Quality control in Logos 6 - a new perspective
Comments
-
Not too funny if you paid for uselessness, ergo Francis' thread.
I have purchased the highest level of each Logos 6 base package. My orders have surpassed $50K by a long shot. I have received great value and functionality for my money.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I rest my case.[:P]
0 -
Funny how some people are erecting perfection as a straw man.
If you had the decision power at Faithlife, how would you set priorities? Would you continue releasing resources that are imperfect? Would you direct all resources to tweaking the base software? Or would you balance them somewhat like Bob Pritchett is doing?
Maybe Faithlife should strive to have less features, much like Accordance. Motto: "Do less with your Bible software."
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Motto: "Do less with your Bible software."
I just want Logos 6 to do what it says on the tin. I just want my Logos program to work as it says it will. that's not seeking perfection – just adequate functionality.
Every blessing
Alan
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
I just want my Logos program to work as it says it will. that's not seeking perfection – just adequate functionality.
I ask you the same question the others are reticent to answer; Should future releases of resources be suspended until Faithlife gets Logos 6 functionality to 100%? I imagine everyone's honest answer would be , "Yes, just not my pet resources." So how does BobP balance everything?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
This thread is better than most soap operas. It's got it all - drama and passion, misunderstandings and reconciliation, the rich and the poor, anguish and suffering, joy and exultation. [;)][A]
0 -
C'mon folks;
Let's cut the super pup some slack. He did stand up to the powers that be a while back. As a matter of fact he ranted and raved for months on just that one thread. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/88357.aspx?PageIndex=1
It was an issue that affected him personally. I guess if you want the pup to bite the hand that feeds him, You gotta step directly on His toes. Possibly that's what the puppy pic signifies.
0 -
This thread is better than most soap operas. It's got it all - drama and passion, misunderstandings and reconciliation, the rich and the poor, anguish and suffering, joy and exultation.
[:D][:D]
Running Logos 6 Platinum and Logos Now on Surface Pro 4, 8 GB RAM, 256GB SSD, i5
0 -
It was an issue that affected him personally. I guess if you want the pup to bite the hand that feeds him, You gotta step directly on His toes. Possibly that's what the puppy pic signifies.
Good observation. I speak up best for the issues that affect me personally. If I took up offences on behalf of others I would be nothing more than a badger. I'd rather be a Faithlife lapdog. [:)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I'd rather be a Faithlife lapdog.
Congrats;It would appear that you got your wish.
0 -
I can understand that there may be annoyance at diverging positions, but it would be good to cut out of the sarcasm and barbs and return to something more constructive, no?
We've learned what we already knew: that not everybody has the same usage and expectations. However, I think the point has sufficiently been made and the real question is whether this was just much ado about nothing or whether Logos will hear and respond.
0 -
Should future releases of resources be suspended until Faithlife gets Logos 6 functionality to 100%?
Yes, absolutely. No hesitation. I think it would be in everyone's interests to have a stable, reliable engine that just works. Then all those existing resources, datasets and functions would work without falling over, freezing, etc.
I need Logos to work every time. As it is I spend a considerable amount of time every week when I should be working on the Bible text for Bible Study and Sermon Preparation, just trying to get things to work!
Every blessing
Alan
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
Should future releases of resources be suspended until Faithlife gets Logos 6 functionality to 100%?
Yes, absolutely. No hesitation. I think it would be in everyone's interests to have a stable, reliable engine that just works. Then all those existing resources, datasets and functions would work without falling over, freezing, etc.
While this solution sounds attractive, I don't see any way that this could be possible when one looks at the actual business of software development. For example, Faithlife at least in the past has outsourced their transcription portion of their development cycle to a third party to move things from hard copy to electronic. That is the specialty of the 3rd party, but they may not and quite likely are not well suited for the more detailed work of Q/A who review before formal publishing. So should Faithlife stop having pre pubs because Q/A isn't keeping up? Now, if Q/A needs to review more/better before releasing, or catching up on resources that have been released in a flawed state, that means hiring additional personnel and training them. You cannot simply poach from the development staff (or some other department) who have a whole different skill set entirely unrelated to Q/A. Should those other departments be held at a standstill until Q/A (if indeed I have the appropriate dept name there) gets caught up?
