How to re-write and release a replacement product.

Having worked on SW for years developing SW for very large customers, here are a couple things I have learned:

The ideal replacement SW does everything the original SW does.
The settings for the original product are migrated to the new product.
If the presentation changes the new product must have equivalency.

Even before starting the re-write these goals should be first on the radar.

From what I have seen Logos 4 does not meet these goals; thus it fails as a replacement product for Logos 3, not trying to be mean, just stating what my customers would tell me.

I do believe Logos 4 is salvageable and should be considered "beta" at best, the product still needs a lot of work to meet the goals specified above.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

spitzerpl

From what I have seen Logos 4 does not meet these goals; thus it fails as a replacement product for Logos 3, not trying to be mean, just stating what my customers would tell me.

I suppose it could technically not be called a replacement. Libronix 3 runs parallel to Logos 4, and Libronix was the technical term for 3 whereas Logos is the technical term for version 4.

Personally I am glad they did buck the trend here. I do recognize that I am not the majority of users here as most want something more familiar to the previous, but I don't want the to be a slave to version 3. Microsoft office is different. They come out with new versions more frequently. But most likely whatever UI structure we will have today we have to live with for years with Logos. I would rather them focus on getting it to be the right UI for Bible software then be a slave to programs that are not geared at studying, or keep us to a UI that was used 10 years ago. I do not want to be using a 2000 UI in 2020.

Just my personal 2 cents.

Mark Barnes

The ideal replacement SW does everything the original SW does.

Whilst I agree that Logos4 lacks some important features were present in Logos, your statement simply isn't true. There always comes a time when a software developer has to remove features for the sake of progress. These two posts from programmer Nick Bradbury give an insight into that process:

http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/killing-feature.html

http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/how-to-kill-a-b.html

Power-users may hate it, but sometimes simpler is better.

Ken Avery

Not sure what world you guys live in; the world I live in, you do not take features away when you re-write your SW. If I understand the development process being used to develop Logos 4, the replacement for Logos 3, the features are being introduced gradually.

I am OK with this process; what I would really like to see is the documentation that states what features are being dropped, implemented and the equivalent features being developed and the progress; in other words, a side-by-side list of Logos 3 features, Logos 4 feature replacements and the progress.

If what you folks are saying is true; of which, I am not convinced (I give the Logos developers more credit to do a professional job and not a shotty job as you are implying) I will not be using Logos 4 because I am a power user and if Logos 4 is not going to be written for the power user then I will keep using the old Logos 3 that was written for power users.

I must disagree strongly that the new product is not required to function as the old product; I have maintained SW that has to be backwords compatable for decades, you don't remove features that breaks your customer base!

If you are going to depricate features it needs to be communicated; btw, these features will no longer work in the new product ... etc.

What I am saying is the professional way to handle this type of development is to be upfront with your customers telling them what is implemented, what is being implemented, what replaces what feature, the schedule for feature release and what features will not be implemented.

PS: I do not put a lot of weigth into Nick Bradbury - he works on web development tools and has a much different target application than programs like Logos and the types of SW I have been writing for decades - Brad's approach would fail in the development space I work in.

Robert Pavich

the replacement for Logos 3,

Ken,

thats' the thing. This is a false expectation.

Logos 4 is not the 'upgrade" or replacement for V3; Logos has stated as much.

So any conclusion that stems from this particular bit of misinformation is going to be flawed....

Ken Avery

Thank you for that information; it looks like I purchased Logos 4 (Logos lite) and did not need to because Logos 3 is the real product!

How misleading, the logos front page asked me if I wanted to upgrade; it did not ask if I wanted to tryout "Logos 4 Lite" as a suplement to Logos 3!

However you spin this, it is not a good story; my impression is that the developers convinced Logos management to re-write Logos and this is what we have now, Logos 4.

To call this misinformation is an understatment!

J. Morris

There are times when SW needs to take a BIGGER leap than just upgrading the current version.

I kind of wish they would have called it something different than Logos 4.

The title, I believe, leads people to expect it to be related (if not closely related) to V3.

I know that IS what I expected. I WAS NOT pleasantly surprised the first week I must admit. However, I also believe that just about (can't please everyone) anyone who will spend the time going through the videos (Logos AND user made) and patiently tries to discover more within L4 they will see it for what I believe it is. A great product that (amazingly enough) is ONLY going to get better. (and from what I have seen in the forums about the current L4 beta it is going to get MUCH better)

You can call me a die-hard ranting Logos fan, (or what ever other labels have been floating around), but FOR ME L4 is really a great product.

spitzerpl

what I would really like to see is the documentation that states what features are being dropped, implemented and the equivalent features being developed and the progress; in other words, a side-by-side list of Logos 3 features, Logos 4 feature replacements and the progress.

