to find the lexical form is through an interlinear or an English word study. By fastest I mean fastest for me with my very, very limited Hebrew.

nicky crane

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145251#Comment_145251

To check version of Logos4, as in Windows, click help, then about Logos4, and a new window opens with the version of Logos4 at the beginning of a lot of other info that I don't read.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145256#Comment_145256

I'll be the odd ball. I like the menu structure of Logos. It makes sense to me. What in the world does "Print" and "New Window" have to do with "File." It seems like it became the where-should-we-put-this menu of windows. When I think of File I think of files, maybe I'm just too simple. Now, what they have needs some work. If I type "Note Abraham" it should bring up every note file with Abraham in it. As of right now the best I can get is a list of all my Notes. But at least now it is actually dealing with things that are to be filed.

In fact, to solve the problem, I recommend renaming the tab "Files." that defines it as different from the old structure and makes the three tabs all plural, files, guides, and tools.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145243#Comment_145243

The main form of suffering is all the heckling from you insufferable Mac users

Sometimes I'm like Paul in Romans 7. I just can't help myself. [8-|]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145251#Comment_145251

I don't think Logos has a clue how to design an intuitive, easy to use interface.

Wow! Here I have been using L4 on both Windows and Mac for 8 months now and somehow I never realized just how non-intuitive the application really is. I frankly do not see the enormous problem you describe. Sure, the File Menu could be better organized, but I disagree that it needs to be completely scrapped and replaced by someone's vision of an industry standard.

The File Menu contains user-generated files. How does this not make sense?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145251#Comment_145251

When I do a word study on פִי ... Well forgive me ... you see I can't do a word study on פִי because whenever I try I can only select from a drop-down list, and פִי isn't on it.

Have you considered the possibility that you may be attempting to use the incorrect form of the word. Word Studies are performed on the Lemma, not the manuscript form of the word.

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145263#Comment_145263

As I said, word study does not give me the option to search for פִי. When I paste פי into the window a list appears that does not include פי. It means mouth. It is a legitimate candidate for a word study. Psalms 109:2 is an example where it occurs by itself. Even if it is tied to some other word, it should come up (as it does in L3).

L4 has changed the logic of how the Bible Word Study works from L3. I prefer the new way because inflected forms can, on occasion, overlap and the program forcing me to use lemmas invites precisions. The multitude of tagged texts makes it easy to go to from a form to a lemma.

In your example case the BWS needs to be run on פֶּה

I am sympathetic that Logos 4 changes a lot of things and may feel unintuitive. Stick with it, ask questions here and I'm confident you'll be using it to more productively than L3.

Michael Birney

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145310#Comment_145310

Sure, the File Menu could be better organized, but I disagree that it needs to be completely scrapped and replaced by someone's vision of an industry standard.

The File Menu contains user-generated files. How does this not make sense?

I totally agree, the file menu could use some new organization, but overall, it is much easier to use than L3, and although it takes some getting used to, it is not at all non-intuitive.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145251#Comment_145251

Every time I use L4, Proverbs 25:19 comes to mind.

I can't concieve of BobP being "treacherous." I thank God for the whole Pritchett clan. Let's leave hyperbole at the door.

I develop user interfaces for machine/equipment operators. I know it is my job to make the operator's job as easy as possible by giving them an interface that is intuitive and simple to use.

Logos 4 is a beautiful piece of software. It is very intuitive and the first-time user can jump right in. All they have to do is enter a Bible reference and Passage Guide will return a whole day's worth of study material in seconds. On the other hand, there are dozens of features I would call "Power User tools." A user does not need to graduate from Logos to some other program when they are done teething. They grow into the higher features of the program. The new found toolbox (it's been there all along [;)] ) just enhances the productivity of the software

plant operators hate developers who have no clue what the real world is like

In the industrial enviroment the developer gets to define what the "real world" is. A friend of mine lost three of her fingers because the UI developer did not perceive a creative person could override his protocol. Another, an electrician, was killed by a robot when he did not use lock-out procedures. Machines are unforgiving when interacting with humans. Granted, the Logos program isn't going to kill anyone but the developer still gets to define what the app will do and how it will do it.

Nearly two decades of Windows software development has settled on conformity to intuitive, easy to use standards

Windows is still evolving, improving. The blurring of the lines between Mac & Windows is one of those improvements. (Mac has also moved towards that blurred line. Just don't try to tell their users. [:#] ) Bob Pritchett has always thought outside of the box. He thinks in possibilities and asks, "Why not?"

This feels oh-so-Detroit.

