Suggestion re: requirements and design

My, I'm being vocal today. [^o)] But looking at the weaknesses of some of the add-ins, I have a suggestion - which Logos may already be doing.

When doing the first steps of a product - requirements gathering, design, prototyping ... - it would be useful to Logos to have a virtual committee to tell the developers how they, the committee members, would use the product. The committee should include:

original language professors and.or researchers
Bible study professors and/or researchers
seminary students
pastors
Bible study teachers
family users

Note that for some products, some users would say legitimately "it's of no use to me".

More importantly, the virtual committee should include:

Jewish users
Catholic and Orthodox users
Liturgical Protestants - Lutheran, Anglican ...
Main stream Protestants
Evangelical /Pentecostal Protestants
Non-believing academics

Why does Logos need such a committee? Simply because they can't have a balanced, diverse set of "users" among their employees. So they come out with conceptually wonderful products that just miss the mark. Examples:

The lectionary add-in combines ordo (calendar) and lectionary (readings) - making it difficult to use for historical lectionaries. It's labeling options make it difficult to use for Jewish reading cycles. Minor modification would expand it to support prayer books.
Reading plan - doesn't handle most canons; could easily be designed to handle shorter, repeating reading cycles such as the Orthodox 4 week cyle
Study templates - many good features but current beta is geared (unintentional?) to sermons created outside the lectionary (multi-reading), liturgical year framework.
Pericope comparisons - based on translation headings to define pericope; no implementation based on lectionary pericopes

I'm not talking about a committee that mandates major, expensive change - merely, a committee that can fine tune the product for a multiplicy of uses - position and tradition. See I've even diven Logos a catchy title for the group.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Donovan R. Palmer

I would suggest within this matrix that there be a range of ages and ethnic backgrounds because different groups learn differently. Also need a range of computer proficiency... geeks and novices. We need powerful software, but we can't compromise on usability to someone who is new to computer assisted Bible study.

In addition to this, I hope on a technical side they have people on the development team who are user interface experts, on both Windows and OSX. The software needs to take advantage of the best that both these operating systems has to offer. I also really hope there are experts who can help make the next generation of software does more to take advantage of the graphics potential to make the user experience as graphical as possible, using resources from BAR, pictures, maps, etc.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21420#Comment_21420

Considering the relatively short history of computer based Bible study, I think Logos has done remarkably well in serving an extremely wide range of users. Having modular plug-in design that acts as a seamless whole is the real accomplishment here. The basic front-end is provided for everyone, leaving the selection of resources up to the user. If Logos attempted to be the panacea you are suggesting it will either become diluted to the point of uselessness or so exorbitantly expensive nobody could afford it. I feel the current Pre-Pub and community pricing programs serve well to identify the resources users find worthwhile.

As for program features, BobP (and other Logos people) have been very interested in the input of users. Many features in the pipeline are a direct result of user suggestions. The bug reporting and resultant fixes demonstrate a company with it's finger on the pulse of the user base.

While I welcome various input from across the spectrum, operating by committee is a sure way of bogging down progress. Not all perspectives can be considered before decisions are made. Jewish Professor, Catholic Professor, Lutheran Professor, Pentecostal Professor, Atheist Professor?!, Jewish Family, Catholic Family, Lutheran Family, Pentecostal Family, ........... You get the idea.

I think the approximately 280 employees at Logos do represent a varied cross-section of Christianity. I also believe they have some of the brightest stars in Bible study and software development within their ranks. Dr. Steve Runge is an amazing jewel on staff.

Maybe Logos can entertain a virtual committee. Just don't give them carte blanche over production. And putting somebody like me on that committe would be useless because I can justify buying everything they publish (even the one title I deride in the forum. [:$] )

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21502#Comment_21502

Just don't give them carte blanche over production.

If you note, my original post simply requested more input at the requirements and prototyping stage. But my intent was NOT to have the virtual committee control anything or make any design or feature decisions.

