Some proposals to fix prioritisation

It's fair to say that for power users, prioritisation is broken (though I accept it's great for most users). Given that L6 has fixed many of my previous bugbears, I felt it is time to focus on this, which has seen precisely zero improvements since L4 was released in November 2009.

All these proposals involve changes to the user interface, not the underlying architecture.

Proposal #1: Move prioritisation into a separate tool, similar to Collections. This will give users more room.

Proposal #2: Add a CTRL+F function to find existing resources in the prioritisation list. When I add a new commentary to my list, I think something like "That should do a bit lower than the BST", and then have to scroll through 360 entries trying to find the BST. I should be able to jump straight to it.

Proposal #3: Add a datatype filter to the Prioritisation Tool so that we can display only those resources that match a particular datatype (English Headword, Bible, Apostolic Fathers, etc.). If I'm prioritising the Fathers, I don't need to see the other 350 entries to do so. If all entries in the list are numbered in order, the number is retained when filtering, it will be easy to cope with situations such as adding a new resource in between resource #112 and resource #156. Just place it at #134.

These three proposals would benefit everyone. I have two additional proposals for power users.

Proposal #4: Add an optional advanced mode. The above proposals will help a lot, but power users would appreciate being able to prioritise each datatype entirely independently. The filter would be a big help, but several books have multiple datatypes, so you can move a commentary series and find it's affected your Church Fathers prioritisation. The advanced mode I'm proposing would work in a very similar way to L3's prioritisation. You would have a dropdown at the top, and choose your datatype. Then prioritise your resources underneath, just for that datatype. There would be no single list of all datatypes at all. You could switch from standard prioritisation to advanced prioritisation at any time, but not go back.

Proposal #5: Show unprioritised books. It's helpful to know which books you haven't prioritised so you can make sure you're not missing good books because you've forgotten to prioritise them. Adding the ability for users to create a collection of unprioritised books (or have one built into Logos) would make that simple.

In case you don't believe me when I say that prioritisation is broken for power users, here's a section of posts. Some of the posts contain unworkable proposals. They still prove that it's broken, even if they also prove that a fix isn't easy.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mike Binks

t's fair to say that for power users, prioritisation is broken (though I accept it's great for most users).

I beg to disagree! It may be broken for power users but it is still a (expletive thought rejected and repented) nuisances for ordinary users.

You only have to have a few resources prioritised to have a problem knowing just what section you are in and just where, in the scheme of things, you are.

The UI for prioritisation need to be rethought. I get the feeling that we are sorting out the list for the programmers benefit rather than the programmers giving us a workable UI and then dealing with the selections.

Graham Criddle

Hi Mark

These are some really great suggestions in my opinion - [Y]

Graham

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688523#Comment_688523

I beg to disagree! It may be broken for power users but it is still a (expletive thought rejected and repented) nuisances for ordinary users.

Perhaps you're a power user without realising it [:)].

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688526#Comment_688526

Mark I wish you would get on the bandwagon with Logos fixing Cited By (unmanageable panel with thousands of collections and tags, that many have, especially since a new collection automatically goes into the list whether you want it or not), and Personal Books (can we have some more sophistication in managing to resources we want to build - filters, re-compile multiple at once, see if the compiled file is older than the latest edit of attributes, etc. etc. etc. - I have 250 personal books, try doing anything comprehensive with them in the simple panel we have had for years). Both features are pretty unusable by power users as well, yet nothing is ever done with them.

Seems like you are the only one Logos listens to :-)

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688524#Comment_688524

These are some really great suggestions in my opinion

[Y]

JAL

Great suggestions. I particularly like the following:

...users would appreciate being able to prioritise each datatype entirely independently. ... The advanced mode I'm proposing would work in a very similar way to L3's prioritisation.

I understand concern about the potential cost of providing technical support for installations with this type of advanced post installation configuring. To gain this type of feature I would accept limitations of support similar to those assumed by users who choose to install the beta software.

