FEEDBACK WANTED: New Resource Toolbar on Desktop

Graham Criddle said:

For me, it would include the search fields but also the lack of ability to select different types of Inline Search (particularly Book) and not being able to navigate through search results from within the search "view"

I gave an example of where I might use the search fields in https://community.logos.com/forums/p/224537/1309861.aspx#1309861 

And the issue of not being able to specify a Book Search - when in a Bible - means that any searches are constrained to a single verse and not the entire chapter.

I completely agree. Four other thoughts to consider.

1. I find the charts button in the current in-line search to be very useful. It allows me to quickly scan at a high level for sections of the Bible that I might want to focus on in the results. This is really useful for searches that return a lot of results. It takes up very little space, but is very useful. Personally, I would love it if this feature would have more of a navigator function that I could jump to the search results of a book of the Bible by clicking on the bar graph. 

2. I would love to see the option to make the in-line search bar stick like the locator bar. If it is constantly being buried by other toolbar actions, this becomes a point of friction that use it as much or more so than other toolbar options. The bonus of this is that the in-line search bar would still be visible when I do other things on the new dynamic search bar with the text. (insights, notes and highlights in particular) Would you consider using the same convention that you do the same as the locator bar with an additional button?  

3. Obviously the 'send to' button in the current online search is very powerful for a number of reasons and I would love to see that kept in. (This may be in the desktop beta, but I can't test it and can only use the web version as a point of reference.)  On occasion, I do find that an in-line search would be best carried on in the full search panel, so I sometimes use this option to transfer my work to it.

4. BONUS: I would love to see fuzzy search brought to the inline search. I would not suggest bringing all full search panel features into in line search, but sometimes I am sitting here and want to bang in some text for a scripture that I vaguely remember, but can't remember the reference. Sure, I can open search panel, run the fuzzy, then click a link to get back to the Bible tab, but it would be nice.

4b. While I am at it... this is more than 4, I would love an easier way to create a visual filter to isolate a range of text. Could be a small section, a chapter, a book, etc... not just for searching, but for intensively working on. This is not an in-line search function, but if I have already set a range of text that I am working on, then a search will automatically be constrained to this.

Anyhow, thanks for hearing us out Mark and giving this some consideration! You guys rock!

IF YOU WANT TO BE REALLY RADICAL... ask the new Accordance users what they would like to see. This way of working with the text is bread and butter to them. It would create some great buy in and they may have a few fresh ideas that I have never thought of before... 

DP

I certainly don't want to overreact. In addition to the call for feedback, the reason I stepped up my input on this feature is that once the new toolbar is developed and the team moves on to other development priorities, it will take more effort to get this discussion back on the radar. Also, when this feature rolls out, it will immediately impact layouts I have built for various workflows.

I use the current in-line search bar to do what others have described as keeping the text central. My terminology is text-centric workflows. My layout and workflows are designed to keep me focused and in the text as much as possible, allowing me to engage in deep study work with minimal distractions.

The trouble is if Logos diminishes the power of this feature, where else do we go? In the past, when Logos did not meet my expectations or requirements, I used Accordance. If Accordance continues to stumble or, worse, disappears, where else do we go? BibleWorks is gone, so there are no other serious text-centric options. Would it be possible that this signals to Logos that there is greater demand for features like this, not less?

Look, I know that my use case is only one of many. I hope that Logos will remember that when making things 'user-friendly' means reducing functionality, that there are likely serious and impactful tradeoffs for some users.

It seems that, similar to the locator bar, if a user does not want to activate the 'in-line' search bar, they can elect to do so, and it will stay out of the way. If this is the case, can we keep the functionality of this tool so that it does not necessarily replicate the full panel search but allows a user to work with the texts in line as much as possible? 

Thanks for listening! I hope there is a win/win between the objectives of the dynamic search bar and the historic functionality of this feature that we have come to appreciate and depend on .

I didn't notice it before, but I really hate the forward arrow that disappears when there is nowhere forward to go. Having it present, but grayed out, makes it much more obvious what the arrow does.

Justin Gatlin said:

My method for doing this would be to create a passage list and then open the passage list in the translation of my choice. By clicking "All Passages" in search and replacing it with the passage list, my searches would be constrained to the text I am working on. What are you thinking of that is different from this?

I do this, but it would be nice to create a faster way to set a temporary range without creating a passage list.

Justin Gatlin said:

I get this, and I think there are some nice things to clone from Accordance. But a lot of us use Logos because we basically prefer the Logos paradigm. Some of the ways Accordance users want to see the software adapted would probably not be feasible without sacrificing the reason some of us chose not to use Accordance in the first place. I felt the same way when Logos bought Wordsearch and a lot of the refugees wanted  Logos to become a Wordsearch clone. I tried Wordsearch and didn't like it, which is why I have used Logos almost every day for a decade.

[quote]I just want to provide a counterbalance because I think disgruntled Accordance customers have made a disproportionate amount of noise on the forum lately.

LOL. Yes, there is a large thread, which is actually very complementary and affirming towards Logos in some respects.  But if we want to talk disproportionate, there are multiple Logos anti-subscription mega threads and another one kicking off under suggestions. In my use of Logos over 20 years, this is really becoming the definition of disproportionate in multiple ways. 🤷‍♂️

But back to the main discussion, I am advocating a point of view about the future of in-line search, not cloning Accordance. I would never advocate for Logos becoming Accordance. I own and have used both for many, many years - and there is no way you could make Logos into Accordance. This is pointless.

