Confusion between old and new style of resource toolbar

I just read the description of the October update at https://www.logos.com/grow/release-october-2024/. I was shocked to discover that it says that the dynamic toolbar is only available to subscribers to Premium and up.

This is a nightmare. No wonder my Hermeneutics students are confused! Some students have the old style of toolbar and others have the new one. Many videos for my online classes are no longer valid, because some of the basic commands are not in the same location in Logos. We now have chaos right as students are working on a major word study research paper.

I get the concept of the dynamic toolbar. But I strongly believe that all users should have a consistent user interface. If a user has Logos basic or an older paid version of Logos, they should have a subset of the possible features on the dynamic toolbar. If a user has a subscription with upgraded features, additional commands would be available on the dynamic toolbar, just like some users have more tags in the Context menu. But all users should have a minimal set of the commands in the resource toolbar and the commands should be in the same location, regardless of the feature set or subscription level.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Harry Hahne

Also, with the current situation with two styles of toolbars, the Help document does not correctly describe the actual toolbar if a user has either the free version of Logos or an older paid base package. The help describes the toolbar that a paid subscriber would see. This does not make the "help" very helpful.

John

This is a nightmare. No wonder my Hermeneutics students are confused! Some students have the old style of toolbar and others have the new one. Many videos for my online classes are no longer valid, because some of the basic commands are not in the same location in Logos. We now have chaos right as students are working on a major word study research paper.

I get the concept of the dynamic toolbar. But I strongly believe that all users should have a consistent user interface. If a user has Logos basic or an older paid version of Logos, they should have a subset of the possible features on the dynamic toolbar. If a user has a subscription with upgraded features, additional commands would be available on the dynamic toolbar, just like some users have more tags in the Context menu. But all users should have a minimal set of the commands in the resource toolbar and the commands should be in the same location, regardless of the feature set or subscription level.

Im not 100% sure, but I think I might have been the first person to realize the problems they were planning on creating 😎

In this thread I was the first person to point out what a bad idea it was. My comments were of course, ignored.

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/224537/1310159.aspx#1310159

MJ. Smith

I think I might have been the first person to realize the problems they were planning on creating 😎

I suspect I realized the problem before you posted. But I took the nonhelpful approach of waiting until a professor complained ... there are some topics I'm not effective in communicating to Logos how flawed their approach is.

John

Also, with the current situation with two styles of toolbars, the Help document does not correctly describe the actual toolbar if a user has either the free version of Logos or an older paid base package. The help describes the toolbar that a paid subscriber would see. This does not make the "help" very helpful.

Three possible solutions:

1. Have everyone in the class unsubscribe.

2. Have everyone in the class downgrade to version 36.1 and prevent updates.

3. Have everyone in the class subscribe and update to latest version (this is the one Logos would like)

DMB

I get the concept of the dynamic toolbar. But I strongly believe that all users should have a consistent user interface.

I agree on your points. The obvious answer was when they trotted out the optional-placement top/left menu bar ... the option would be subscribed. But even that wouldn't fit in a classroom. If they did force-thru the new toolbar, I'd have to shut off app updates ... the bar isn't a go with a tight efficient layout.

John Fidel

I think they need to provide an option to return to the old toolbar for users that do not want it or for professors/student such as this.

Paul Gibson

I think they need to provide an option to return to the old toolbar for users that do not want it or for professors/student such as this.

Please vote to allow each user to select their toolbar of choice.

https://feedback.logos.com/boards/logos-desktop-app/posts/add-a-toolbar-choice

Frank Sauer

I just read the description of the October update at https://www.logos.com/grow/release-october-2024/. I was shocked to discover that it says that the dynamic toolbar is only available to subscribers to Premium and up.

This is a nightmare. No wonder my Hermeneutics students are confused! Some students have the old style of toolbar and others have the new one. Many videos for my online classes are no longer valid, because some of the basic commands are not in the same location in Logos. We now have chaos right as students are working on a major word study research paper.

I get the concept of the dynamic toolbar. But I strongly believe that all users should have a consistent user interface. If a user has Logos basic or an older paid version of Logos, they should have a subset of the possible features on the dynamic toolbar. If a user has a subscription with upgraded features, additional commands would be available on the dynamic toolbar, just like some users have more tags in the Context menu. But all users should have a minimal set of the commands in the resource toolbar and the commands should be in the same location, regardless of the feature set or subscription level.

There are a number of users who do NOT want the Dynamic Toolbar and IMHO - it should not be forced on said users because new users and some who have decided to upgrade use it and it may be impacting some continuity in classes. As someone who has been an unpaid presenter of Logos, done plenty of training for it in a classroom setting - I would personally rather volunteer my time to train on both options, than force the users who do not want it, to have to change their workflows, layouts and study time to appease continuity, not to mention the current inefficiency... My view may change, if the developers recognize the inefficiency and fix it with a choice of toolbars, functioning single click buttons or both... IMHO, forcing keyboard shortcuts is also not the definitive answer, as some have dexterity issues that make that as or more difficult than the waste of time extra clicking to accomplish the same tasks that the original toolbar does perfectly.