Bob has gone on record in the forums as saying the only two features being dropped with no equivalent future replacement are the remote library and Graphical Queries. Remote libraries because what it did in L3 can be done easily in Google and Graphical Queries because the new methods of L4 are viewed as superior.

What I am saying is the professional way to handle this type of development is to be upfront with your customers telling them what is implemented, what is being implemented, what replaces what feature, the schedule for feature release and what features will not be implemented.

The placement of their notices may be up for debate, but they have been very open here, one of the primary places people seeking a feature will turn to, and on their website through http://www.logos.com/4/missingfeatures.

PS: I do not put a lot of weigth into Nick Bradbury - he works on web development tools and has a much different target application than programs like Logos and the types of SW I have been writing for decades - Brad's approach would fail in the development space I work in.

Well, I'm no programmer, but I hope they don't tie Logos down to the limitations of decades old hardware but instead write the program to take advantage of today and tomorrow's hardware advantages.

I must disagree strongly that the new product is not required to function as the old product; I have maintained SW that has to be backwords compatable for decades, you don't remove features that breaks your customer base!

The progress of time does make some features obsolete and not worth supporting. For instance, if your stats show that only .5 percent of users utilize a feature such as Remote Library searching you have to ask the questions 1)will more people us it if we do a better job implementing it? e.g. is the reason people are not using it because we have made it unusable? 2) If it is removed are we taking away the .5 percent's ability to do what we have offered? 3) Is continued availability worth what it costs us to implement? I'm sure there are a ton of other questions to ask.

Software, and electronics in general, are very new. To say "I've worked with software for decades" is to say I was there pretty much from the start. At least until now a break with the past was not necessary but eventually there will need to be that break and Logos believes to a degree that time is now. Functionally the L4 product we will see next year will have very few things it will not do better then L3, or at least that is what we have been promised.

Ken Avery

Well, I'm no programmer,

Enough said [8-|]

Kevin A. Purcell

Well, I'm no programmer, but I hope they don't tie Logos down to the limitations of decades old hardware but instead write the program to take advantage of today and tomorrow's hardware advantages.

Strangely we are in a weird time as the hardware of "today and tomorrow" is actually becomeing less capable and more capable at the same time. Netbooks are less capable and they are selling like crazy. But many struggle to run Logos 4 on them. I know some of you are perfectly happy with it. But I would not want to run it on one as my expectations are much higher.

I think the original writer was spot on. Logos 4 is not ready yet. Will be. But it is a beta since features are designed to be released very soon but are not yet in the software. This is by definition a beta. Sorry. I know people don't like it when user criticize the software, but it is the opinion of many very loyal and faithful customers including myself. One day it will be great. But not yet.

Todd Phillips

But it is a beta since features are designed to be released very soon but are not yet in the software. This is by definition a beta.

If you can give me a reference for your definition of beta, then I will accept your argument. [:)]

Most definitions of beta I work with include: the feature list is frozen (i.e., it's feature complete according to the release plans of the developer) and the software is still untested and buggy. Planned features may be added in the next version. Now if it was still exceedingly buggy, then calling it beta might have more merit. Calling it beta implies that it is buggy, but design decisions aren't equivalent to bugs. It's better just to say that features are missing.

DominicM

Ken

if you hate your L4 use your 28 day money back offer, and stick with L3, no one is holding a gun to your head and saying use L4

I understand where you are coming from being a developer with over 25 years experience, but respectfully disagree with your summary.

Given that L4 was written from scratch, all new code, the initial release results are very encouraging (and worthy of release), yes theres a few things that need fixed/added (mainly power user stuff), and they will be added, but it was important to get the software out to the 95% that never use these tools.

Yes its a pain for us power users who have to wait for the extra bits to get coded, but the general (normal user) concencus is L4 is a winner, and worthy replacement.

Kevin A. Purcell

Given that L4 was written from scratch, all new code, the initial release results are very encouraging (and worthy of release), yes theres a few things that need fixed/added (mainly power user stuff), and they will be added, but it was important to get the software out to the 95% that never use these tools.

