FEEDBACK WANTED: New Resource Toolbar on Desktop
Comments
-
The left and right arrow keys on your keyboard should do this - if I understand what you are asking for.
Perfect, thank you! Confession: I was trying to work this out yesterday for awhile and had tried this along with many other hotkey combinations. I thought it was broken on the new toolbar... but... in reality, the book I was in simply didn't have any parallel resources... [:#]
0 -
Thank you, but this is not enough, because the useful functions of the tabbar, such as parallel works, are not directly accessible when hidden/half hidden.
But I can see that this will be another wish of mine that will be completely ignored.
They are creating more hotkey combinations. It is quite possible that users like yourself who would like to keep the toolbar minimized will be able to do so for much of the time, utilizing hotkeys instead of clicks for many of the tasks in your workflow.
0 -
I don't like anything that uses up screen space with ideograms/heiroglyphics aka icons (actually the invention of the alphabet was one of the greatest advances in history). All this could be handled better with the vertical ... context specific sub-menus. In general, keeping things the same causes the least confusion and amount of time that needs to be devoted to figuring out how to do what you used to know how to do but no longer do because the program has changed.
Nick
0 -
My logos desktop app just updated with this new tool bar. I am NOT a fan. It takes up space and, for me, actually adds more confusion. And I need to close the lower tool bar individually now on every resource that I have open in my layout; which is a lot. I very much prefer the way it was. Maybe give us a preference option to switch back? Thanks for taking our input!
0 -
They are creating more hotkey combinations. It is quite possible that users like yourself who would like to keep the toolbar minimized will be able to do so for much of the time, utilizing hotkeys instead of clicks for many of the tasks in your workflow.
So that there are no misunderstandings: I don't really want to make it smaller, I would like to have the old toolbar back as an option, which offered all the things I needed in one line - without shortcuts, without hiding anything. In my opinion, it is a deterioration of the UI.
0 -
So that there are no misunderstandings: I don't really want to make it smaller, I would like to have the old toolbar back as an option
[Y]
0 -
My logos desktop app just updated with this new tool bar. I am NOT a fan. It takes up space and, for me, actually adds more confusion. And I need to close the lower tool bar individually now on every resource that I have open in my layout; which is a lot. I very much prefer the way it was. Maybe give us a preference option to switch back? Thanks for taking our input!
they are not going to take your input. the only way for you to switch back to the old toolbar is to cancel your subscription.
0 -
I like an icon toolbar better than a text toolbar. It doesn't seem to take up as much room. The toolbar has a way to go back in history but not forward in history. Or am I missing it somewhere?
0 -
The toolbar has a way to go back in history but not forward in history. Or am I missing it somewhere?
If you have gone backwards, you can then go forward again using the navigation arrows - https://support.logos.com/hc/en-us/articles/29439681440525-Where-do-I-find-on-the-dynamic-toolbar#NavHistory
Or am I missing what you are asking for?
0 -
they are not going to take your input. the only way for you to switch back to the old toolbar is to cancel your subscription.
Sad - but true. It will stay and there will be no option. I wonder why they ask for feedback at all if it is not taken into account anyway. That has already happened a few times.
0 -
they are not going to take your input. the only way for you to switch back to the old toolbar is to cancel your subscription.
Sad - but true. It will stay and there will be no option. I wonder why they ask for feedback at all if it is not taken into account anyway. That has already happened a few times.
I'm actually at a loss for why they are still stating that they are not planning to give an option.... We have seen the option available in Mark's video and another user posted an experimental option between the toolbars - yet the only answer we have received directly from Logos is there are no plans to allow users an option....
Considering that this feature has such a drastic impact on the use and efficiency of use of the program - it really makes no sense at all to not offer the option from a user stand point.... There are those of us who will not subscribe as long as we will be FORCED to use an inefficient workflow for our use of the software and some who have already stated they are considering cancelling the subscription to get the Classic Toolbar back...
This reminds me of when they took away the Sermon File Addin and we were then told to change the way we created our Sermons, so the "new and improved" Sermon feature could import the Sermon.... I actually had one rep tell me to make two copies of my Sermons to prevent me having to change my Sermon creation model - so in other words the user was to do more work, to make up for the now inefficient manner of function of a Feature.... Needless to say, that is when I stopped using the Sermon Feature(s) in Logos.
So in the same way - if the only way to alleviate the inefficiencies of this "new and improved" is to not subscribe or to relearn/learn keyboard shortcuts - again making the user change their workflow to try to alleviate the inefficiency of a feature decision...