Frank Sauer

If they did force-thru the new toolbar, I'd have to shut off app updates ... the bar isn't a go with a tight efficient layout.

As someone who consistently uses multi resource and multi guide layouts - this is FACT.... It is more tolerable outside the wasted time on clicks to access tools with a wide screen resource panel layout - for those of us who use our screen space to not have to click through tab after tab, thus having tighter resource tab views - the Dynamic Toolbar is not a go!

Doc B

This is a nightmare.

Wow. I've been a prof for 33 years, and this didn't cross my mind as an unintended consequence until you mentioned it. Obviously, it didn't cross anyone's mind at Logos, either.

This is even worse than some of the unnecessary edition changes I've experienced with publishers in the past (like switching the order of chapters without updating any content to make old editions obsolete).

I wish I had a creative solution for you, but this one lands wholly in Logos' lap.

MJ. Smith

Wow. I've been a prof for 33 years, and this didn't cross my mind as an unintended consequence until you mentioned it.

i noticed the effect on teaching as well as introducing new people to Logos - the old resource toolbar is not a selling point and is a foolish choice to present to potential customers. In a parish setting the differences between desktop-web-mobile is a sufficient complication without adding another layer to it.

Harry Hahne

The Web app uses the new resource toolbar, even for free accounts. It gracefully degrades to include only those features available to the user. The Web app has the consistency I want to see in the Desktop app. All users should have the same basic UI, regardless of feature set or subscription.

I cannot believe that FL would want to maintain two separate code bases for two types of toolbars. This creates an unnecessary headache for FL programmers and support staff.

I don't love the new resource toolbar. It creates a cluttered display compared to the simplicity of icons. It is more of a menu system than a Toolbar. Since I have a lot of resources open, I have to click on More a lot to get basic functions. But I will live with it, as long as there is consistency for all users.

Frank Sauer

I don't love the new resource toolbar. It creates a cluttered display compared to the simplicity of icons. It is more of a menu system than a Toolbar. Since I have a lot of resources open, I have to click on More a lot to get basic functions. But I will live with it, as long as there is consistency for all users.

If they would unite the UI look of the Dynamic, but the function and efficiency of the Classic - I'd say the single option would work (And, I'd personally even give the LFL a chance to impress - but I could care less about the "look", if the function is a failure)

Frank Sauer

If they did force-thru the new toolbar, I'd have to shut off app updates ... the bar isn't a go with a tight efficient layout.

As someone who consistently uses multi resource and multi guide layouts - this is FACT.... It is more tolerable outside the wasted time on clicks to access tools with a wide screen resource panel layout - for those of us who use our screen space to not have to click through tab after tab, thus having tighter resource tab views - the Dynamic Toolbar is not a go!

For reference - my resource heavy Desktop with Classic Toolbar has easy and EFFICIENT access to all the tools

Though the Web App limits me from recreating the exact layout, the more intensive a layout the less efficient the Dynamic, due to the need of screen space to access everything

Losing screen space and efficiency is not what I would personally call an improvement - I will again say, the look is really nice, but not worthy of the concessions needed to achieve it.

Harry Hahne

the more intensive a layout the less efficient the Dynamic, due to the need of screen space to access everything

I agree. The clean simplicity of the single row of small icons saved a lot of screen space. Anyone using Logos on a laptop or with a complicated layout appreciates saving screen real estate.

I understand, however, that one of the goals was to remove features from the panel menu, because many users didn't even know that they were there.

MJ. Smith

Losing screen space and efficiency is not what I would personally call an improvement

Unfortunately, those are not the only factors the UI designer takes into consideration. If I were to make a guess, I would say that discoverability of features was a highly weighted consideration. Efficiency is too broad a category for me to guess how you would measure it, so I can't comment on it. Loss of space is common but no necessary depending upon the state the user leaves it in; I know that had I been designing it I would have underestimated significantly the degree to which users toggle things on and off - I tend to choose a status for a task and leave it. I suspect that the Logos designers made the same mistake.

Donovan R. Palmer

This is a nightmare. No wonder my Hermeneutics students are confused! Some students have the old style of toolbar and others have the new one. Many videos for my online classes are no longer valid, because some of the basic commands are not in the same location in Logos. We now have chaos right as students are working on a major word study research paper.

In the beta phase we brought this up, and we asserted that two versions of the base level UI would be a nightmare, I don’t think we thought of the classroom setting, but rather we were fussing about documentation, training videos, community support, etc. So yes, let’s now add classroom to the list.