(I miss my '77 Chrysler Newport, too. [:'(] )

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145396#Comment_145396

I can't concieve of BobP being "treacherous." I thank God for the whole Pritchett clan. Let's leave hyperbole at the door.

Nor can I. The comparison pertains to how a malfunctioning body part impairs the function of the whole body.

Logos 4 is a beautiful piece of software. It is very intuitive and the first-time user can jump right in.

Yes, it is beautiful, but intuitive to who? I wish that when people make such comments, they would indicate if they are a Mac or Windows user; and if their computer experience is limited to surfing the Internet and preparing next Sunday's sermon; or if their world consists of sitting in front of a computer 8-10 hours per day grappling with multiple business apps, which are virtually all Windows-based.

In the industrial enviroment the developer gets to define what the "real world" is. A friend of mine lost three of her fingers because the UI developer did not perceive a creative person could override his protocol. Another, an electrician, was killed by a robot when he did not use lock-out procedures. Machines are unforgiving when interacting with humans. Granted, the Logos program isn't going to kill anyone but the developer still gets to define what the app will do and how it will do it.

It is the developer's responsibility to develop apps that provide a safe and efficient, unfettered working environment for the operator. They are not mutually exclusive. Lockout procedures have nothing to do with UI development. You are blurring the distinction between controls programming and UI development. Controls programming handles the interlocks. A major goal of UI development should be to make the operator's job as easy as possible. Operators desrve the safety they need, and a UI they want, not what the programmer decides to give them. Operators don't mind software features that protect them. What they hate are apps that unnecessarily get in their way because they are produced by code monkeys in cublicles who don't have the slightest idea what working on the plant floor is like; who, btw, are rightfully despised.

Windows is still evolving, improving. The blurring of the lines between Mac & Windows is one of those improvements. (Mac has also moved towards that blurred line. Just don't try to tell their users. ) Bob Pritchett has always thought outside of the box. He thinks in possibilities and asks, "Why not?"

I don't consider abandonment of proven standards improvement. The standards are there for a reason. They make the software easy to use because once you have internalized them, you don't have to think about what you're doing. Very important.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145412#Comment_145412

they would indicate if they are a Mac or Windows user;

The Mac users have their own forum ... unless stated otherwise you can reasonably assume that this forum is PC users.

In implementing large scale business applications over the years I learned, among other things, the following with regards to user interfaces:

what is intuitive to one users is not to another; one picks a middle ground of comprise and adjusts training appropriately
any solution upsets some people's work flow - especially if one forces them to abide by the policy manual (state regulations)
everyone wants to enter less information and get more information out ... and complains that at company X the computer just knew ... (never admitting that it was simply a different office that entered the data.
standards constantly evolve - users consistently insist you've chosen the wrong set of standards
change is a cardinal sin - it's supposed to work the way it's always worked, frequently always worked someplace else
there is always a special case you forgot to take into consideration - colorblindness, braille readers, work schedules on ice or ships, loosely coordinated independent agencies ... leading to overloading administrator's mail boxes with messages that the system is a piece of s___ and requires time they don't have and reap no benefits from. Nothing like illegal shadow systems to bring out this response.

That's my experience in a central administrative office with the authority to insist on hardware standards but with branches around the world. Logos has a much more complex set of user issues with no authority over the users. Let's give Logos a break. Ask questions; put in suggestions; vote for our favorite requests on the user voice site. No, Logos has not made all the right decisions, but they've shown a willingness to change based on user feedback.e.g. full page interlinear.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145412#Comment_145412

Nor can I. The comparison pertains to how a malfunctioning body part impairs the function of the whole body.

It's a stretch to say a UI you don't like the looks of is "malfuntioning." Is there a particular menu item in Logos that does not function? Nicky & MJ answered how to find what version is installed. Jack pointed out we need to use the lemma for word studies.

Yes, it is beautiful, but intuitive to who? I wish that when people make such comments, they would indicate