Now If Faithlife were to stop future development on Logos 7 (a what, 2 yr/3 yr/4 yr development cycle?) and devote say 6 months to a year patching, bug squishing, etc. assuming that software troubleshooting is the same/similar skill set as development, which IS an assumption. Then the development cycle is set back by 6mo - 1yr. That delays a measure of their own profitability paying those developers with little direct ROI. That also means that when the next versions of operating systems are released and users are grumping that L6 does not take advantage of whatever OS integration and feature set (the complaint that L5 didn't support 64 processing on Mac comes to mind, I am sure that isn't the only one) they will be that much further behind being able to keep their product technologically current and relevant with respect to the platform they are on.
I have my own set of things I think need to be improved. I am quite well aware that each version has had problems, and I have encountered resources that are poorly tagged that have affected how I work, at least in the short term. However, if this is to be a productive thread, which has been asserted a couple times previously, let us please attempt to refrain form broad sweeping, unrealistic demands and remain rather more tightly focused on specific and targeted problems and solutions.
Let us also remember that while Faithlife is a corporation, it is comprised of brothers and sisters in Christ who walk before the same Lord, who are commanded to work as unto the Lord and not unto man, just like the rest of us.
0 -
The ambiguities of Case Frames e.g. 'love' as an Agent, leads to a lack of trust, but I don't believe that the method could help me to "better understand the verb in its context"! It's far too mechanical.
Actually, I've been using case frames for close to a decade and find it really helps me in understanding translation. But in the sense that it fits nicely into computational linguistics your complaint is not unfounded.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I'm grateful for all the constructive comments in this thread: we know we can always do better, and we're committed to it. Please do continue to speak up about any data quality concerns you have, especially if you can provide specifics. We can't fix everything as quickly as most users would like (especially not your issue), but in many cases we can at least provide information like
- can we confirm that it's a data error or program bug?
- do we plan to fix it?
- is the fix coming in the next release? (given the software development process, that's about as far ahead as we can commit)
It's not possible for us to anticipate all the ways people use Logos, given all the functionality and resources it includes. If you can't accomplish the task you want with Logos, we want to hear about it: that might identify data errors to correct, or software bugs, or features we should improve. Sometimes there may be a different route to the same goal (I regularly learn new things like this from users on the forums). This is also an important way we uncover ideas for new features.
I'm in full agreement with several posters who have asked us to document our datasets, and I'm committed to making that happen. That will take some time: my current priorities are those data sets that are new to Logos 6 (they're the least familiar) and/or the most complex (because there's more that needs documenting). Feel free to voice your own priorities as well: Logos UserVoice is probably the best place to do that.
0 -
Here again it shows how more training/documentation could help a great deal (where this is the problem). It is not immediately clear that . . .
I also want to acknowledge a hierarchy of problems. I understand that BSL is innovative (in a very good way) and so tricky. Fine. But it is the accumulation of all the problems that has become too much. But even among those of us who are fed up and irrate, I think Logos should realize that we want the company to succeed! It's a win-win prospect!!!
To step back a bit ...
If you follow the forums you know that there are a number of users who don't understand why a lexicon can have two lemmas that are spelled identically. At the other end we have the scholars who made the distinction for the lexicon. What level of training do we expect of Logos? I think their obligation ends at explaining the software and precise documentation required for use. It is to their advantage to do more and to offer resources applying the concept (case frames - Danove). So in the case of the BSL, it seems that often the user expects it to work at the lemma level not at the sense level. It is not a very effective tool when misunderstood in this way. I threw up my hands on updating the wiki because links to material explaining what the BSL is was deemed too detailed. I believe that the user base of Logos is too broad for them to take responsibility for training - one problem I ran into was using the term "protocanonical" which I was informed would not be understood. Faithlife needs to provide blogs, videos and articles that interest one in learning how to use a tool ... but I'm not sure they should be a sole instructor.