OT: I would also like to have the ability to modify the appearance of data type links, i.e. the colour.

see: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/3970/31426.aspx#31426

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688558#Comment_688558

[Y]

I've wished for these types of improvements many times - thanks Mark for putting these together.

I must say... I tend to think that a variation of #4 could be easier for non-power users as well, if designed right.

For example, the default prioritization tool would probably be easier to use for non-power users (in the sense that it would be more intuitive) if it presented tabs / filters of the most typical categories that you might want to prioritize, such as Bible, Commentaries, Lexicons, etc.

Then an advanced mode could open up to all datatypes.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688605#Comment_688605

Mark, your suggestions are excellent.

In addition, as I have asked for before, I would request that the number of resources available for top prioritization be increased from 5 to 7 for lexicons and bibles.

Also, I think the present interface should be changed to better reflect what resources the program is using for each category. A suggestion would be to employ headings and indentation for each category. Eg.:

Default

ZDBT
NewMAC
EDBN
CTB
TSK

Bibles

NABRE
ESV
NASB95
KJV1900
NIV
NLT
BHW-NA28

And so on.

Rosie Perera

Excellent suggestions. I would add:

Need some way to organize prioritizations by resource type and have named separators for the resource type groupings. I've come up with a hack as a workaround for this (retitle some books that you never use that you would have otherwise hidden, and use them as the separators), but it is stupid that users should have to do something so weird as that to get resource type grouping. I like Mark's color-coding idea too.

And here's another thread to add to the list of ones with user suggestions related to prioritization:

Prioritized List Suggestion

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688673#Comment_688673

My top complaint in a list that otherwise closely mirrors Mark's is the need to be able to easily set the priority of Bibles for an individual book to the Bible that resource quotes by default. Often this applies to a series so even being able to apply advanced priority settings to a series would be an advancement although not a complete solution.

Dave Hooton

It's fair to say that for power users, prioritisation is broken

Terminology --> if it was broken it would be repaired. Prioritisation has become impractical and convoluted in ways that reflect the reasons Faithlife used for turning away from Libronix's Keylinking (Lookup)

many users think they have to prioritise their entire library
the list easily becomes too long to manage effectively
the list method doesn't accommodate increasing Library size & new resources
Advanced Prioritization is an admission that keylinking is complex
Advanced Prioritization implementation is complex and a matter of trial-and-error even for advanced users

So let's reflect how it was done in Libronix:

Here we can see the default order of resources and note that you could open more than 1 resource when doing a lookup (keylink).

Note that the list includes Bibles and Commentaries but doesn't indicate that we should prioritise Bibles first, although they can be intermingled

Wow! We could have different link colours. Very useful in resources like lexicons which have multiple links (e.g. TDNT, Strong's, LN, Bible) in each article.

So enhance the list by providing headers with drop-downs showing resources. The headers should reflect broad resource Types rather than datatypes and they can be re-ordered:-

Bibles

English
German
Greek (NT)
Greek (OT)
Hebrew
etc.

Bible Commentary (incl. Bible Notes)

Encyclopedia (Bible Dictionaries) & Concordances

Lexicons/Dictionaries

English ---> MW/Oxford English, etc.
German
Latin
Greek (words)
Greek (TDNT)
Greek (Strong's)
Greek (Louw-Nida)
Greek (DBL)
Greek (GK number)
Hebrew (words)
Hebrew (TWOT)
Hebrew (Strong's)
Hebrew (DBL)
Hebrew (GK number)
etc.

Apostolic Fathers ---> mixture of Monograph/Ancient Manuscript

Lectionary

Calendar Devotional

Characteristics:-

List indicates what resources need to be prioritised (no more guessing/need to know about indexes).

List accommodates resource types used for display purposes, not necessarily lookup e.g. Lectionary, Calendar Devotional. Sermon resources (monographs) could be added.

List would only show headings that are relevant to the user's Library (Libronix shows all datatypes)

Drop-downs will only show resources relevant to their heading (we don't have to drag them out of a filtered/unfiltered Library list)

If not default order then up to six (6) resources would be listed immediately under each heading.