I am certain that most evangelical/fundamentalist users feel very well represented.This is, of course, the base supported by the first release and, judging from the selection of books available and the content of the forums, this is still a very significant user base.
I am equally certain that most liturgical church users feel a little less well cared for - simply because the implementation of the lectionary function implies someone used the RCL as the pattern to implement and did not consider other traditions. It would have actually been easier to implement it with a more global perspective so this is more likely lack of information in the design phase than a design decision. And pericopes were implemented without regard to lectionaries - an odd oversight.
I am even more certain that most churches using an expanded canon (about 80% of Christians) feel even less well cared for - a Bible reading plan function that does not even permit the use of an expanded canon - to the point that a Logos could not fit it into the Bible reading plan scheme.

I agree that Logos has some exceptional people on their staff - what percentage and mix of them have input into the design I do not know. But I can observe the products that are offered to me - with their biases and limitations. Some of these limitations may be legitimate design decisions; some appear to be mere oversights. Without these oversights Logos could get more "bang for their buck" in the development department. And I speak from the perspective of one known as one of the best analysts in a department exceeding 200 IT programmer/analyst/system types -at least before my retirement.

If Logos attempted to be the panacea you
are suggesting it will either become diluted to the point of
uselessness or so exorbitantly expensive nobody could afford it. I feel
the current Pre-Pub and community pricing programs serve well to
identify the resources users find worthwhile.

Here, I fear, you have totally lost me. I was not speaking of resources, pre-pub's etc. at all. I was speaking of a specific type of problem that continues to re-occur in the add-ins they provide - problems that are not major cost items in development. As for dilution? I didn't think I was suggesting any change in the makeup of the users they currently target. Perhaps, I have missed your point entirely.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21508#Comment_21508

Here, I fear, you have totally lost me. I was not speaking of resources, pre-pub's etc. at all. I was speaking of a specific type of problem that continues to re-occur in the add-ins they provide - problems that are not major cost items in development. As for dilution? I didn't think I was suggesting any change in the makeup of the users they currently target. Perhaps, I have missed your point entirely.

I'm sorry MJ, I thought by saying "products" you were refering to resources.

In your original post -- Note that for some products, some users would say legitimately "it's of no use to me".

As far as the features and capabilities of the program itself go; I agree that some really nice features have not made it in yet. Some may never be included due to the cost/benefit ratio. I doubt that Logos will ever cater to the atheist/agnostic user. There just are not enough of them studying the Bible to generate a profit. If we can have a user customizable reading plan nobody would feel slighted. I just have a sneaking suspicion most of the design stage of Logos 4.0 has already been wrapped up and the committee would function more like beta testers.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21724#Comment_21724

I doubt that Logos will ever cater to the atheist/agnostic user.

I agree that Logos doesn't and won't cater to the atheist/agnostic user group - but there are a number of scholars who at least set aside their personal beliefs when studying scripture in comparative religion, linguistics, history etc. It was this group I meant although I didn't explain it clearly.

I just have a sneaking suspicion most of the design stage of Logos 4.0 has already been wrapped up

Again I agree. My thoughts were spurred by add-in functions not the base product. While I find limitations I'd prefer not to have, in the base product I can reason out why the limitations are what they are.

A very specific example: in the Fallahee study guide template, the material about the Bible book as a whole is mixed with the passage one is studying/preparing a sermon on. One should be able to do the Bible book information once (modifying as needed) and simply link to the information. Note that for items such as sentence diagrams, this approach was taken. This is something that anyone who was worked extensively with template would notice immediately. As this is a new feature in Logos (one I requested many times) I don't know how much experience Logos personnel have with it. I suspect that a number of seminary graduates are very familar with exegetical templates but less familar with simple templates for Bible study classes. I certainly could be wrong - and if I am I'm sure someone will correct me.