BTW: I had been asking both for the BSL and case frames for several years before they came to Logos. My biggest complaint with the BSL is that it only reflects hierarchical relationships.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Yes I still trust logos, why not?? Are you really expecting perfection??
0 -
I believe that the user base of Logos is too broad for them to take responsibility for training - one problem I ran into was using the term "protocanonical" which I was informed would not be understood. Faithlife needs to provide blogs, videos and articles that interest one in learning how to use a tool ... but I'm not sure they should be a sole instructor.
Yup. And until they do I will continue to use outside resources like Barnes, Proctor, and Fallahee.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I appreciate the work of these men and women and I also understand that to "wait" for perfection in the product before distribution would be ludicrous.
Usability is difficult to define but that is the qualitative goal that should be attained before distribution e.g I don't regard Case Frames as usable but it should be usable for those who appreciate the method. It would incorporate parameters like completeness, accuracy, and 'bugginess' where the compilers would account for completeness and accuracy whilst the developers would account for bugginess of the implementation. This is Quality Assurance. Quality Control is responsible for ensuring the product meets these goals.
As far as program bugs go; yes there are unacceptable levels of bugs which do prevent general distribution of all software. However, the beta process is an accepted method of finding critical bugs and coding failures prior to that distribution. Both Apple and Microsoft use the beta programs in similar way to Logos and, like Logos, distribute essential OSs which still include bugs and associated problems.
Critical bugs are easy because anybody can detect them and the 'crash' has to be fixed. But QA has to ensure there is a program to detect less severe bugs and have them fixed before the software is released. This is usually called the Alpha process, but the 'Beta' process is commonly used in its place these days and I don't think it is acceptable for users to pick up silly errors or find that features are unusable when they are not mentioned in the Release Notes i.e. when they are unrelated (as far as the user knows) to the bugs being fixed or features being implemented.
Testing is the art of finding the bugs that are inherent in software and it is accepted that there will be latent/hidden bugs even after the most rigorous of testing programs. But I find it unacceptable that known bugs are ignored, new bugs are not acknowledged and that developer preferences override user/customer requests!
So you can bag Windows for its 'security' issues but MS doesn't compromise essential usability to the extent that I (and others) perceive in Logos, and I won't mention what Apple does to its customers... (also remember that I'm not talking about platform preferences).
I could say that Faithlife have lost the perspective of their customers' needs since Logos 5 and you only have to read the forums on indexing issues to get some insight on that matter.
Is all this being critical or negative? That can be the perception, but if it is based on facts then it should be regarded more objectively. At least that has been my aim and that of the OP. I trust Faithlife to listen and I trust Faithlife to be using their product, but I can overcome most of the technical issues (crashes!) that come my way whilst others simply cannot.
And usability also comes down to documentation; particularly for the new Logos 6 tagging and search features.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Another way to put what Dave said is that Faithlife should have a set of test cases that work correctly and meet certain performance requirements before a version is released - preferable even before its released to beta. That insures that the software is up to specifications. Designing that test set is a skill in itself and should not be done by the individuals coding the software.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
While this solution sounds attractive, I don't see any way that this could be possible when one looks at the actual business of software development. For example, Faithlife at least in the past has outsourced their transcription portion of their development cycle to a third party to move things from hard copy to electronic. That is the specialty of the 3rd party, but they may not and quite likely are not well suited for the more detailed work of Q/A who review before formal publishing. So should Faithlife stop having pre pubs because Q/A isn't keeping up? Now, if Q/A needs to review more/better before releasing, or catching up on resources that have been released in a flawed state, that means hiring additional personnel and training them. You cannot simply poach from the development staff (or some other department) who have a whole different skill set entirely unrelated to Q/A. Should those other departments be held at a standstill until Q/A (if indeed I have the appropriate dept name there) gets caught up?
Bob and Faithlife are funny. On one hand, they are willing to deliver incomplete and unreliable product, but on the other hand they refuse to hire "warm bodies" to proofread, to design better UI, etc. - They are waiting for the "perfect" employee to come and sweep them off their feet.
