Logos Staff:A Story to Give you something to think about

Wow,what a great response to this thread! Please keep it going;I just wanted to jump in quickly to let you know I'm following along. 

Here are the themes I keep hearing from you: 

• General ease of use;many support the idea of "Simple mode."
• More free training(which some suggest wouldn't be needed if usability issues were addressed).
• Search,especially regarding the need to simplify a complex syntax.
• Faithlife Assistant and Bible Browser are a good start,but not advanced or integrated enough to be helpful all the time.
• A search builder might help.
• Speed. 
• Did I miss anything?

These are all things we are thinking about(a lot),but it's super helpful to get the perspective of boots-on-the-ground users like you.I appreciate hearing from everyone here about your real experience,and what we can do to make it better. 

Carry on,we're listening.

Carry on,we're listening.

Thanks,Adam,and FL!

Carry on,we're listening.

Thanks,Adam,and FL!

Yes Adam! Thank you so much. It is always helpful to know that someone is listening and that suggestions and frustrations are a concern. Again,THANK YOU!

Hi Cynthia

Let’s say I am reading my Bible and I want to open up other Bibles so I can compare the translations. Rather than having to go find the text comparison,there should be an OBVIOUS button or key that is consistent across the entire program where I can click on that and say something like “I want to compare Bible text.”  The program can then launch the text comparison tool and bring it into my window. There should then be a pop up or something like that that says,“choose your versions to compare and click enter” or something like that. 

Interesting example.

So for the "obvious button" do you mean something like I am showing below?

This is in the "shortcut bar" which we-as users-can populate with tools,resources,etc(and we can change the text that appears to the right of the icon and change the icon itself by right-clicking on it as shown below 

If,for the "guided mode" you are advocating,some of these shortcut buttons were prepopulated might that go someway towards helping with this?

And then the challenge would be working out which things need to be pre-populated!

Hello Graham: I’m not sure if your ”interesting example” is ACTUALLY interesting or what we in the south say more like “Bless her heart!”. [;)]

Anyway,an obvious button COULD be something like what you are showing above,but in my mind I think I’m thinking more of a help icon that would look the same on every window. Then,when you click on it,you type in what you are looking for,so in my example it was a text comparison. Once text comparison tool opens,then I would have all the options available to me that the package I purchased supplies,whether its included in the “basic” or “advanced” program(or add-on or whatever). Then,from that window,unless the screen SCREAMS “choose your versions to compare here,” there should be something directing me to that. In your example above,the “show text comparisons” drop down could link to more advanced features of the same tool, videos on how to use the more advanced features of that tool,pre-formatted templates or layouts(if necessary)to use that advanced tool,etc.

As for the short-cut toolbar,LearnLogos advocates greatly for that,and so I have mine very well set up,but guess what. For YEARS I didn’t know I could do that. Further,I learned how to do that after purchasing training videos and then have him guide me through setting it up.So I would say yes to your question about whether or not prepopulating the shortcut buttons would go a long way.

You know,that just made me think of something. How about something like Word on my Mac. If I am using Word in a most basic way,then only my editing toolbars are visible at the top. But the moment I input a chart or a pictures,the coordinating toolbars appear. Microsoft pre-populated the functions that everyone needs for editing that chart or picture on the tool bar. So immediately,I know I can crop my picture,recolor it,etc. However,I can re-populate Microsofts prepopulated toolbar(as your example above)if I want to with other(more advanced)functions. When I am no longer using a document with a chart or tools,those toolbars disappear. 

These are just some thoughts in my head that I’m thinking of to make the program more user friendly for those who don’t know how to find tools or create their own shortcut tool bar or whatever. I realize that in many of my examples,I’m speaking in very basic basic terms to things that may not appeal to most of the users on this board,and I have absolutely NO clue what it would take technologically to make any of these things happen. However,I’m not smart enough to come up with these ideas off the top of my head. I only know of them because I see them in other programs as tools that make my life easier in the program I’m using,so I gotta think the guys at FL can do likewise.  Also,if we remember my original post,I’m championing for the little guy.