My wife hardly knows what a CPU is but loves Logos.That tells me it is intuitive enough for the novice. I'm not a novice. (MSDN, ADC, IBMDC, and programming transfers, screw machines and triple axis robots for GM/Delphi.) I am still discovering the powerful capabilities of the Logos program and I love it too. For two users as different as my wife & I to both enjoy using Logos is quite an achievement is usability.
Lockout procedures have nothing to do with UI development. You are blurring the distinction between controls programming and UI development. Controls programming handles the interlocks. A major goal of UI development should be to make the operator's job as easy as possible
I did digress with my plant floor experiences but my point was the robot did exactly what it was programmed to do when it killed the tradesman. Although it is critical to understand as best as you can what a user's needs will be, many needs are not even known to the user themselves until the application has been put to the test. Yhe Logos software has been maturing for decades. It has many uses today that were never even imagined at the beginning. The development staff and company leadership are impressively qualified to handle present challenges and future needs.
I don't consider abandonment of proven standards improvement. The standards are there for a reason. They make the software easy to use because once you have internalized them, you don't have to think about what you're doing. Very important.
If your analogy were true Windows 7 would run on a 16-bit processor, need only 32mb RAM, and take 4GB of hard drive space. If Bill can change his "standards" why can't Bob [:)] ? (Hey, do you think Bill will sue me for putting a smiley next to "Bob" in this thread?)
P.S. MJ is right. People always resist change. But I would hate to go back to the limitations of Logos version 1.6.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145412#Comment_145412

A major goal of UI development should be to make the operator's job as easy as possible

Simplified User Interface:

Duhh, does a DoubleBurger gots 2 or 3 meats on it?

Next thing it needs is pictures of the coins & bills so the users can properly count back change.

On the other hand, here is a work of art:

Bob Pritchett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145412#Comment_145412

I don't consider abandonment of proven standards improvement. The standards are there for a reason. They make the software easy to use because once you have internalized them, you don't have to think about what you're doing. Very important.

I generally agree with this, and for the first decade or so Logos was near fanatical about observing Windows UI standards. We implemented nit-picking UI guidelines that many people never noticed, and we're still pretty obsessive about the little things you want to "just work." (Adobe Air apps drive me crazy, for example, with lack of support for Ctrl+Left and Ctrl+Right to move the cursor in whole word units in edit boxes. We always did this kind of thing, and supported the keystrokes for combo-box UI, etc.)

But the "new news", especially for us old-timers of the PC industry, is that the new UI standard isn't a handbook from Microsoft or Apple. It's the web. On the web completely new conventions are being developed and adopted, and people are learning to click hyperlinks (and expect them everywhere), not to only click 3D affordances. The new "standard" is "what works on the web", and this frees us up to do the right thing for the application.

Even Microsoft is constantly changing and improving their UI, even in the "standard" areas. I present the Excel 2010 file menu (it's the whole screen shot!), which shipped after Logos 4 and looks like it imitated us, right down to the multipane UI:

http://news.office-watch.com/img.aspx?img=892-Excel%202010%20-%20New%20document%20menu.jpg&a=892

We built our new print UI (currently being implemented) before seeing Office 2010's; it's spooky how close the two are.

Now you may hate Office 2010 (or have started hating it in Office 2007!); I'm just making the point that the "standards" are gone. The new standard is "what's best here."

(We are, of course, still listening to feedback, and it may be time to improve our File menu. But I don't think the answer is necessarily to read the Windows UI Guidelines....)

Michael McLane

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145458#Comment_145458

Thanks Bob, I am all for what works best. Of course, what works best for me is exactly what I am used to, and that is the standard UI [:)]. None of us like change too well, especially when it comes to the things that we have grown accustom to over the years. Also, any change always means that we loose something along the way, even if we gain in other areas. I am new to Logos (got in on the tail end of Mac 1, been using Windows and the alpha since), but I understand that many did not like the change to L4 (I like it better, but I did not get used to using 3), but now, time has a way of smoothing things over as we learn to work in the new and, hopefully, improved work flows.

However, nothing is going to make me like the File menu in its current incarnation! There just has to be a better way to browse my created resources. And it will only get worse as PBB, Sermon File, Lesson Builder, etc. are added. That's hundreds if not thousands of files to browse through. And I would like to browse when I am not sure what I want to search for. I don't necessarily have the answer, that's why I am a pastor and not a software designer.

All that said, thank you for listening and being open to "improve [the] File menu."

PS. I am so thankful for Logos and all the work you all are putting into a fine product and for listening to your customers.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145451#Comment_145451

@Matthew

Yes, they know how to make a very pretty app. One man's art, though is another man's clutter. I personally don't ever want to see that page again.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145451#Comment_145451

Simplified User Interface:

Duhh, does a DoubleBurger gots 2 or 3 meats on it?

Next thing it needs is pictures of the coins & bills so the users can properly count back change.

Matthew, I agree but I think one thing needs to be added. They need the pictures of the coins and bills AND a calculator to have them give the correct change in the first place. Have you not noticed all the places that are going to the machine that drops the change for the cashier. These company's must do that. 9 out of 10 times these cashiers can't make change.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145499#Comment_145499

One man's art, though is another man's clutter

David, I think if you spend just a little time exploring Version 4 you will "get it" quickly. Each new discovery makes it more fun.