Westie

Why does Logos need such a committee? Simply because they can't have a balanced, diverse set of "users" among their employees. So they come out with conceptually wonderful products that just miss the mark

I disagree completely with this. The last thing that LOGOs needs is to create a bureaucracy. In essence we are the committee, through the pre-pub process. I bet LOGOS has a very good idea of who their user base is, and what sort of products they use, through their purchases. I think the pre-pub process is very intelligent. It allows LOGOS to continually get to know their customer base, and to get the products that are most useful to this base in their hands, as soon as possible.

In addition to this, LOGOS really listens to their customers as to program features. I do not know of many company's whose CEO replys to posts on forums. I think that LOGOS is an excellent company that produces an excellent product. I do not think they need to become more like "big government"

God Bless

Donovan R. Palmer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21875#Comment_21875

I disagree completely with this. The last thing that LOGOs needs is to create a bureaucracy.

I didn't see this so much as a suggestion of bureaucracy, but rather a focus group. Focus groups are used a lot in R & D.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21875#Comment_21875

I disagree completely with this. The last thing that LOGOs needs is to create a bureaucracy.

In technical terms I am suggesting SME's. Having worked with computers from card reader input - program and compiler -(1966) through implementing the first administrative web application at a major university, I can unequivocally vouch for those IT consultants who insist that the best software is always that which included users (SME's) in the early phases.

What I find most fascinating about this thread, however, is the logical leaps ... there have been no responses that reacted pro or con to the specific examples that I offered as supporting detail for my argument. There has been significant reference to pre-pub's et. al. - a florescent red herring since the resources i.e. texts are entirely separate from function, the topic I was addressing. I am very curious as to why a suggestion as to how Logos might improve their analysis process draws gut-level adverserial reponses. I wish I had a bit more knowledge of psychology. Here it would be more useful than my computer background.

And no to all the smart alecks out there. I may have debugged programs by watching the lights. I may have seen boards and books on wiring but I never "programmed" by wiring a board or debugged a program by removing a fly or even replaced a tube. But I will admit that the first computer I saw (1962) was a military tube machine that was larger than a basketball court.

ho their user base is, and what sort of products they use, through their purchases.

I'm sure you are right to a point. What is more difficult for a company to get a handle on include:

features that remain unused by significant portions of the intended user community
purchases that are not made because of the limitations in the product or its resources
sales that are not made or go to a competitor because of product limitations

It is the first of these items that was my primary concern with a glance towards the second group.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21904#Comment_21904

but rather a focus group.

Exactly. Thank you.

Jack Caviness

Why does Logos need such a committee? Simply because they can't have a balanced, diverse set of "users" among their employees. So they come out with conceptually wonderful products that just miss the mark. Examples:

The lectionary add-in combines ordo (calendar) and lectionary (readings) - making it difficult to use for historical lectionaries. It's labeling options make it difficult to use for Jewish reading cycles. Minor modification would expand it to support prayer books.

Reading plan - doesn't handle most canons; could easily be designed to handle shorter, repeating reading cycles such as the Orthodox 4 week cyle

Study templates - many good features but current beta is geared (unintentional?) to sermons created outside the lectionary (multi-reading), liturgical year framework.

Pericope comparisons - based on translation headings to define pericope; no implementation based on lectionary pericopes

I'm not talking about a committee that mandates major, expensive change - merely, a committee that can fine tune the product for a multiplicy of uses - position and tradition. See I've even diven Logos a catchy title for the group.

I began reading this thread with an air of indifference, but as I read the various posts, I began to see the value of this suggestion. I agree that Logos falls short in all 4 of these areas. In the Study Templates, I would like to see more user modified features.

Good suggestion, M J [Y]

Jack

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/21914#Comment_21914

MJ,

I do appreciate, more than you will ever know, your detailed analysis and creative input on making Logos even better. I hope and believe the Logos "powers that be" are watching, listening and discussing your observations. My programming education was much more technical (assembly language, robotics, ICs.) It did cover design and project management but I didn't care for the "people" end of it. Machines are purely logical and predictable. People are not.