It is not a 1.0 release. Look at the title. It is Logos 4.0. Rewriting it from scratch and leaving out features may make it a different product, but if they want the benefit of the doubt for being a 1.0 they should call it a 1.0. Change the name and call it Logos Ebook System 1.0 or something. But if you call it Logos 4.0 then you are signalling to your loyal and faithful customers that it is everything 3.0 was and more.

Jack Caviness

I must disagree strongly that the new product is not required to function as the old product; I have maintained SW that has to be backwords compatable for decades, you don't remove features that breaks your customer base!

Ken

Your multiple posts make me wonder if you have ever heard of these companies: Microsoft, Apple? They don't seem to think that your absolutes are so absolute.

Ken Avery

I must disagree strongly that the new product is not required to function as the old product; I have maintained SW that has to be backwords compatable for decades, you don't remove features that breaks your customer base!

Ken

Your multiple posts make me wonder if you have ever heard of these companies: Microsoft, Apple? They don't seem to think that your absolutes are so absolute.

Time for SW school again [8-|]

What changes and what does not change depends on what type of SW you are writing; for example, if you start with the operating system and the device drivers you will find that the requirements tend to stay the same while the HW changes. Take the network stack; how much do you think it has changed in the past 20 years, not much.

A simple way to look at it is how databases work; first you have data, second you have data relationships and third you have views of the data. For example, you might have the following tables:

Person id, name, street address, phone id, hair color, height
Phone id, area code, phone number
Street address, Country, Town, zip code

You can maintain this information and provide many ways to view it; the base data fields can stay the same while the ways to view and edit the data can change in several ways and not affect the base design.

The point is, if the program is only providing user interface presentation stuff then there is more opportunity for change without changing the underlying architecture, kind of like changing clothes, you still have the same body functioning underneath.

Before all you non-sw people start linking pages that confirm your own prejudices you might want to spend a little time understanding what you are talking about; what type of program Logos is and should we expect it to be randomly changing because that is what some software does?

Let me get you caught up on what I have been saying in layman terms; I believe the core engine functionality of Logos has changed in a way that does not support keylinking the way it use to, it is basically broke in comparison to Logos 3, apperantly this is not a big issue for some.

It appears the architecture has changed and also the requirements when it comes to keylinking.

Bob Pritchett

Having worked on SW for years developing SW for very large customers, here are a couple things I have learned:

The ideal replacement SW does everything the original SW does.

The settings for the original product are migrated to the new product.

If the presentation changes the new product must have equivalency.

Even before starting the re-write these goals should be first on the radar.

The fun stuff always blows up on the forums when I'm on the road. :-)

i apologize for not re-naming the software, In the past, we went from Logos Bible Software v1.6 to Logos Library System to Libronix Digital Library System/Logos Bible Software Series X. Each of these transitions was intended to make it clear that we'd rewritten, not just updated.

We considered this for Logos 4 -- everything from a completely new name to a new platform name. But we didn't have the energy to re-educate the market, and didn't want to give up the brand equity in Logos Bible Software, which is what people end up calling it no matter what. (Or Libronix, which added to the confusion.)

I totally understand and appreciate your software principles. It's what Microsoft followed for years, and it's why my 1986 DOS programs run today. Very cool. None of my Apple IIe code runs anywhere except in emulators.

On the other hand, Microsoft takes a pretty thorough beating for lack of innovation and bloat, and there's an ENORMOUS cost in testing and maintaining that backwards compatibility. (It must be awful to be on that testing team. Or worse, to be assigned to fix one of the bugs the team finds!)

Logos 4 is to Logos 3 what the Mac was to the Apple IIe.

(Actually, we're a little nicer. Logos 4 reads your old books. The Apple IIe software -- 10,000+ packages at the time, as I recall -- was all useless.)

As an Apple IIe user who got an original Mac, I can tell you it was in some ways a step back. (One disk drive!) But in other ways? It was the coolest thing on earth.

It's funny to me to read all the outside guesses about how we make decisions at Logos. (I'm not criticizing; I'm just amused.) Some are dead on (we do like to earn some revenue after years of R&D!) and others way off base. I particularly like the idea that "development" sold "management" a bill of goods on the re-write. Since I'm a lead instigator of the re-write (with the help of a brilliant team!), the development manager, and the guy who decided it was time to ship it. :-)

I do believe Logos 4 is salvageable and should be considered "beta" at best, the product still needs a lot of work to meet the goals specified above.

I'm glad you think it's salvageable. :-) But I don't share your goals.

My goal isn't to maintain a particular set of features, data formats, and user interface for decades. My goal is to more people do more and better Bible study.