Besides having Logos 4, I stilll have Libronix version 3 and the UIs are quite different. It is really cool I can run my huge library of resources under two very different interfaces. (Three, if you count the iPhone app.)

I hope Bob decides to re-brand the Libronix interface as "Logos Classic", bring it back to market, and maintain support for it indefinitely. That is how great I think BOTH user interfaces are. Form & Function, as they say.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145544#Comment_145544

Simplified User Interface:

Duhh, does a DoubleBurger gots 2 or 3 meats on it?

Next thing it needs is pictures of the coins & bills so the users can properly count back change.

Matthew, I agree but I think one thing needs to be added. They need the pictures of the coins and bills AND a calculator to have them give the correct change in the first place. Have you not noticed all the places that are going to the machine that drops the change for the cashier. These company's must do that. 9 out of 10 times these cashiers can't make change.

I think Matthew's characterization is unfair in the sense that most of the plant workers I've met are intelligent people. Nevertheless, UIs for them cannot be made too simple, even to the point of his caricature. I have a feeling that Matthew is being a little arrogant, and doesn't know what it's like to make a living in a factory environment. The goal is to get through the day as smoothly as possible to get the paycheck and feel good about doing an honest day's work. Finding the groove and rhythm doing repetitive physical labor is very important. Applications that disrupt this momentum due to developers not fully doing their job cost operators time, energy, take a toll on the worker, and ultimately cost the business money due to lost productivity. This same concept applies to all levels. For me, investigation is an intense mental process that suffers when I can't automatically do things with software, and have to take time to figure something out because the developers weren't aware of this functional requirement. Or they had the awareness, but the management created a work context that made its implementation impossible.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145574#Comment_145574

I think Matthew's characterization is unfair in the sense that most of the plant workers I've met are intelligent people.

I have done my best to see why you think Matthew characterized plant worker - leave alone unfairly. What I am struggling with is understanding what in Logos is not working for you. You gave two concrete examples that have been dealt with previously. You say:

have to take time to figure something out because the developers weren't aware of this functional requirement.

yet, you don't give us examples of functional requirements that you believe the developers were unaware of. I've given you one example - full page interlinears - which Logos has addressed. And we can certainly quibble over priorities on the unfinished features. And from my perspective, the developers didn't quite get the functional requirements of lectionaries right. But I don't think these are your issues.

We could make this thread ever so much more effective if your could list some of the functional requirements that you think the developers were unaware of. Some we may be able to tell you how to access, some that it is coming, and some, you're right that wasn't considered apparently But as long as you give us blanket statements expressing your frustration, there is little we can do to help..

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145576#Comment_145576

MJ, I think we could probably beat this horse forever. But I don't think we need to because I think Bob P. has made it clear that L4 is based on a paradigm shift, that involves the rejection (not totally, but enough to cause grief) of time-tested, proven, intuitive conventions, methodologies, etc. that have made Windows apps that incorporate said conventions extremely efficient to use, due to their intuitive, efficient nature that when internalized can be applied automatically. That's fine. He has his vision, and can do what he wants. I really don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about this any more because it will avail nothing. I had hoped that L4 would correct the very awkward cumbersomeness of L3. Some things have greatly improved with L4, but there is still an awkwardness to it that tells me Logos has never really understood what makes Windows so powerful (even though it's crappy in a lot of respects), or how to develop a truly excellent and efficient Windows app. I know people will disagree with me, but I disagree with them. So let's just let a dead horse lie.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145590#Comment_145590

So let's just let a dead horse lie.

As a ten year old, I collected most of a horse skeleton to put together like dinosaurs in museums. Unfortunately, it turned out to be pieces of two horses of differing sizes ... and my wiring it together technique was lacking effectiveness..

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145574#Comment_145574

I think Matthew's characterization is unfair in the sense that most of the plant workers I've met are intelligent people. Nevertheless, UIs for them cannot be made too simple, even to the point of his caricature. I have a feeling that Matthew is being a little arrogant, and doesn't know what it's like to make a living in a factory environment.

I was joking about the need for simpler UIs in general. I've been a union member for 31 years running. I worked almost 20 years for GM & Delphi. I tend to find blue collar workers are very intelligent. And so are most Bible software users.

Skip this if you're not interested:

In 1979 I was hired by General Motors as a trainer in the Trim department of the new OKC assembly plant. There were 600 jobs in that department. I learned most of them and helped train the new employees. The OKC plant had the highest educated workforce of all 26 assembly plants. There were more teachers, MDs, PhDs, JDs, ThDs RNs and MBAs in those 5800 employees than you would ever imagine. I know this from my work on the UAW Education Committee. We helped union members apply their tuition benefits.