I just assumed Logos already does all the focus group stuff. I mean, we are talking about the #1 Bible software company here with a president that came from Microsoft. I don't think they missed Software Development 101. (Although BobP did suggest dumping Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style." [:|] )

You seem to be correct in your observations. Apparently the central issue is lectionaries. I hope this can be addressed to your satisfaction.

Regarding lectionaries: I'm one of those "I don't have any use for this feature" users. Not Pro or Con.
Regarding templates: I'm just happy to have them at all. I will undoubtedly become more demanding (critical?) as I bump into their deficiencies through usage along the way.

You said, "sales that are not made or go to a competitor because of product limitations." Is there any software out there that satisfactorily addresses lectionaries? (If there is, please don't specifically name them here.) I still think Logos will look at this issue.

Bottom line: If Logos meets your needs regarding lectionaries & wider reading plans there is no need for the virtual committee. The current structure will have worked.

Lastly: --"debugged a program by removing a fly" [:)] "or even replaced a tube" -- rebuilding tube amps is one of my hobbies.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22041#Comment_22041

a president that came from Microsoft. I don't think they missed Software Development 101

Given my experience with Microsoft, I'm not sure that's a recommendation. [:)] My experience with Logos - I purchased their first Catholic edition and found it wanting and did not upgrade. Take a several year pause. With the maturing of Bible software, I do a quick review and find Logos to clearly be among the top and clearly heading the correct direction - the original language support (non-denominational), the partnering with Lutheran, Catholic and Jewish publishers. If you were to check my bookshelves you would find the major publishers to be Lutheran, Orthodox, UCC and Catholic in that order. If you look at Logos offerings and read the forums, it is clear that Logos' primary market is American Protestant (skewed towards the smaller American-roots denominations). If you look at the partnerships, it is clear they are trying to broaden, not change, their base. Someone needs to speak for the broader base; I've unofficially appointed myself to this role. The order in which I would put my primary focus of concerns.

Canon - an issue that I am quite convinced will be addressed in the next release in many areas
Lectionary - not as a 'lectionary calendar" but as multiple text based Bible study
History - with the renewed interest in the American Protestant community in Patristics there are significant opportunities to expand into historical text divisions, lectionaries, even resource layouts
Common features across denominations - when I find prayer books with Bible readings out of Mennonite and Anabaptist groups, I immediately think "this is an area where Logos could expand at very little cost and be more attractive to the broader Christian community" ditto ISSL readings ditto ... (this is sometimes another lectionary issue.)
Build it myself - i.e. well documented XML formats to allow me to build the data missing from Logos resources. I don't expect Logos to provide everything I want - for example, the Bible references from "The Book of Blessings", Bible person data from selected apocryphal texts. This is another area that they seem to be addressing.
Graphic presentations - I have been working in the area of graphic organizer based Bible study for more than a decade. Logos is doing a good job of moving into this area. Because this is a relatively new area, ALL users should be vocal about their preferences while recognizing that we don't want .Logos to change from a text product to a visualization product.

I expect Logos to remain primarily oriented to their financial base - Protestant, American, English-speaking, seminary- Bible college educated - and expect them to continue to offer resources and functions that appeal to that base. But I also hope that they continue to strengthen ties with their publishing partners outside that base.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/22102#Comment_22102

I've unofficially appointed myself to this role.

You have already done a commendable effort in creeds, toolbars and template improvements. I've expanded my horizons reading your posts and I am starting to get a grasp on what you mean by "lectionary, " I doubt I will ever foray into the reaches of your bookshelf so I nominate you do that for me. [:D]

Meanwhile, I will dig deeper into the areas of most interest & usefulness to me.
Apologetics
Archeology
Puritan "Divines"
Evangelism
Theology; both systematic & historical

Although I enjoy language study and ancient near eastern topics, I will gladly defer to GeorgeS and others when I need an expert.
And with my Apple, Windows, Linux programming days behind me, there is no time left to tinker, I just want to use Logos.