I was willing to give the subscription a chance to impress me, mostly for the Android Sermon features (which is another story, I may be wrong, but I don't recall users being told they had to upgrade or subscribe for a feature that was bringing parity to an OS environment - did Mac Users ever have to upgrade to get access to features they already owned in Windows, when the parity between OS environments was being worked on?) - but as long as I will be forced into using the Dynamic Toolbar, I guess I will only be a user and not an active customer.... Also need to make sure I have backup copies of the V36 install programs just in case....
Logos 10 - OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Windows 11, Android 15 & Android 14
0 -
.... Also need to make sure I have backup copies of the V36 install programs just in case....
Thats what I did. I am not currently a subscriber, but I’m still planning on giving it a try.
Of course I’m one of those people who still has a Libronix 3.0g installation. I have added a lot to logos in the last couple years. I sure wish that I could get those into libronix [H]
0 -
I miss the old version. I'm willing to adjust to the new. I would like to see one feature from the old version on the new version.
In the previous version, you could click on the icon to toggle on and off. If you want to make changes to the setting, you would click the drop down menu. This made for quick swaps between seeing parallel resources, greek or Hebrew, and such.
In the new version, it feels cumbersome to toggle things on and off. If we could click on an icon to toggle on and off, then select the drop down from the side as previous versions did, that would make the new version both accessible to new users and quicker and easier for experienced users.
0 -
I see that many don't like the new toolbar, after I played with it awhile and did my post on it for my website, I foudn that I actually like it and the categories of tabs are pretty intuitive once you get used to it. Took me about 2-3 weeks during beta testing.
My advice is give it some time and then if you don't like it I understand. But different doesn't always mean better nor does it always mean worse.
Dr. Kevin Purcell, Director of Missions
Brushy Mountain Baptist Association0 -
When working with multiple panels, they can become pretty small, leaving little room for the menu items. There have been many times when I have had the desire to adjust the size of the reference box, as the extra space could be better used by the menu items. I would like to be able to grab that line to the right of the reference box and drag it to the left or right, adjusting the size within reason.
0 -
I see that many don't like the new toolbar, after I played with it awhile and did my post on it for my website, I foudn that I actually like it and the categories of tabs are pretty intuitive once you get used to it. Took me about 2-3 weeks during beta testing.
My advice is give it some time and then if you don't like it I understand. But different doesn't always mean better nor does it always mean worse.
Why do some people find it so difficult to accept that we humans are different? Why do you imply that people are obviously unwilling to adapt to new things when they sometimes don't like how new things work out? I don't think this is okay on a personal level, please accept that wasting space and making things cumbersome is not a useful innovation for everyone and the desire for optional disabling is a valid and decently presented reason. Thank you and God bless you.
0 -
I like the idea of getting all the options in 1 place but I think I would prefer them tucked away under the hamburger (or stoplight) menu in the upper-right corner of the panel.
The way I envision it:
- group current options under "Panel Options"
- put what is on the new menu underneath
0 -
I like the idea of getting all the options in 1 place but I think I would prefer them tucked away under the hamburger menu in the upper-right corner of the panel.
The way I envision it:
- group current options under "Panel Options"
- put what is on the new menu underneath
I support this idea, it would not take up unnecessary space and you would still have direct access to possible functionality.
0 -
This!!
0 -
Why do some people find it so difficult to accept that we humans are different? Why do you imply that people are obviously unwilling to adapt to new things when they sometimes don't like how new things work out? I don't think this is okay on a personal level, please accept that wasting space and making things cumbersome is not a useful innovation for everyone and the desire for optional disabling is a valid and decently presented reason. Thank you and God bless you.
Why did you imply that I was doing any of that just because I suggested giving it a chance? I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers. May God bless you and give you a wonderful day!!
Dr. Kevin Purcell, Director of Missions
Brushy Mountain Baptist Association0 -
After continued use my conclusion has not changed, the new dynamic toolbar is cumbersome, needlessly distracting, and unproductive. It requires the user to make multiple clicks for common tasks that previously took one click. That is not an improvement. Logos, please respond.
0 -
The way I envision it:
- group current options under "Panel Options"
- put what is on the new menu underneath
I would add a search box at the top to quickly find an option.
[edit] plus a hotkey to open the stoplight menu.
0 -
Why do some people find it so difficult to accept that we humans are different? Why do you imply that people are obviously unwilling to adapt to new things when they sometimes don't like how new things work out? I don't think this is okay on a personal level, please accept that wasting space and making things cumbersome is not a useful innovation for everyone and the desire for optional disabling is a valid and decently presented reason.
If I ran the world, and I am very thankful I don't, there would be a 3 month moratorium on requests to modify a new user interface design. Why? Because the longer I use the new toolbar, the more I find that the issues with it are not what I initially thought they would be. One reason is the compactness of the design make extra clicks less of a time issue than I expected and the features not moved to the new toolbar are more of a problem than I expected. As for the interlinear, I don't know because I rarely change its state - in some layouts I have it on, in some off.