I believe that Logos 3 had reached the limits of its design. We had found the people who would invest in learning its UI in order to do what it could do. But it wasn't accessible and easy enough for the next group of people.

For good business reasons, among many others, we're describing Logos 4 as an upgrade, and working to ensure that your notes, highlights, resource purchases, etc. transition into the future. We do value and appreciate our existing users. But our mission is to reach even more people, and that's what drives us to innovate and experiment. Because after 8 years of the Libronix DLS engine, even with tremendous growth, it was clear it wasn't going to get double or triple as many people engaged in Bible study. Maybe a nice 10% growth each year. And we want more.

I'm a bit nervous being so direct -- please don't read this as our not caring about our existing users! We do, and we want your feedback, and to build a product you're happy to keep using and upgrading. But I hope you can appreciate and share our goal of engaging even more users. And if we're going to get 2x, 3x, 4x more people doing better Bible study, that's going to take some bold new ideas. Just tweaking the old thing gets you just tweaked results.

I feel like I said some of this before... "Throwing it all away and starting over is incredibly rare in the software world. It is considered a dangerous business decision." It's like I anticipated this forum thread! :-)

http://blog.logos.com/archives/2009/11/introducing_logos_bible_software_4.html

-- Bob

Edward hyndman

Thank you Bob for this reply and the directness. I have been a user and customer for many years now, and will probably continue to be, though I admit working with Logos 4 has caused me to look around at competitors for the first time. I am not a power-user of 3 or 4, but I do a lot of Bible study for myself and on behalf of others. Very important to me within the 3 program were verse-lists, notes you could paste web page info into, the ability to create documents within the program like notes and so on, add in information from elsewhere or my own and then print them, the ability to cut and paste into and out of the program windows, all of them, so easily, and what I found to be an easy "UI".

Trying to get my head round 4 as some kind of "upgrade" has been difficult. Indeed, for my own purposes if 3 were released as an upgrade to 4, Id accept it more easily

The UI of 4 is ok. I use enough programs to not worry about changes that way too much, and I think 4 is "clean" and the print looks nice on screen. The graphs for the various analysis is prettier too. If the searching capability is better it is better in a way I don't see - never look under the bonnet/hood, don't care what the engines doing as long as it is doing it.

So I like 4, in lots of ways its nicer to look at. But today, when im doing my work, I'll have to use 3. Maybe in a 6 months I shall be able to use 4 for my work? Or maybe I won't. I don't really know, but it is helpful to read your thoughts and especially your purpose behind 4. I wish I had read more posts and wikis and details about this earlier, but, cest la vie. This brings me to my point at last though. I have been trying to work out what has bothered me so much about the 3 to 4 move. People have said its a beta, and its not an upgrade, it should be renamed, but none of this is quite it. I think it is rooted in the fact that the relationship with Logos has been extraordinarily good in the past. That is why criticism is citiqued on here too I think. I quite quickly clicked upgrade and did not do due diligence because, well, its Logos. I trust Logos. We have the same aims; its the Bible!

So it was thought time for "Throwing it all away and starting over.." - that's fine. Good thing. There is a time for everything. But I had gotten used to the abilites 3 gave me and finding them gone in 4 and not knowing if 4 will be able even in the future to do what I have been able to do means a kind of uncertain future for me with Logos. I love your purpose

"My goal isn't to maintain a particular set of features, data formats, and user interface for decades. My goal is to more people do more and better Bible study."

I hope its realised many times over. It's just this; Logos 4's future might not be for me, and I guess I don't know yet wether to invest more notes and work and book buying into Logos or not.

Thanks again for the clarity of your post on this.

Eddie

spitzerpl

Very important to me within the 3 program were verse-lists,

The thing I miss the most...its coming though.

notes you could paste web page info into

If you mean adding a Web address to text in notes you can do that. Highlight the text you want to hyperlink, and type the address into the "hyperlink" box. You have to use the full address so include http://www when you create the link.

the ability to create documents within the program like notes and so on

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

add in information from elsewhere or my own and then print them

A lot of people miss the printing.

the ability to cut and paste into and out of the program windows

I'm taking it you mean search windows and Passage Guide type of stuff. I don't know about the guides, but I'm pretty sure Bob has said we will be able to that from the search windows with an upcoming feature he's calling "search analysis"