0 -
After quickly reading through this lengthy young thread, I feel grateful to all the faithlife staff who have commented. I am enjoying Verbum 6 but I also feel it was prematurely released (features/datasets should have been done before release) and stability in the early days seemed very bad. Faithlife well may have released it to get more testing done in larger crowds to more easily squash the bugs. That said people who buy 6 should not be used virtually as beta testers. To want to jump into a new feature like the atlas and find that is not complete feels amateurish (LOGOS/VERBUM 6 were/are in ways incomplete, it was made known that this was the case, but I ask WHY release it before being done, you must know there will be complaints). A springtime launch would not have been the end of the earth. I do feel the "Quality Control" was less than stellar for 6.... I would hope in the future Faithlife would wait till the product is more stable and datasets/features more complete.
-Dan
0 -
That said people who buy 6 should not be used virtually as beta testers. To want to jump into a new feature like the atlas and find that is not complete feels amateurish (LOGOS/VERBUM 6 were/are in ways incomplete, it was made known that this was the case, but I ask WHY release it before being done, you must know there will be complaints). A springtime launch would not have been the end of the earth. I do feel the "Quality Control" was less than stellar for 6.... I would hope in the future Faithlife would wait till the product is more stable and datasets/features more complete.
I wish they had kept with the three year cycle. I also have been strongly opposed to a public exposure of the beta program.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
As I have been reading the posts, I hesitated in jumping in and sharing my two cents, as I didn't want to get slammed for my comments...this happens so often nowadays when people are honestly just sharing their thoughts and opinions...oh for the "good ole days" before the forum existed [:)]....but I decided to go ahead and jump in, but do remember these are MY thoughts and MY opinions, that's all. I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone. I am just stating how I feel.
I have been a user since the earlier days of Logos. I loved it, as it made my study of the Word more productive, as I could do so much more in a shorter amount of time. I thought it was the best. But then gradually through the years I have seen the quality of what was being released become less of what it used to be. It is not that they were being "less innovative." It is just that the quality was not up to the same standard. This seemed to occur when Logos began to "branch out" into other areas, besides just being focused on the Bible software. It was becoming more of a "jack of all trades but master of none." PLEASE understand I am not "bashing Logos." I do appreciate what has been done. It is just that I AM concerned with what has been happening the last few years.
I could say that Faithlife have lost the perspective of their customers' needs since Logos 5 and you only have to read the forums on indexing issues to get some insight on that matter.
Then when Bob asked right after the release of Logos 6 what we wanted in Logos 7, he said: "Wait -- I already know the answer! "Fix annoying-thing in Logos 6 first!" :-)"And I know that he thought that that was funny, but I didn't. And don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with "blue skying" and planning for the future; in fact it is needed. BUT there is a time and place for that. And what is needed first is to get the quality of the Logos software back where it used to be. You can still be innovative, but at a high standard of quality.
I am heavily invested in Logos and so there is basically "no turning back" for me and I realize this. But I don't recommend Logos to others now. It is too complicated for the new person and there is not good documentation for the average user. Yes, I know that there are plenty of places to track down the information to learn about the software, such as the forum, but the average or new user will not do that.
And usability also comes down to documentation; particularly for the new Logos 6 tagging and search features.
So please don't release new software every 2 years to just be doing the latest or newest thing, just because you can or to get ahead of your competitor. What you do, do well. Get the quality back to where it used to be. If you do that, then not only will you maintain your faithful customers, but you will have new customers coming in as well.
Then when it is time to release a new version, make sure that you really are delivering what you say in the advertising. Don't make the same mistakes each release, promising something that you can't deliver. We will be patient. We have been. But I agree with some of the others that the quality control has to improve.
I hope that you will understand the heart behind these words. Once again, I am not trying to bash Logos. I am just trying to caution them, as I convey my concerns.
Charlene
0 -
Strongly agree with Charlene. Very buggy.
Please don't release new software every 2 years!
Please!
