Things that I'd still love to see.
Comments
-
You can use Shift+Drag to move all tabs in a pane. (Are you asking for something different to that?)
Thanks, I didn't know that....
OK folks, suggestion: we need a one page printout /PDF containing all the little keyboard shortcuts. I'll tape it up by my desk for a while.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
OK folks, suggestion: we need a one page printout /PDF containing all the little keyboard shortcuts. I'll tape it up by my desk for a while.
I'd be happy just to have the help files. Then if they didn't have the shortcut keys I'd ask for more.
Chris
0 -
Updated
17. An explanation for the way in which search results are "Ranked".
see http://community.logos.com/forums/t/2769.aspx
18. Search results "Ranked by Book" with the book results collapsible: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/2511/18994.aspx
I want Book results collapsible like this:
31. More size options for images rather than just fit and actual size.
33. More keyboard shortcuts
A cheat sheet of available keys, updated with each Beta Release.
43. Ability to click and drag a pane and not just a tab.
44. The return of a resource countdown while indexing.
45. A "Today" Button on the Lectionary Page. The Ability to approximate a date and arrive at the nearest Sunday.
46. Search Results provided in a hover over the Results Hyperlink and NOT over the Bible Reference:
47. When clicking on a reference on the Home Page, do NOT close all my open resources.
0 -
18. Search results "Ranked by Book" with the book results collapsible:
We have ranks per article, since that's the unit we're searching. How do you suggest we map this to books? The book with the highest ranking article, or the highest average rank across the articles in which it has hits? In other words...
Book A: 3 articles, ranked 90, 10 and 10.
Book B: 2 articles, ranked 80 and 70.
Which book ranks highest?
How about Book C, with 50 articles with hits, all ranked in the 60's?
Book D, with a 91 and fifty articles ranked below 10?
And what title? The hits are shown either "Ranked" or "By Book", but "Ranked by Book" isn't really accurate. It's more like "Ranked, Grouped By Book" -- but this depends on the answer to the ranking definition....
0 -
We have ranks per article, since that's the unit we're searching. How do you suggest we map this to books? The book with the highest ranking article, or the highest average rank across the articles in which it has hits? In other words...
I'm not sure... I just know that the two choices as they stand don't really work for me...
Maybe, not just an alphabetical ordering but one ordered by number of hits... So not "ranked" but descending hit counts...
0 -
We have ranks per article, since that's the unit we're searching. How do you suggest we map this to books? The book with the highest ranking article, or the highest average rank across the articles in which it has hits? In other words...
Book A: 3 articles, ranked 90, 10 and 10.
Book B: 2 articles, ranked 80 and 70.
Which book ranks highest?
How about Book C, with 50 articles with hits, all ranked in the 60's?
Book D, with a 91 and fifty articles ranked below 10?
I think just totaling the hits (or totaling the article rank) for all the articles in a book and sorting the books that way would be better than alphabetical, for me.
Or why not the highest average rank across the all the book's articles (not just the articles with hits)? That way the books that have more articles with hits, hit higher. If I'm ranking books, I don't care so much to see a dictionary with a high ranking article in it (that can be found in the current "Ranked" search). Rather, I want to find a book that discusses it throughout, so all the articles should figure in the ranking. It might be better than just totaling the hits for a book, but I don't know.
PLUS, I think book ranking should include the data from the library ranking algorithm as well. If the search string is in the title or subject fields then it should have a strong influence on the book ranking higher than a book with an equivalent article hit rank.
And what title? The hits are shown either "Ranked" or "By Book", but "Ranked by Book" isn't really accurate. It's more like "Ranked, Grouped By Book" -- but this depends on the answer to the ranking definition....
Change them to these three options:
"Ranked by Article" / "Sorted by Book" / "Ranked by Book"
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
4. The ability to set up a "My Passage Guide" which overrides the default Passage Guide...
0 -
How do you suggest we map this to books?
My
first thought is that any arrangement would likely do a better job of
producing useful results than the current alphabetical arrangement,
which seems to put almost completely unrelated books in the top spots.I can think of three possibilities in keeping with Bob's above:
1.