I then went in to electrical repair and programming. I eventually transferred to Delphi programming machine controls & writing a few user interfaces. We built a clean room in the dirtiest enviroment you've ever seen. The air was so oily we had to use purge units to be able to breathe. I became a "shop rat" spending weeks at a time in the plants without going home, sleeping in the locker rooms and working 16 hours a day. I am as blue-collar as I could get, and proud of it! If I am arrogant, it is because I was a factory worker.

Edit: Oh David, I apologize to you and anyone else that thinks I was dissing plant workers.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145574#Comment_145574

]I think Matthew's characterization is unfair in the sense that most of the plant workers I've met are intelligent people.

I believe that you are carrying what Matthew characterized way too far. He is saying nothing about the Human Resource itself.

Logos is very user friendly. I have a few other commercial products that I use and there is absolutely nothing like the support we get from Logos and the community. This interface in L4 is wonderful. It does take a little extra time as any new software does. However, the time I have needed to get going in Logos is MUCH MUCH MUCH lower than say Quicken. I have set up a couple different accounts on that and inevitably had to change something because I thought it was saying something else. Trying to perform some functions and such......wow.

Now, I might have carried things a bit far on my post, but, I am speaking from experience myself. I was a high school math and science teacher. A number of my students in math could not deal with decimals or fractions. I would have rather taken the calculator away and let them struggle some more....If they try...students can do it. Well, in our educational system infinite wisdom the teachers are told just give them a calculator and move on. What happens in the work force?McDonalds, Burger King, etc.don't even give a test to see if a person can make correct change. I have experienced way to often cashiers that can not make proper change. I recently went to Wendy's and saw a sign that the cashier is trained in counterfit money detection.At the end of the order as I was handed my food, I asked the cashier who is on the 10 dollar bill? He/she did not know. There is a problem here and I am absolutely sure that the interface of Logos, Quicken, or what ever Windows, Mac, Linux, machine you pick will not make a hill of beans.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145599#Comment_145599

@Matthew,

I clicked on William's profile when responding thinking I was viewing your profile. That's what made me think you had no plant experience and were just being cocky. Considering your experience, you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145597#Comment_145597

@MJ,

I really don't have the desire to put the time or energy into wiring all of the pieces together for anybody. The decisions have been made, the momentum is in play, and the market will take care of things. To put it as simply as I can, if I could spend a few hundreds dollars to convert my library to another platform that serves my needs, I would do it. I have about $500 invested in my library.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/145653#Comment_145653

@Matthew, I clicked on William's profile when responding thinking I was viewing your profile. That's what made me think you had no plant experience and were just being cocky. Considering your experience, you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

Read my profile too and you will see William is the smart kid. [8-|] This is a sensitive area for me to talk about. My father & brothers are math geniuses. I could never comprehend the subject and they gave up on me after I flunked the Trachtenberg System. [Z] [}] Mom still loves me though.

I am at a disadvantage because you don't have a profile posted. But by your posts I would say you also should know what I am talking about. We both know our singular experiences pale next to the collective experience of the Logos developers. And when you add the Marketing department and leadership of the CEO, the future looks quite bright to me.

The decisions have been made, the momentum is in play, and the market will take care of things. To put it as simply as I can, if I could spend a few hundreds dollars to convert my library to another platform that serves my needs, I would do it. I have about $500 invested in my library.

I am curious what needs you have that Logos is not able to handle. Logos addresses more needs than any other Bible software. If you ask, there are certainly proficient users who can tell you how they accomplish specific tasks with Logos. Even Morris Proctor occasionally discovers new ways of using Logos' tools. (I mean that in a good way, Mo! ) It doesn't do everything and users do have their wishlists (Czech Bible, PBBs, Mennonite writings), but considering it is by far the best application for Academics, Theologians, sermon preparation, and (recently) original languages studies you will be settling for inferior products to switch. I'm not speaking out of ignorance. I own all the "competitive" products; BW8, WS9, eSW, QV2010, Acc. and 20-something others. There is very little Logos can not do.

At risk of being like King David 1 Chronicles 21:1 & King Hezekiah Isaiah 39:2 ......My present Logos investment retails about $23K. I did pay a handsome price to move Zondervan titles from Pradis to Logos (even with a 40% discount.) I would gladly pay $500 more to move other "exclusive" content out of the competitors' product into my Logos library.