0 -
I threw up my hands on updating the wiki because links to material explaining what the BSL is was deemed too detailed. I believe that the user base of Logos is too broad for them to take responsibility for training - one problem I ran into was using the term "protocanonical" which I was informed would not be understood.
MJ, first of all, I am very grateful for all the work that you and others put in the wiki. Yet I think that your experience is not quite indicative of what documentation should be like, the problems of its inherent limitations and whether this requires instructors outside of Faithlife. I say this because I assume that as a wiki writer, you have not signed up to be bogged down in the difficult process you describe (like deciding the difficulty level of what you write). When I read the wiki, I don't check who wrote what, so I am not making these comments about you or anyone in particular, but for my part, I consider that while the material on the wiki reflects 1) knowledge of Logos and 2) willingness to help matched by hard work, it does not translate into 3) instructional skill. So, some of the questions you raise in your post really have to do with "how to teach Logos" the same way you would ask how do I teach the gospels to 1) young believers? 2) long-time disciples? 3) seminarians? Questions such as using the word "proto-canonical" would come in play there.
The idea I have in mind (and perhaps there are better ones) is that Logos must match in its documentation it's multi-level target audiences. Part of this is already reflected in online video training where you have a gradation from basic concepts to "advanced". I believe that this is needed for the help file as well. Not everyone will want to have read too complicated material on case frames for instance because not everyone wants to make an advanced use of it or is at the place yet where they see a need for it.
In many ways, the basic material is already found in the help file, though perhaps some simple examples of use would be helpful. You may say, there are videos for that. Granted. Videos have their use, but one does not always want to watch a whole video in order to find a specific bit of info. At the end of the day, nothing replaces the fundamental role of well-written documentation. Same to be said about the complementarity of what can be found on the wiki and the forums: those who (like me) use Logos as a professional tool, don't have time to wander through the forum maze in search of a bit of information. The basic level should mention in non-technical terms and briefly some of the limitations most likely to apply at that level. A link to "for more information" could connect to material in the intermediate and/or advanced sections. Beyond the basic level, I think there needs to be an intermediate section and an advanced section, with illustrations (non-exhaustive of course) of further applications.
As far as style, it is instructive to compare MP materials with the help file. The first is instruction, the other plain documentation. Both are needed. I agree with the comment made before that Logos is a premium software: I strongly believe that as such, it should include both documentation and instruction. I am not sure that I see any reason why what MP or Falahee are doing cannot be done internally by Faithlife. I see the need for training as needed because even though I do postgraduate research, I have had this experience where I go into a resource that introduces a new concept and basically all I am reading is definitions. There is no context, no easing into the topic or showing how to use it. Documentation must be more than basic definitions of what each button, click or label is. It is conceivable that the classic help file might no longer be suitable to the kind of tool Logos has become (though perhaps "not enough" is more accurate). Perhaps indeed, better documentation and training is to be delivered in the form of resources but it should NOT be something you have to buy extra, but an integrated feature of base packages. You get the datasets and tools = you get proper documentation to know how you can use them!
Your post does raise some valid questions about how far out some features venture. Danove is not the inventor of case frames but a pioneer in applying them to biblical studies. I have limited knowledge of his work (though he is on my to read list). I know however, from reading other linguistic ventures in biblical studies, that the theoretical underpinnings can be very complex (and often debated) and certainly out of reach for most people who are not versed in linguistics or do not have a high educational level (this is a generalization of course). I don't expect the Logos help file to reproduce Danove's work! On the other hand, to the extent that this feature has been added to base packages that are addressed to all users (e.g., Gold) and advertised as a selling feature, it necessarily raise the question: OK, I got this, how do I use it? I don't expect Logos, for instance, to train its users in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek grammar because it does have a grammatical relationship section in the Exegetical Guide. At the Academic end of the spectrum of its customer base, it is (reasonably) assumed that there will be expertise matching the specificity of the tools. This does not dispense for basic introduction (not of grammar, but of the grammatical relationship tool purpose and use) for all users (unless Logos moved toward a "Professional" or "Academic" package). But MOST IMPORTANTLY, even for those who have expertise, they need to know how Logos implements the feature, what choices they have made, what limitations they know of, etc. In other words, we need to know how this concept works in the Logos feature! This is where stuff like info about morphologies come into play. And, as indicated before, pointing us to external websites is not a good solution.
