DMB, politics, and the Logos user interface - design for the audience not the textbooks

I was reading an article a few days ago on research on why some people are more susceptible to authoritarian and conspiratorial messages. Then yesterday, DMB made some complaints about the user interface where her expectation and my expectation on how it should work differed but her point that it was not "intuitive" to the user was spot-on. Then in another thread, a user requested a feature that has been there since the initial implementation but they had never found. It finally hit me - Logos is not designed for its audience.

First of all, the Logos interface is inconsistent. Most Christian faiths value consistency over ambiguity (contrast the "argumentative, open ended" reading of law/scripture in the Jewish Talmud). But more importantly, the Logos interface tries to be "intuitive". Unfortunately, a major portion of their users are trained to do exactly the right thing to get exactly the right answer i.e. they are not trained to poke around and see what happens ... which results in long-time features being hidden in plain sight and users finding a way that works and assuming it's the only way. Unfortunately, in Logos there are many round about ways to get to functions that can also be accessed quickly but the user never knows.

The other half of "to do exactly the right thing to get exactly the right answer" is that the expectations for what are correct results are often driven by theology rather than linguistics - the most easily understood example being "Holy Spirit" in the Old Testament. By coding the OT with concepts that did not exist in OT times, Logos makes some users happy ... but leaves others confused because their interpretative rules don't match those of the Logos taggers. Others get confused by the different results from different translations because of the false expectation there is "one exact answer". This is an even harder issue to address than the previous two.

Addressing these issues:

inconsistencies in user interface
false expectation of user's experimental inquisitiveness
muddled results mixing textual/theological/translational issues

would be the most effective (and hardest) way to improve the user interface.

Note: textbooks do not assume most users are one method-one answer oriented. Role playing games have moved the average computer user into a quite different space.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

DMB

Logos is not designed for its audience.

I was thinking that the other day. Actually, I don't know the Logos audience; that'd take some serious market research.

But I wondered, who could it be?

- Pastors? Most I know, just want software to do what they need. Plus reading. Then, they're done ... families, events, etc

- Students? My impression, they're like pastors. Do their papers, some reading, a little study, and maybe get some sleep.

- Academics? I'd think that's closest? OLs and theology. Great tool set. How many could there be?

Then the groups I recommend for OliveTree or similar:

- Church members: trillions!

- Class teachers: millions!

- Kids and the basics: gazillions!

I'm obviously exagerating while generalizing. I just don't see the need for complicated UIs that people aren't used to. It misses tremendous opportunity for Faithlife, not to mention Bob's dream (years back).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271861#Comment_1271861

I agree and for years my focus was on class teachers ... but

- Pastors? Most I know, just want software to do what they need. Plus reading. Then, they're done ... families, events, etc

The parish I belonged to for decades was Dominican - where brothers, priests, or pastors are required to spend one day in study each week.

- Class teachers: millions!

In the parish I belonged to for decades, for adults these could be a lay-led introduction to Rahner in six-sessions, a professor led study of the problem of evil in ten-sessions, a lay-led bible discussion group, a spiritual discernment workshop every couple of years . . . a cleric led ongoing study of (contemporary) contemplative works

So I find it harder than you, to treat academic as a separate category. Oh, I didn't mention our Dominian parish was created to serve the people of the University but, honest, the Newman Center for students was a couple of miles away and had their own programs.

Frank Hodges

Then in another thread, a user requested a feature that has been there since the initial implementation but they had never found.

I know this is not at all the point of your post, but my curiosity is killing me... what was the feature they hadn't discovered?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271878#Comment_1271878

what was the feature they hadn't discovered?

resetting the percentage read circle was the latest ... but there is usually a similar post every couple of weeks.

Frank Hodges

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271883#Comment_1271883

resetting the percentage read circle was the latest

Oh okay. I had to ask. Every so often I'll see some cool features I had no idea existed. I can't imagine what features I'm oblivious to and how they'd help me in my research.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271861#Comment_1271861

- Academics? I'd think that's closest? OLs and theology. Great tool set. How many could there be?

It's definitely not academics. Lots of reasons...I've pointed a few out over the years, but it's pretty clear FL doesn't care about that market, so I see no point in grousing about it further. I will say this...they have budgets and are accustomed to buying books that run in the hundreds of dollars because they HAVE to keep up with recent publications. This is a market Logos (pre FL) should have pushed into (they--academia--aren't going to change the status quo because you ask nicely) a quarter century ago--but didn't. But there are many reasons academics haven't bought into Logos. The program doesn't address their necessary concerns regarding citations, etc. It's odd, because Logos early-on brought significant academically-minded resources into the stable--Bloomsbury (T&T/Sheffield, etc.) comes to mind. Those definitely aren't ecclesial resources. But churches and their ilk have pretty much always been the sole focus. FL has always done polling to ask about their user base, but if you haven't provided the required and necessary infrastructure to the program that academics need, why would you expect them to show up in your user base polling? Whatever. For me, the program is so broken that it is virtually unusable for anything other than being a reader...one hell of an expensive reader.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271886#Comment_1271886

It's odd, because Logos early-on brought significant academically-minded resources into the stable--Bloomsbury (T&T/Sheffield, etc.) comes to mind. Those definitely aren't ecclesial resources.

Goodness, those were the good ole days. And the pricing was pretty attractive. I think the crash came when Tov's hebrew got withdrawn. And then Gorgias pulled out. Luckily Liturgical stepped in. But just looking at the Academic Journal updates, it's pretty thin goings.

I really have no idea who their desired audience is these days. Their adverts are largely evangels.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271892#Comment_1271892

Goodness, those were the good ole days.

I would add a couple of other trends off-putting to academics:

providing old rather than the current editions of standard resources: think The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger)
failing to consistently apply milestones in pseudepigrapha, apocrypha, church documents, early church fathers . . .
making useful tagging useless by being incomplete without a way to search only the untagged resources

However, there are also a number of things that have been done well.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271861#Comment_1271861

I don't know the Logos audience; that'd take some serious market research.

I would add the Bible Translators. My feeling is that Logos serves them reasonably well.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271913#Comment_1271913

good catch, Veli. Yes, translators are an important group and with the partnership with the SIL there is significant support.

Eli Evans (Logos)

Addressing these issues:

inconsistencies in user interface

false expectation of user's experimental inquisitiveness

muddled results mixing textual/theological/translational issues

would be the most effective (and hardest) way to improve the user interface.

I'd say that's a pretty good analysis. We have historically targeted an audience so broad that our only realistic option was to "design to the textbook," that is, from the shape of system out rather than from the needs of the user in. That's not how software is built any more, for one thing. For another, we missed more than a few opportunities along the way to make common tasks easy to perform. This is something we're keenly aware of and are working to correct, slowly but surely. It's a long row to hoe!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271995#Comment_1271995

I'd say that's a pretty good analysis.

I'm glad we're on the same page. And I have seen improvements that are headed the right way. But like others, I can get impatient on the items that directly affect my work even when I wouldn't prioritize them if it were someone else. [;)]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271995#Comment_1271995

For another, we missed more than a few opportunities along the way to make common tasks easy to perform. This is something we're keenly aware of and are working to correct, slowly but surely.

There were things about L3 that worked so well you didn't have to do anything more than move your cursor to get work done--no clicks needed. L4 killed that beauty in its tracks. I sure would like to see some of that stuff end up on your "to do" list.