Update on Herziene Statenvertaling..

There are more problems with the Logos edition of the Herziene Statenvertaling:
1. In general, poetic text is indented too much, which leads to many (unnecessary) line breaks on a mobile phone or when one uses "multiple resource display" on a desktop.
2. In alphabetic psalms like 25 and 34, the names of the Hebrew letters are put on a separate line after the first colon of the verse. This looks very awkward, as in Hebrew they are the letters with which the verse starts, not letters in between the first and second half of the verse. Moreover, the names of some of the Hebrew letters are capitalized while others are not, and in Psalm 34 some letters are capitalized that are not capitalized in Psalm 25. This all looks rather chaotic.

Thank you for the detail, the team is already exploring the issue (some of the things you mention seem like a pretty clear data issue, but I want to refrain from too much speculating).

PS: I use this opportunity to repeat my complaint about the Arabic Van Dyck version that I have tried to get across to Logos in various ways over the years, but that has not yet been addressed until now. Unlike most Logos books, Logos's Arabic Van Dyck is absolutely substandard. An Arabic Bible should have vocalization and proper punctuation, which are both lacking in the Logos edition. There are good electronic editions of the Arabic Van Dyck online (see, e.g., bible.com), so it is really a riddle why Logos sticks to this substandard edition.
As for vocalization: while other Arabic books are usually not vocalized, the Bible and the Quran are always printed/quoted with vocalization.

I don't want to ignore the things you mention above, it is absolutely a resource that needs some work, however I do want to call out that we recently released the Ketab El Hayat (NAV) as a more modern translation. In addition to that, we are also adding titles from Dar Manhal Al Hayat to our offering in the coming months (we still have some production questions here). That doesn't mean that your statement above isn't correct and we should and need to return to that, but our decision at this point in time was to focus on newer, modern content.