Bob,

Your involvement here speaks volumes about Logos! While I have my own frustrations with Logos4 I do appreciate the vision. That said, it's inevitable some will not feel led to follow the path you're blazing. My only critique is that the roll-out of Logos4 was (and is) billed as an "upgrade" which carries quite a bit of baggage in terms of expectations. Happily there are many out there who enjoy exploring new software and who like engaging in beta testing. However, some of us don't; we simply want to install and go ... regardless of how unreasonable that may seem. I understand there are development and implementation challenges I can't hope to understand but the fact remains that Logos4 feels rough and unfinished -- and I'm not running a 6-year old computer . To some degree I feel like an unwilling participant in a beta test! The fact that Logos is willing to offer a full refund to unsatisfied customers is an honorable policy but it's also simplistic to suggest folks simply return the product and walk away. It's sort of like waiting in line for an extended time; once you've invested this much time you may as well see it through! Now I also have to admit I didn't take on the responsibility of fully researching the Logos4 "upgrade" before purchasing ... I simply trusted that meeting the minimum performance specifications ensured smooth sailing ... more time on the forums might well have resulted in a more informed decision to wait a few months to upgrade. I'll stick around because I do appreciate the vision and I'm deeply thankful there's a company out there with such a great customer focus.

I hope I haven't sounded too negative; I know the folks at Logos have a genuine heart for making God's word more accessible and I'm sure Logos4 will continue to meet that need.

Gregg

George Somsel

Bob,

Your involvement here speaks volumes about Logos! While I have my own frustrations with Logos4 I do appreciate the vision. That said, it's inevitable some will not feel led to follow the path you're blazing. My only critique is that the roll-out of Logos4 was (and is) billed as an "upgrade" which carries quite a bit of baggage in terms of expectations. Happily there are many out there who enjoy exploring new software and who like engaging in beta testing. However, some of us don't; we simply want to install and go ... regardless of how unreasonable that may seem. I understand there are development and implementation challenges I can't hope to understand but the fact remains that Logos4 feels rough and unfinished -- and I'm not running a 6-year old computer . To some degree I feel like an unwilling participant in a beta test! The fact that Logos is willing to offer a full refund to unsatisfied customers is an honorable policy but it's also simplistic to suggest folks simply return the product and walk away. It's sort of like waiting in line for an extended time; once you've invested this much time you may as well see it through! Now I also have to admit I didn't take on the responsibility of fully researching the Logos4 "upgrade" before purchasing ... I simply trusted that meeting the minimum performance specifications ensured smooth sailing ... more time on the forums might well have resulted in a more informed decision to wait a few months to upgrade. I'll stick around because I do appreciate the vision and I'm deeply thankful there's a company out there with such a great customer focus.

I hope I haven't sounded too negative; I know the folks at Logos have a genuine heart for making God's word more accessible and I'm sure Logos4 will continue to meet that need.

Gregg

You sound as though L4 is your first exposure to Logos. Is that the case? If so, I might suggest that you download L3 and also download the resources you have licensed from ftp://ftp.logos.com/lbxbooks. Attempt to syncronize your licenses which may give you access through L3 to the L3 resources. If that doesn't work, perhaps Logos would be willing to give you a license to them in L3 as well as L4. I have both L3 and L4 and was a beta tester in the all too brief beta program. I also tend to feel that the beta was much to brief and the program is still not ready for prime time though it has many great features. I'm sure that improvements will continue to be made so that in the not too distant future I will be able to use it in my regular studies. At the moment there are basically two factors which prevent this for me:

(1) Deficiencies in notes
(2) A nearly unusable morphology search (I wish they would bring back the old check-box method which seemed to be more reliable and less difficult)

Hang in there. I have confidence in the people at Logos so I'm sure they will get it right. In the meantime, look into the possibility of using L3. The two programs can be used simultaneously (I ususally do this) until L4 is up to speed.

Ken Avery

I do believe Logos 4 is salvageable and should be considered "beta" at best, the product still needs a lot of work to meet the goals specified above.

I'm glad you think it's salvageable. :-) But I don't share your goals.

Bob,

Thank you for the response, I agree with most of what you say; though, my concern has not been addressed - keylinking.

This is my issue and why I say it is salvageable, I believe you can fix this; I believe it can be replaced with something equivalent or better, we don't like the priority solution.

I hope this is direct enough.

