A weakness in Logos 5 - library prioritization.
Lately I have been working on utilizing my library more effectively. I have found resources that I was not using and found helpful, then prioritized them accordingly.
It is here Logos is clumsy, it is painful to drag resources/sets up a scrolling list of resources to ensure you see a particular resource when right clicking on another.....(unless I am missing something??).
It would be nice to have an interface for this. Maybe have a tabbed prioritizing tool, where we can prioritize dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries etc....
The idea is when you click on dictionaries you see all your dictionaries and arrange them from there, the same with with all the categories of resources.....
The way it is now seems so messy and clumsy......
Comments
-
[Y]
It's for precisely that reason that I have barely bothered with prioritising my resources.
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
Yep current system really doesn't seem built for prioritising more than a few resources.
0 -
We had a discussion about this back in January with a response from Bradley Grainger: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/80464.aspx
Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:It might be nice, but it would be ambiguous. For example, it's easy to have a Dictionary (e.g., Merriam-Webster), Encyclopedia (e.g., Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible), a Thesaurus and a Bible Concordance (e.g., Where to Find it in the Bible) that all have articles for the English word "grace". If you double-click the word "grace", what should happen if all the resources are grouped by category/type? Does the system have to go through all prioritised resources in one category before it can move to the next?
In the current system, you can prioritise two Bible Encyclopedias, then an English dictionary, then another Bible Encyclopedia, etc. (i.e., mix and match resource types). It seems like losing this functionality would be a step backwards.
How would you envision this scenario working?
0 -
Bradley applied for work at Libronix Corp. but I understand the interview didn't go well and eventually ended up at Logos (later purchased by FaithLife Corporation).
Ah yes, Libby knew how to do 'panels'. I really wish some of the FaithLife coders would purchase Libronix and get some great ideas on UIs. Libby had a few headaches, so maybe not those.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I've previously suggested two small changes along the lines you're suggesting which would make a big difference to power users:
Mark Barnes said:- Separating prioritisation into a separate tool like collections, so you can actually see what's going on.
- Allowing users to switch to an advanced mode of prioritisation, which would effectively use the L3 system of prioritisation. In L3, you would first choose your datatype, and then set prioritisation for that datatype. That stops all the confusion that occurs when, unexpectedly, a resource has two datatypes. Just as importantly it would also help power users see their prioritisations more clearly. It would be possible to switch from standard to advanced without losing your existing prioritisation, but it would need be a one-way switch. Most importantly, it's only a UI change, it wouldn't require any underlying architecture changes (which frankly, I can't see us getting).
The L3 system of prioritisation was similar to your tabbed idea (although it's important to understand that the 'tabs' for each resource types, but would have to be for each datatype).
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0
