How to re-write and release a replacement product.

Philip Spitzer said:

As far as Biblework's documentation, no doubt about it, Bibleworks rocks in this department.

Except that BW7 did not have a manual (and the UI changed substantially between BW6 and BW7)

They made the decision to no longer print manuals because of constant changes to the program.

In many ways this was a shame. I became quite a power user with BW6 because of the excellent manual. 

BUT, the helpfile is excellent and complete and constantly being updated.

Philip Spitzer said:

I will take it to a book any day :-)

Really? I found working through the book in the BW6 days much easier than reading a chm file... Horses for courses of course....

Philip Spitzer said:

I found clicking icons and drop down menus for hours and resorting to the help file as a last resort more beneficial :-)

This is "vaguely" reminiscent of my spouse of three-and-a-half decades. Last resorting anything instructional is the norm, be it software help files, road trip maps or various and sundry directions of any kind. [;)]

Damian McGrath said:

Except that BW7 did not have a manual (and the UI changed substantially between BW6 and BW7)

They made the decision to no longer print manuals because of constant changes to the program.

But the in program help was EXCELLENT!! I think Logos in program help is also very good. I just don't like the default way it opens in that little window along the side. But that easy to fix. Just pop up the window.

Ken Avery said:

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Logos and use it daily for hours on end (not so much with L4 because I spend most of my time trying to make L4 do what L3 does); I have been thru the videos and press every button I can find, I purchased L4 a day or so after the release.

I just downloaded the newly complied files for L3 and will be going back to using L3; I have spent weeks trying to get the same productivity out of L4 as I am accustom to with L3, it is not happening.

This is why I would like to see a chart depicting a side-by-side comparisson of L3/L4 features, replacements, dropped features and a schedule of anticipated feature implimentation dates, I want to know what and when it will be baked.

I use both for hours each day.  I like the floating panel and the automatic saving of one's place in the text which makes reading very pleasant, but, if I want to do some morphological searching or make notes on anything, I use L3.

Ken Avery said:

JackCaviness said:

Ken Avery said:

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

What changes and what does not change depends on what type of SW you are writing;

...

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.

As someone who works in software, and has worked in software for many (many) years in various positions (including developer of all the kinds of software you mention), I must say that I find your application of the "Laws of Upgrading" to be quite personal, and not in any way absolutes in the business of software. Don't get me wrong... good axioms... good approaches, but never what makes a "good upgrade." 

Your arguments actually remind me quite a lot of the arguments made by users (and developers) of text-based interfaces that were being replaced by "Windows versions" that were very much less productive, lacked the kinds of shortcuts that made greens screen users so darn fast. Frankly, they were right; and so are you. And they were wrong... and so are you [:)]

They (and you) were right to raise cain about their frustrations. Many of them quite simply refused to "upgrade" for many years and learned to live with bugs that some would find amazingly unproductive. I actually know of one case where someone spent huge amounts of cash to buy Alpha-based machines, to continue running a particular version of VMS, that would run a particular version of the software that they felt gave them what they wanted... they didn't want any of those new fangled things like unicode. They didn't care about connecting to that crazy internet thing to interact with partners. They wanted the UI and functionality to remain as it was on the version they liked and wanted to stay on. They could customize and build other software around it to work with partners! Just leave my software alone! In the mean time, the software developer (OK, a couple hundred of them) had to focus on a marketplace that was moving, on tech stacks that were changing as fast as they were, to open up to new customers using many different currencies, languages and had new needs for security and compliance with laws. 

You may be that customer, but I don't think so. Logos isn't that ISV.

Logos is taking us onto the bleeding edge instead of being pulled there. They're playing the role of market leader instead of follower, and they're gaining new customers with their new direction that never would have come without it. I definitely see Logos in the upper left of the gartner magic quad.

As one of those new customers, who doesn't have much of a clue about the fantastic nature of the "old", I desperately want you to raise your voice, and loudly. But not so that you can get your specific feature back the way it was, and not based on some set of rules that you claim to know that Logos should be following, do it so that you can help make it a better product.

Please do it in a way that Logos do more with your feedback then "go back to the old way", don't just try to take them (or us) to "Software School." I've been there and done it, including making the (very hard) decisions to remove, yes, remove, features to replace them with features that we knew would frustrate our current users for a while, but that we knew was a step in the right direction. OK, so we didn't know, we hoped. In some cases I was wrong. In other cases, I was right. Smack-dead-spot-on right, and I've had old customers thank me for opposing them and frustrating them. I would hope we can avoid being dogmatic about feature implementation or supposed "rules" of the software business, and instead be evangelistic about what we want to accomplish, and how and why we don't like the new and we did like the old. I see some of that in your posts, but you just keep going back to your dogma about the software business that you don't represent quite so accurately. 