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 loving what I see so far, but I'm trying to find to give this a thorough checkout; Logos is a cut over and above for sure!! TJ
0 -
the compactness of the design make extra clicks less of a time issue than I expected
I see your point. But no one will be able to convince me that having such a tiny clickable area for on/off is a good idea. This design was chosen 100% for aesthetic reasons. There is no practical reason to force users to aim their mouse towards this tiny oval, and I long for the day when that will no longer be necessary. It's not even a consistent design. For the other sub-menu items one can click anywhere in the whole row (great!). But why not extend that functionality to on/off, which is likely used the most?
0 -
Some programs have a command lookup feature I think would help users quickly find what is in the menus without having to remembers what is buried in the secondary menus.
In libreoffice it is called "search commands" (Shift+Esc) and in Freeplane mindmapper it is called "Command Search" (Ctrl+F1) - see below.
You start typing what you remember of a command and it starts filling in likely commands which you pick from to get to the command you want.
I find this functionality to be very helpful. Each command shows the command path where the commands are located in the menus. Plus it is keyboard friendly.
Regardless of the final solution, I would like to push this idea since it should work with whatever solution.
In Freeplane, I mostly used keyboard shortcuts but I still had to access menus for stuff I accessed less often. And Freeplane's menus were way more complex and deeper than in Logos.
I fairly quickly weaned myself off menus using Command Search. It was so much faster, efficient, and painless than menus.
If you want to watch a Youtube video showing this functionality in Freeplane, here is the link : https://youtu.be/bxhCgYmTUJM. I recommend changing the speed to something about 100% - I talk pretty slowly.
0 -
There is no practical reason to force users to aim their mouse towards this tiny oval, and I long for the day when that will no longer be necessary.
Excellent point. I agree that we should have made the menu heading a clickable label, as it would be for a standard checkbox. I've already brought this up with the team. Thank you!
This design was chosen 100% for aesthetic reasons.
Not 100%. The toggle switch was used instead of a standard checkmark because it signifies (in this context) a different kind of thing: It's a master meta-swtich that turns on/off subordinate portions of the UI. We didn't want it to be confused for just another standard checkmark in those menus where there is also a list of checkmarks for individual filters. (I call it the "master breaker," like you'd find at the top of an electrical panel.)
I did make a drawing where the top-level category toggle was a standard checkmark, but then just looked like another item in the list, even with the dividing border. So then I got rid of the border and kicked everything else over to the right by one whole tab stop to make it clear that the rest of the menu content was subordinate. That was clear enough, but there was some unease at having so many menus look like a tree "outline" with just one point, and that arrangement also obscured the fact that this menu item also serves as a title for the menu.
So I suppose you could say that we rejected those options on aesthetic grounds, but the aesthetics are not merely cosmetic; they contribute to legibility, clarity, and information hierarchy. I don't expect any of that to be apparent; I actually hope it's mostly transparent.
YMMV.
0 -
There is no practical reason to force users to aim their mouse towards this tiny oval, and I long for the day when that will no longer be necessary.
Excellent point. I agree that we should have made the menu heading a clickable label, as it would be for a standard checkbox. I've already brought this up with the team. Thank you!
This design was chosen 100% for aesthetic reasons.
Not 100%. The toggle switch was used instead of a standard checkmark because it signifies (in this context) a different kind of thing: It's a master meta-swtich that turns on/off subordinate portions of the UI. We didn't want it to be confused for just another standard checkmark in those menus where there is also a list of checkmarks for individual filters. (I call it the "master breaker," like you'd find at the top of an electrical panel.)
I did make a drawing where the top-level category toggle was a standard checkmark, but then just looked like another item in the list, even with the dividing border. So then I got rid of the border and kicked everything else over to the right by one whole tab stop to make it clear that the rest of the menu content was subordinate. That was clear enough, but there was some unease at having so many menus look like a tree "outline" with just one point, and that arrangement also obscured the fact that this menu item also serves as a title for the menu.
So I suppose you could say that we rejected those options on aesthetic grounds, but the aesthetics are not merely cosmetic; they contribute to legibility, clarity, and information hierarchy. I don't expect any of that to be apparent; I actually hope it's mostly transparent.
YMMV.
Every sentence of your reply made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Thank you. [:)]
0 -
It seems like I am continuously clicking to toggle the secondary menu out of sight. And it is becoming annoyingly distracting.
I would appreciate some way to force the secondary menu bar into hiding without that final click. There should be an option to auto hide when I click back in the book.
Really, I would like both menus to go into hiding and use a hotkey or move the mouse to the top of the pane (like you do in full screen) to lure the menu back into sight.
0 -
Hello!!! I can't figure out where is the line where you can ask questions and get an answer from my entire library to Logos???
0