But to rewind the clock a bit, when BibleWorks died the death of a Dodo, some users came here and some went there. Accordance very cleverly said, what do you miss the most as you come to us? They gave some input and in the Accordance way, Accordance added a few refinements that resulted in overwhelming agreement from both communities it was a good move.  BibleWorks was still BibleWorks (and dead). Accordance was still Accordance, but it developed into a stronger platform by listening to some new points of view.  In fact, those enhancements became the basis of some invaluable workflows that I have brought into Logos to utilise it even better... some of which involve in-line search! In-line search is a feature that is really useful in the use case I have advocated for in the Logos setting, and because they are a text heavy crowd which works in a similar way, as part of our community they might add some fresh thinking. If they do, win/win. We are stronger and we learn more together, because every day is a school day.

So with this said, I am still trying to understand why we are even having a debate about in-line search. I am hoping to understand why removing functionality from this well established feature is a good move. Why is it better to send me to another place in the programme to do a search in a text that I am already in?  In-line search is a great feature as it currently is and I suggest there is growing market demand for it, along with enhancements, particular if another competitor bites the dust.

I was not going to post on this topic again, but here I am. I recognise that there is a point where you need to rest your case and see what management does. It will be what it will be and sadly, there is not a lot of competition left in the Bible software space to challenge a development like this either.

MJ. Smith said:

The issue many of us have is that when working with a lectionary, our isolated range of text is multiple texts.

Ah-ha... that does make sense. I had not applied this logic to lectionaries. 

Then again, Logos still does not have C of E Lectionaries. (that I am aware of). I am sure that is because of the C of E and not Logos, but I have worked around this by creating my own PB. It's not pretty, but it works.

Donovan R. Palmer said:

I do this, but it would be nice to create n faster way to set a temporary range without creating a passage list.

Justin Gatlin said:

To make sure I am understanding: the feature you are missing is the ability to only show a single passage in your Bible window? We can create ad hoc passage lists in search already. When I am studying a single passage, I create a sentence diagram document, so my workflow may just be different than yours, but it is hard for me to see much use in only showing a specific passage in my Bible window. That seems like something that would trip up new users far more than eliminating the step of making a passage list would help power users.

Thanks for this. I was just thinking about exploring if there was a way in this resource toolbar revamp if we could set a range with less friction.  I don't have a dedicated machine to beta test, so I sadly could not offer a suggestion in how to make this more accessible in text-centric workflows, but I'll keep chewing on it.

MJ. Smith said:

May I ask how you are using the term "text-centric"? I think of my approach as text-centric but I prefer to keep my text as clean as possible - occasionally a line or two of an interlinear to double check something but never the inline search ... I have a work area where I duplicate my text if I want to mess with it.

Thanks for sharing. I recently saw another workflow that sounds very similar to what yours is and it has caused me to ruminate in how I engage my textual studies. 

How I use the term 'text-centric' is an excellent question. If you had asked me this question six months ago, I would have described something different and it will likely be different in another six months.

At present, it is creating and engaging a workflow where I am unearthing the foundations of what is happening in the text. In some ways, Logos is the worst enemy for this. There are rabbit holes that I can chase all day and for me, the interface can encourage me wandering around. Also, understandably so, some of the tools which make the platform more accessible, have a hard baked assumption of how you should study the Bible.

Also, the recent discussion on the variation of differences in databases and tagging, highlights an assumed direction of travel just like any other Biblical resource. @Kristin's question about how to get the exact count of a word was really cool and highlights that I want to draw on these resources, but be free to explore my own thinking.

So my workflows have emerged more and more to unearth this dynamic. In a practical terms, my layouts are increasingly designed with the objective to keep me immersed in the text. This is why as part of the UI I like in-line search as opposed to the search panel. I want to pull in information into the text as I look for patterns and usages, but I don't want the software  taking me elsewhere or through it's bias of what those are. I like to take a word or phrase, and drill into its usage throughout a range of enquiries, quickly returning to the overall direction of travel of the text.

There are other parts of the UI I would like to see modified such as the ability to group and rename tabs into zones or layered layouts. My goal is to reduce the friction and cognitive load of the software, so I can explore in my own way. At a neurological level, I guess this will likely be a bit different for everyone.

As far as what this means for the 'cleanliness' of the text (if you pardon the expression!), I have begun to think about this and was partly behind my interest in an easier way to temporarily set a range or focus point of text, without having to go out of the text to tweak a passage list. As part of this, I have begun to explore when and where I want formatting. When is it useful to draw on this, but also put it out of the way so that I can explore with a clean sheet of paper? It could be that this should be in a two step or parallel work process as I think I understand how you are describing 'text-centric'. (which I think I really agree with)

Let me say up front, I am a novice when it comes to original language studies.  The more I know, the more I realise how little I know. I sometimes head a direction and then I realise later what I was seeing, before I realised I was seeing it.  Sometimes it is also a dead end. I am just having a lot of fun learning.

Jonathan Huber said:

Thank you, Mark! And thanks to the team working on this; I appreciate that you’re listening to all this. 🙏

Yes, thank you @Mark for your clear communication and equally, I meant what I said in another thread... if ultimately something goes in a direction that is not my preference, I will endeavour to adapt.

Sometimes, I have resisted a change and then in the long run I was thankful for it. E.G After I have made my case about links, I have an open mind towards universal links. We all want the same thing... growth and progress!

Anderson Abreu said:

I often confuse the Favorites option (in the Home tab) with the Favorites tool (in the "Application Toolbar"). The icon is the same, but they serve different functions. I believe they need better differentiation.

I agree that a change here would be desirable. While the two favorites features have an identical icon and an identical name, they do not open up an identical tool (at least not for me). The resources that I have in my traditional favorites menu do not appear when I select favorites from the new toolbar.