It is possible to do the Microsoft type of solution: the help file connects to material on their website for more information (including videos). Personally, I am not crazy about this and we always need to keep in mind that if Logos will help people all around the world, in countries where Internet access is limited, in remote areas where high speed is not available and among those who have less means and missionaries, it should not depend excessively on finding documentation on the Internet. It should also be added about the value of the forum for training that it does have value but it is a mess and one may have to wait an indeterminate time to have an answer to a question (answers that can be of varying usefulness but that one has to read through just in case!).
Finally, and returning to the resource format idea versus the classic help file question, I think that Mobile Education modules offer a good example of what it could be like. As much as I am grateful to have gotten a bonus course on Bible Study with my purchases around Logos 6 (and consider Bible Study of much greater value than expertise in Logos), courses on Logos would be much more useful. Let Faithlife develop the courses (if this is deemed a desirable format). Possibly, let there be different levels (basic, intermediate, advanced) and then let them be provided to users as part of their purchase. Does that sound like MP material? Yes. And, I would be extremely happy to see -- as part of the frequent update downloads we get -- something like "new help file section: case frames, basic examples" (or whatever else); in other words, ongoing updates to the documentation, not just the program itself.
To summarize, documentation and training cannot be thought of as an add-on or side-dish. It is an integral part of what Logos has become. It needs to be allotted the resources correspondingly. I apologize for the length of this post.
0 -
I think of it much more like purchasing a resource e.g. Jurgens or Andersen-Forbes or Strong's or Louw-Nida. I expect such resources to be very clear as to precisely what their coding means, what aspects of language/Bible they code, and the various indices within the resource interact. I expect a professor, hermeneutics book, linguistics book or friendly pastor to show me how to interpret and use that information. Because much of the implied hermeneutics of Logos reflect a hermeneutics that I cannot subscribe to, I do not want Logos/Verbum to tell me how to interpret and use the data they provide for me. However, I do respect the scholarship of the teams building the datasets, trust them as legitimate sources and want them to tell me exactly what their tags mean and don't mean.
And don't underestimate the level of training and documentation (or even specifications) I have under my belt. I had to ensure that a research prof and his cook on ice knew how to enter everything necessary to be paid correctly. It is precisely because of my experience (and education) that I take the view I do on Logos documentation and training. FWIW I think MP produces extremely well designed training manuals - although targets at a use of Logos unlike my own.
And yes, my understanding of case frames owes much more to Martha Palmer and Charles Fillmore than Logos resources.
In short I want Logos/Verbum to be a smooth-running, consistent tool; I don't want it to be my seminary. And I want to be able to put it in the hands of my fellow parishioners and let each of them work at their own level of interest and expertise. If Logos provides the documented tool, I can provide the training ... and quickly train 10 people to train another 10 each ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
And don't underestimate the level of training and documentation (or even specifications) I have under my belt.
I you think I implied anything of the sort, you misconstrued me. I have very high respect for your level of training and documentation, which I often find superior to my own.
I do not want Logos/Verbum to tell me how to interpret and use the data they provide for me. However, I do respect the scholarship of the teams building the datasets, trust them as legitimate sources and want them to tell me exactly what their tags mean and don't mean.
I am not sure how you define where one ends and the other starts. However, I don't think anyone is saying that Logos should be prescriptive in their documentation. It should be descriptive, illustrative and transparent.
0 -
Motto: "Do less with your Bible software."
I just want Logos 6 to do what it says on the tin.
Motto: "Perform as advertised."
Also, when it comes to bible helps, there needs to be some rigour and consistency, as well as adequate documentation. As an analogy: nobody needs to agree completely with your term paper, but readers must understand your methodology to judge its usefulness or consistency in application.
When it comes to technical, academic stuff, the basis for judgment is the same, but the standards are surely much higher.
0 -
Francis, Do you like Logos (the software program?)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0