"Book with highest article of Rank first" - This would put the books in
this order D, A, B, C (This will find articles most relevant to the
topic, though the book may cover a variety of topics (encyclopedias,
dictionaries, systematic theologies, etc)2. "Book with Highest Average first" - Order: B, A, C, D (This may mean a book about the topic, although the specific hits are
throughout the book rather than concentrated in one article.)3. "Book with most articles with hits" - Order: C/D, A, B (Like #2, this may be a book about the topic which hits scattered throughout rather than concentrated.)
Note: This would still likely put books A, B, C and D all at the
top of the list above E, F, .... which only have 1 random hit, but may
still show up at the top of an alphabetical list. So no matter what
system is chosen would still be better than alphabetical.Which to choose:
Why not put the choice for all three, at least now in the Beta stage? Let us see how they work out in practice and give our thoughts.
If
I have to chose one without trying it, I would tend to go with #1. This
may move books about the topic slightly lower on the list, but would
dig up many articles that focus on that topic.Again, no matter which scenario is chosen, I think it will be better than a straight alphabetical and the top 10 books will have a lot of similarities no matter which method is used since the random, one hit books will all get moved to the bottom.
www.3rdcultureliving.com - Simple Abundant Legacy
0 -
How do you suggest we map this to books?
My
first thought is that any arrangement would likely do a better job of
producing useful results than the current alphabetical arrangement,
which seems to put almost completely unrelated books in the top spots.I can think of three possibilities in keeping with Bob's above:
1.
"Book with highest article of Rank first" - This would put the books in
this order D, A, B, C (This will find articles most relevant to the
topic, though the book may cover a variety of topics (encyclopedias,
dictionaries, systematic theologies, etc)2. "Book with Highest Average first" - Order: B, A, C, D (This may mean a book about the topic, although the specific hits are
throughout the book rather than concentrated in one article.)3. "Book with most articles with hits" - Order: C/D, A, B (Like #2, this may be a book about the topic which hits scattered throughout rather than concentrated.)
Note: This would still likely put books A, B, C and D all at the
top of the list above E, F, .... which only have 1 random hit, but may
still show up at the top of an alphabetical list. So no matter what
system is chosen would still be better than alphabetical.Which to choose:
Why not put the choice for all three, at least now in the Beta stage? Let us see how they work out in practice and give our thoughts.
If
I have to chose one without trying it, I would tend to go with #1. This
may move books about the topic slightly lower on the list, but would
dig up many articles that focus on that topic.Again, no matter which scenario is chosen, I think it will be better than a straight alphabetical and the top 10 books will have a lot of similarities no matter which method is used since the random, one hit books will all get moved to the bottom.
www.3rdcultureliving.com - Simple Abundant Legacy
0 -
It shouldn't be too hard for you Thomas. Just search for "handouts"
ROTFLOL [:D] I literally laughed till I had tears in my eyes.
Ok, so I'm persistent. It used to be that way with Andrew and notes in L3.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Updated
Great list Damian. When it gets to 50 I'll tell you that I agree with 96% of them[:)]
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Updated
Great list Damian. When it gets to 50 I'll tell you that I agree with 96% of them
I'll be honoured....[:$]
0 -
It shouldn't be too hard for you Thomas. Just search for "handouts"
...
Ok, so I'm persistent. It used to be that way with Andrew and notes in L3.
You won't receive any criticism on my account for persistence.
You may have noted that I can be like a dog with a bone on several issues...
0 -
Hi Damian,
I know it's frustrating to not get a response, so I thought I'd type out a summary of my best understanding of the roadmap for 4.0 and beyond. Please don't take this as the official word on what is and what isn't going to be implemented, but just what I know from reading the bug database. (And my memory may not be perfect.) "Not in 4.0" means it's not going to make the initial release; I don't know if it will follow later. "After 4.0" means it's not going to make the initial release, but I'm pretty sure it's going to follow later. "Not planned" means it's not planned for any release of 4.x. And of course all this is subject to change; it could well be that many "not planned" features are discussed and implemented for 4.2 or 4.5 or later.