Each heading can be collapsed/uncollapsed.

New resources would be highlighted in the drop-downs.

Traits/attributes of each resource can be displayed e.g. reverse interlinear, LCV, Referents, Notes.

One disadvantages of the above is that Bibles and Commentaries can't be mixed for users that like a commentary to be shown for bible references. But they could indicate how many bibles are to be used in the Context menu and the rest could be taken from Commentaries.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688747#Comment_688747

Terminology --> if it was broken it would be repaired. Prioritisation has become impractical and convoluted in ways that reflect the reasons Faithlife used for turning away from Libronix's Keylinking (Lookup)

Faithlife haven't turned away from Keylinking. Under the hood, Logos 4-6 works exactly the same way that Libronix did, and under the hood they even still use the word 'keylinking' rather than prioritising. It's the UI that's changed, that's all.

So enhance the list by providing headers with drop-downs showing resources. The headers should reflect resource Types rather than datatypes and they can be re-ordered:-

I disagree strongly that headers should reflect resource types not datatypes (for the same reasons as Bradley). Resource types are simpler, but it doesn't effect what's happening under the hood, and that will only end up confusing users. If you're going to do advanced prioritisation, you need to understand datatypes, and the more they're exposed to advanced users, the better.

List indicates what resources need to be prioritised (no more guessing/need to know about indexes).

Nothing needs to be prioritised, but some resources won't benefit from prioritisation. With a datatype filter only resources that benefit from prioritisation would be shown.

List would only show headings that are relevant to the user's Library (Libronix shows all datatypes)

Agreed.

Drop-downs will only show resources relevant to their heading (we don't have to drag them out of a filtered/unfiltered Library list)

Agreed. In my envisioned advanced Prioritisation Tool, the library on the left would be filtered by the datatype chosen on the right.

New resources would be highlighted in the drop-downs.

That's a great idea.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688523#Comment_688523

t's fair to say that for power users, prioritisation is broken (though I accept it's great for most users).

I beg to disagree! It may be broken for power users but it is still a (expletive thought rejected and repented) nuisances for ordinary users.

You only have to have a few resources prioritised to have a problem knowing just what section you are in and just where, in the scheme of things, you are.

The UI for prioritisation need to be rethought. I get the feeling that we are sorting out the list for the programmers benefit rather than the programmers giving us a workable UI and then dealing with the selections.

[Y] Yes to what he said. {Wow! that is much easier than composing my own response [8-|]}

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/688865#Comment_688865

I disagree strongly that headers should reflect resource types not datatypes (for the same reasons as Bradley). Resource types are simpler, but it doesn't effect what's happening under the hood, and that will only end up confusing users.

I did mention (and illustrate with) "broad" resource types and also indicate one disadvantage with mixing Bibles and Commentaries. Where Bradley mentions a lookup on "grace" with Dictionary, Encylopedia, Thesaurus and Concordance, I would change:

...

Encyclopedia (Bible Dictionaries) & Concordances

Lexicons/Dictionaries

English ---> MW/Oxford English, etc.
German
Latin
Greek (words)
etc

to be:

Encyclopedias/Concordances, Dictionaries

English ---> MW/Oxford English, etc.
German
Latin

Lexicons (Bible languages)

Greek (words)
etc

The essence of it is to use familiar "type" names whilst reflecting what goes on "under the hood" AND what needs to be prioritised for Display purpose e.g. Commentaries/Notes for Passage Guide, Encylopedia/Concordance for Topic Guide, Greek bibles, Hebrew bibles, Greek lexicons, Hebrew lexicons, etc. If my sub-categories restrict mixing then resource attributes in the drop-down should indicate sub-category and other information to assist prioritization e.g. Greek bible+Int, Hebrew bible, English bible (NT), English bible+RI, English bible+RI(NT); where the last is an English bible with Reverse Interlinear for the NT only.