BUG-ish Clause Visualization Resources with No TOC

I'm guessing it's not a bug, since none of them (I have 9) have an operant TOC panel. More likely a FaIthlife clearly defined policy (clause visualization assumes users should already know books included).

I don't use visualization that much, and for the NT, and OT, no big deal ... I know the abbreviations, etc.

But when it comes to the Deuterocanon:

(1) not sure what books were included; trial and error, and

(2) what abbreviations to use (don't have them memorized)

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Beloved Amodeo

I'm guessing it's not a bug, since none of them (I have 9) have an operant TOC panel. More likely a FaIthlife clearly defined policy (clause visualization assumes users should already know books included).

I don't use visualization that much, and for the NT, and OT, no big deal ... I know the abbreviations, etc.

But when it comes to the Deuterocanon:

(1) not sure what books were included; trial and error, and

(2) what abbreviations to use (don't have them memorized)

'Tis strange indeed. Should we clamor for their inclusion?

MJ. Smith

Most of the clause visualizations are database sets not resources and have unusual behavior. Only Bauserman, Charles R., Matt Nerdahl, and Jimmy Parks. Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the Septuagint Deuterocanon and Apocrypha. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015. contains the deuterocanonical books - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible has no clause visualization. I always assume deuterocanon=NRSV ecumenical canon. This particular resource adds Odes and Psalms of Solomon. But your criticisms are appropriate.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249726#Comment_1249726

Most of the clause visualizations are database sets not resources and have unusual behavior.

I hope building a Bible TOC isn't a stretch at Logos Bible software! When it comes to Deutero, I make no assumptions. But thank you.

Actually, I sinfully broke my vow not to update the app yet, wondering if the visualization bug got fixed (initial text placement was screwed up; you had to 'wand' the mouse over it, to move each clause to its correct spot). As it turns out, 23 corrected that bug.

Beloved, could be years. I'm pasting a TOC on my screen.

Andrew Batishko

It's a great idea. The reason that the Visualization resources don't have TOCs is that the internal format of the resources doesn't currently allow it to support TOCs. I recommend you post a suggestion to https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249745#Comment_1249745

It's a great idea. The reason that the Visualization resources don't have TOCs is that the internal format of the resources doesn't currently allow it to support TOCs. I recommend you post a suggestion to https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-desktop-app

Andrew, appreciate your input. But it's not an idea. It's like a car that you left the left-hand turn signal off. 'Most of our customer turns are to the right'. And I'm confident whoever did the visualization (which has been a long series of mis-steps as recent as 22) likely knows. Saying it's data and not text is saying well, duh ... of course. One plans ahead. Years ago. 2008 maybe.

I know I'm being a bit crass, but this repeats in Logos designs, over and over (Timeline anyone?). Ergo, a look at whoever is doing the designs.

Andrew Batishko

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249750#Comment_1249750

Andrew, appreciate your input. But it's not an idea. It's like a car that you left the left-hand turn signal off. 'Most of our customer turns are to the right'. And I'm confident whoever did the visualization (which has been a long series of mis-steps as recent as 22) likely knows. Saying it's data and not text is saying well, duh ... of course. One plans ahead. Years ago. 2008 maybe.

I know I'm being a bit crass, but this repeats in Logos designs, over and over (Timeline anyone?). Ergo, a look at whoever is doing the designs.

I don't know how I can respond to this. I agree it's not a great situation. However, it's not broken behavior. It's a missing implementation. If a restatement of the problem helps it to feel more relatable, it's a bug in the design, but not in the implementation. Either way, it's unlikely to change any time soon, and the best lever for for allowing customers to help reprioritize work is to demonstrate that there is broader interest in a change, which is accomplished via the feedback website.

For what it's worth, "it's data and not text" is not something I stated. While it is an accurate representation of the facts of the matter, I recognize that it doesn't address your concern at all.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249750#Comment_1249750

Saying it's data and not text is saying well, duh ... of course

For what it's worth, "it's data and not text" is not something I stated.

I did! I did it! Cuz I knew you had a IT background and would recognize that this makes it a piece of code independent of the code that converts print TOCs to book panel TOCs OR print headings into TOCs. Which I knew you would recognize as a missing element in design and/or implementation. So don't frame your complaint in the terms appropriate for Andrew ... I want the complaint, in terms appropriate for mjes. [8-|] BTW, I was providing an explanation not an excuse which is why I agree that your complaint was appropriate.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1249766#Comment_1249766

Oh, I'm not in the who-said-what business (and apologies for internal format <> data/text). But given the buggy behavior pre-23 (yesterday for me), the code does looks pretty limited. And there's not much interest in formatting (wiggle-waggle english glosses).