Comments
In a recent video, Mark Barnes indicated the development team is working on a change that would allow some degree of user customization to the new toolbar. At least that's what I understood him to say. If so, that might go a long way in making the new tool bar more appealing to those who don't care for.
I’m fine with it now, but it did take some getting used to at first, particularly for showing page numbers and selecting visual filters, but now I’ve found my way around it I don’t have a problem with it. I think that the customisation options @Mark Barnes (Logos) mentioned in his recent “What’s New” video will also help to reduce clicks where they’ve increased.
Sorry, but I need to know that the poll numbers will not be misused before I respond to polls. I happen to like the new format because it is faster for me as my most used features used to be in the panel menu.
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."
I agree. The smart people who updated and subscribed should be given the best option of the new toolbar by default.
😋
Dr. Kevin Purcell, Director of Missions
Brushy Mountain Baptist Association
Second,
the dynamic toolbar is here to stay. I know that will displease some of you who were happy with the old minimalistic toolbar. It certainly had some advantages, not least the amount of space it took up. But it had become hopelessly overwhelming for new users and even many experienced users. For their sake, we needed to change, and we aren't going back.Third,
the "old" toolbar will eventually disappear for all users, very likely this year. We can't maintain two entirely different systems indefinitely, and removing the old toolbar will ensure our entire focus will be on making the dynamic toolbar work for everyone.
Allow me to explain: Every additional choice increases the testing required of a module, adds additional break points for potential bugs, increases the required training, increases the options for user error (think support) . . . Options are great when there are use cases that require them. Otherwise, they are a continuing application cost that I prefer to use for upgrading current functions or expanding functions available. Or, if an option is simply for user preference, I would prefer to direct the cost to options that affect accessibility - which is user need not preference.
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."
I'd think, if a sizable chunk of customers (already hefty buyers) aren't on board, either fixing the 'new toolbar' or optionalizing it, overcomes the trials of program development that face all companies. I'd think doing a better design job might be apropro to reward the enthusiastic subscribers!
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
The tool bar is changed around every few years and that's the problem I believe people are having. Its hard to keep re learning how to use it, and if it just stayed the same, then it wouldn't be a big issue.
Currently I don't mind the new dynamic toolbar as I first did, simply because I have gotten used to it.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, I have no access to information to confirm "sizeable chunk" - all I have access to is "loud chunk", "Luddite chunk", "first glance chuck", "detailed evaluation chuck", "specific enhancement chunk", "evidence-based complaint chunk" . . .
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."