You sound as though L4 is your first exposure to Logos. Is that the case? If so, I might suggest that you download L3 and also download the resources you have licensed from ftp://ftp.logos.com/lbxbooks. Attempt to syncronize your licenses which may give you access through L3 to the L3 resources. If that doesn't work, perhaps Logos would be willing to give you a license to them in L3 as well as L4. I have both L3 and L4 and was a beta tester in the all too brief beta program. I also tend to feel that the beta was much to brief and the program is still not ready for prime time though it has many great features. I'm sure that improvements will continue to be made so that in the not too distant future I will be able to use it in my regular studies. At the moment there are basically two factors which prevent this for me:

(1) Deficiencies in notes
(2) A nearly unusable morphology search (I wish they would bring back the old check-box method which seemed to be more reliable and less difficult)

Hang in there. I have confidence in the people at Logos so I'm sure they will get it right. In the meantime, look into the possibility of using L3. The two programs can be used simultaneously (I ususally do this) until L4 is up to speed.

George,

Thanks for the kind suggestions. In fact, I'm not a new Logos user and still have Logos 3 installed although I've been trying to use Logos 4 exclusively in order to overcome the learning curve! My frustration is that as a seminary student I simply don't have time to fuss with the software. I invested in Logos preciesly because time was at a premium in my life and I was looking for a way to streamline reasearch; Logos 3 has been a lifesaver! Logos 4 has grown on me and I can see its promise but it isn't there yet as a research tool. I'm genuinely thankful others are able to run the software without sluggishness or hang-ups but that certianly hasn't been my experience on either my Duo-core laptop (4 GB memory) or my quad-core desktop! I know there are many who can accept Logos 4's delays but when I'm trying to juggle two or three papers, a lesson outline, a honey-do list and the reality Christmas is right around the corner I tend to be a bit impatient with sluggish performance!

That said, I do have confidence in the folks at Logos and hope springs eternal ... besides a couple of hours unpacking Christmas decorations should help temper any instant-gratification-related frustrations!

Thanks again for the suggestions!

Gregg

Mark Barnes

Thank you for the response, I agree with most of what you say; though, my concern has not been addressed - keylinking.
This is my issue and why I say it is salvageable, I believe you can fix this; I believe it can be replaced with something equivalent or better, we don't like the priority solution.

I hope this is direct enough.

Ken,

As it happens, I agree with you that prioritising is not adequate. However, for many of us keylinking was no better - it was too time consuming to set up, and too painful to re-set up when you got new resources. For that reason I developed a technique that by-passed keylinking with judicious use of workspaces, parallel resource associations and reference targets.

I'm therefore not at all keen to see a retun to keylinking. Many other users share the same view. I believe that what we need is something different, but better, that combines the strengths of keylinking, parallel resource associations and prioritising. I think that one answer would be to allow different priority lists for different types of data, with a master list to fall back on and for those who don't want/need to create multiple lists.

But if you really want to affect change, the best way (as Sean tried to point out earlier) is to be constructive. Logos are not writing software for you (there were seven personal pronouns in those three sentences of yours above). They're writing software for all of us. So please consider making suggestions that consider how others use the software, and even how others would like to use the software but currently feel unable to do so. How could something equivalent to keylinking integrate with an easy-to-use system for non-power users?

Mark

Ken Avery

Thank you for the response, I agree with most of what you say; though, my concern has not been addressed - keylinking.
This is my issue and why I say it is salvageable, I believe you can fix this; I believe it can be replaced with something equivalent or better, we don't like the priority solution.

I hope this is direct enough.

Ken,

I'm therefore not at all keen to see a retun to keylinking. Many other users share the same view. I believe that what we need is something different, but better, that combines the strengths of keylinking, parallel resource associations and prioritising. I think that one answer would be to allow different priority lists for different types of data, with a master list to fall back on and for those who don't want/need to create multiple lists.

But if you really want to affect change, the best way (as Sean tried to point out earlier) is to be constructive. Logos are not writing software for you (there were seven personal pronouns in those three sentences of yours above). They're writing software for all of us. So please consider making suggestions that consider how others use the software, and even how others would like to use the software but currently feel unable to do so. How could something equivalent to keylinking integrate with an easy-to-use system for non-power users?

Mark

Well said, this is why I keep asking for equivelent or better (hoping for better); as far as using to many personal pronouns, I did not want to speak for everyone, these are my opinions and I am not sure everyone agrees.

Jack Caviness

I think that one answer would be to allow different priority lists for different types of data, with a master list to fall back on and for those who don't want/need to create multiple lists.

That is a good suggestion, but it would not replace all the options that were present with PRAs. With those users could arrange commentaries in groups according to style (Critical, Exegetical, Expositional, Devotional, or whatever). This could be done with other resource types as well.