Please take my words as constructive criticism. I'm not trying to shut you up by any means, but I would like to better understand what you really care about and how it is different in a substantive way. 

Blessings, 

Mike

p.s. I have always worked for ISVs and consulting firms that focused on software for businesses, nothing direct to individual consumers. 

This discussion reminds me of when Logos went from LLS 2.0 to Series X.

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

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 said:

 

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

As a programmer, I can understand Ken's point of view.  Software, really shouldn't be released until the features are pretty much in place.  A list of fixes and completions over the next year doesn't really meet that standard.  And while Microsoft certainly has changed the look and feel of it's products, features and functionality were not lost.  As someone pointed out already, calling this Logos 4 implies that it is the successor to Logos 3.  Now, some of you are calling it Libronix 3 to try to make a distinction.  But Libronix is Logos and Logos 4 still uses the Libronix engine, so that is really just a play on words that means nothing.  When I made the puchase, the button said Upgrade Now.  An upgrade implies something better. 

I'm trying to be fair because as a long time Logos user, I want them to succeed.  I still think there has never been a better piece of Bible Study Software written that can compare to L3.  It's great.  Maybe someday, L4 will be great too.  But that day is not today.  It's still half baked.  It wasn't ready to come out of the oven and it should have been left in there until it was done.  Then they could have put the icing on it. 

Personally, I think it would have been easier to accomplish their goals by updating the L3 user interface.  L4 isn't that much different other than cosmetically.  In other words Sadie's got a new dress on.  But the functionality and features were already present in L3.  It wouldn't have been that difficult to change the look and add the features without starting over.  Those who argue that they don't want 20 year old technology need to understand that you are still using the same engine (Libronix).  Yet you would sacrifice functionality for something new.  Not logical to me.

But again, I want Logos to succeed and I believe in them.  This is the first major mistake I've seen them make and I won't jump ship over that.  Also, the people on this forum are a help overall and I'm thankful for that.  Let cooler heads prevail and let's reason together about this.

Bob Pritchett said:

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.

Bob,

As one of those longer term users I've never felt that you didn't care about me.  I have a bit of a head start on many others because I was on the Beta team, but I would like to communicate for everyone "listening" that my experience then matches my experience now - consistently being heard, sometimes agreed with, other times not so much.  I know you're listening. 

I'm frustrated when my pet desires aren't met, but I appreciate you're (and other Logos employees) interjections in the forums which explain the current model and why my model won't work.  But that still doesn't keep me from mentioning pet peeves like everything about handouts.  [;)]

Thomas Black said:

Sean Boisen said:

and we certainly can't provide every feature that every user desires

You mean I'm NOT going to get that automatic sermon writing module?  Nuts.

Pecans, cashews, almonds, walnus or just peanuts?

Ken Avery said:

Time for SW school again

I'm not sure that taking the mantle of some sort of SW guru is helpful to the discussion. I've been working in SW development for 20+ years and I've seen lots of development methodologies. Some work and some don't or some work in certain situations with certain teams but not in others. Your approach, though not bad, is a more old school. I think Logos is taking more of an Agile development strategy. I believe they are doing it right. They have done a good job moving to a totally new platform and I look forward to seeing what features they add to a really good core product.

Ken Avery said:

If I am being critical it is because I care about the product and I know Logos also cares about the product; If I did not feel so strongly about the product I would not be so critical.

Oh boy, here comes another round . . .

Is there a setting for ignoring a thread?

I'm too OCD to not click on the new blues in my list and feel trapped!

Russ Quinn said:

Oh boy, here comes another round . . .

Is there a setting for ignoring a thread?

I'm too OCD to not click on the new blues in my list and feel trapped!

This is the village and you're Patrick McGoohan.  Welcome to the village number 6.  Does anyone think that this thread is going anywhere?

Ken Avery said:

 

So if I appear to be a little ***, it is because 30+ years of 100% success tends to give one confidence!

Failures are often better teachers than successes.  imho

I have said more about development than I normally divulge; for those who disagree with me, you are disagreeing with 30+ years of 100% success. The reason I usually do not discuss SW development is because I prefer to keep what and how I do what I do to myself in order to maintain a competitive advantage.

So if I appear to be a little ***, it is because 30+ years of 100% success tends to give one confidence!

Ha ha ha. . .so how would we go about validating your grandiose claims so we can give you the recognition you so obviously need?

Robert Pavich said:

Does anyone remember their first reaction to the "time-consuming-amazing-that-it-had-to-be-done" ordeal that was known as keylinking?