One final note, many of the features you suggest make me think, "Yes, we should do that!" I'm sure we will get to many of them. Some of them are surprisingly difficult to implement, and we probably won't have time to do them before 4.0.
Finally, thanks for maintaining a concise list of enhancement requests; it makes it easier for us to track the most-requested features.
1. Individual tab 'x'. Not in 4.0.
2. Right-click close pane. Not planned; workaround: click on an open tab.
3. KeyLink on phrases. Not in 4.0.
4. My Passage Guide. Done.
5. Parallel resources. Not in 4.0.
6. Multi-column reading view. After 4.0.
7. Legible sigla. Not planned; they're just Unicode characters, so this seems like it depends on your default font.
8. Custom icons. Not in 4.0.
9. Update saved layout. Not in 4.0.
10. Prioritisation. Not in 4.0.
11. Left side of new tab. Not planned.
12. Pericope guessing. Not in 4.0.
13. Change "Go" box. Not planned.
14. Home network sync. Not planned.
15. Tagging, rating. Not in 4.0.
16. Cited By. Not sure.
17. Ranking explanation. Bob has explained; current ranking algorithm unlikely to change for 4.0.
18. Collapsible search results. Not in 4.0.
19. Export reading plan to calendar. Not in 4.0.
20. Context menu item placement consistency. Not in 4.0.
21. Information Close button. Not in 4.0.
22. Unlink all. Done.
23. Power Lookup follow. Not in 4.0.
24. Information tool hover on Gk. Not sure.
25. Passage Guide reference. Done.
26. Resource updates. Not planned.
27. Download information. Not in 4.0.
28. Updated resource information. Not in 4.0.
29. "update now" Done
30. Non-protestant ranges. Not in 4.0.
31. More size options. Unsure.
32. v3 PG sections. Not sure what this means exactly.
33. More keyboard shortcuts. After 4.0.
34. Plurals and apostrophes. Not in 4.0.
35. Better chrome. Not in 4.0.
36. HP images on smaller screens. Should be done, but how small are you talking?
37. HP remove any item. Not in 4.0.
38. Remove ribbon. Not planned.
39. Multiple drag. Not in 4.0. (A great feature, but technically complex.)
40. Abbreviated PG command. Not in 4.0.
41. Outline PG section. Not in 4.0.
42. Improve PG commentaries section. Not in 4.0.
43. Drag pane. Use Shift+Drag; no drag on empty area in 4.0.
0 -
I know it's frustrating to not get a response
Bradley, Thanks for your comprehensive response.
I haven't been frustrated by a lack of written response to the UI and other suggestions which I have made because I have seen actual responses in the design of the program (6 of these - and others from elsewhere, esp. regarding the Home Page). As you can see, I have been striking-through those which have been implemented. I wouldn't keep writing if I didn't think that it was having an actual effect - at least in terms of raising issues.
The only frustration which I have expressed was with a lack of response to an issue regarding crashing and regarding not updated resources. Much more "mission critical" than UI issues. (OK there may have been some other frustrated comments...)
For the most part, I'm not concerned whether these suggestions make 4.0 or later. These are things which I think would improve the program, at whatever stage.
Just on a couple of points:
7. Legible sigla. Not planned; they're just Unicode characters, so this seems like it depends on your default font.
It's partly a colour issue. Please compare with v3: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/926/7561.aspx
32. v3 PG sections. Not sure what this means exactly.
This is actually done. It was the ability of sections to "remember" their last state (running or collapsed)
36. HP images on smaller screens. Should be done, but how small are you talking?
On my 10.1" netbook. I get no images at all.
see the first three pages of my HP here: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/2831.aspx
40. Abbreviated PG command. Not in 4.0.
Not sure why this one has to wait (or may not be implemented). It should be about the easiest of my suggestions (or whoever it was who first thought it up)
0