Hi Cynthia

 I’m not sure if your ”interesting example” is ACTUALLY interesting or what we in the south say more like “Bless her heart!”. 

I'm not familiar with the meaning of that expression but it sounds as though my comment might have come across as somewhat condescending.If so,that was not intended and I apologise.I was simply trying to explore the specific example you had mentioned and found it interesting that it could be 70%addressed with what we currently have in the product.

Anyway,an obvious button COULD be something like what you are showing above,but in my mind I think I’m thinking more of a help icon that would look the same on every window.

Thanks for the clarification.So working that through a bit there is currently a help icon on the top right with a number of options-including pointing to various sources of training /discussion.But I don't think it is those that are the focus of this discussion as they don't provide information within the product itself.

But it does provide access to the Logos help file.If,using the earlier example,we want to know how to compare texts-and if we happen to know we need to use a tool to do it,we can open the Tools section of the helpfile and select the Text Comparison Tool which tells us what it does and how to use it.

However there are a couple of limitations with this:

1. It assumes we know there is a tool that will do what we want
2. It doesn't open the tool,rather it tells us how to do it

There is,however,a "How-To" section which-while it doesn't cover the sort of things we are talking about-could presumably be extended to do so

I'm not at all sure this is the right way to go about addressing the issue but it is an option.

You know,that just made me think of something. How about something like Word on my Mac. If I am using Word in a most basic way,then only my editing toolbars are visible at the top. But the moment I input a chart or a pictures,the coordinating toolbars appear. Microsoft pre-populated the functions that everyone needs for editing that chart or picture on the tool bar. So immediately,I know I can crop my picture,recolor it,etc. However,I can re-populate Microsofts prepopulated toolbar(as your example above)if I want to with other(more advanced)functions. When I am no longer using a document with a chart or tools,those toolbars disappear.

I like that example-it is really helpful.

I guess the problem though is that Word really operates with a single panel view and so changing the icons in the ribbon at the top depending on what is being edited in the panel makes sense.With Logos operating with many multiple panels it probably makes sense to have panel /function specific icons.

Have you seen the "quickstart cards" on the homepage of the webapp?

I'm just wondering how that concept would fit into what we are discussing here?Clicking a card takes you to the relevant Tool /Guide but at least it is starting from a functional perspective.

These are just some thoughts in my head that I’m thinking of to make the program more user friendly for those who don’t know how to find tools or create their own shortcut tool bar or whatever.

Absolutely and I think its a very important discussion

 I realize that in many of my examples,I’m speaking in very basic basic terms to things that may not appeal to most of the users on this board,and I have absolutely NO clue what it would take technologically to make any of these things happen.

And I guess I'm trying to work through different ways in which these ideas could be implemented starting from where we are with the hope that some of them might be useful!

Also,if we remember my original post,I’m championing for the little guy.

[:)][Y]

These are all things we are thinking about(a lot),but it's super helpful to get the perspective of boots-on-the-ground users like you.I appreciate hearing from everyone here about your real experience,and what we can do to make it better. 

Carry on,we're listening.

Thank you Adam!It's great encouragement to know your listening.Much appreciated!

If I might be so bold to ask.What are some of the ideas the FL team are considering possible solutions or may currently be working on if you can? [:D]

• Search,especially regarding the need to simplify a complex syntax.
• Faithlife Assistant and Bible Browser are a good start,but not advanced or integrated enough to be helpful all the time.
• A search builder might help.

This would be great,even for power users.I stand by what I said before,that the search functions are like trying to bite into SQL.

General ease of use;many support the idea of "Simple mode."

This would be great for the mass market.If you can scale up simple mode and/or simple search seamlessly into advanced mode,that would make many new and old users very happy.

 I realize that in many of my examples,I’m speaking in very basic basic terms to things that may not appeal to most of the users on this board,and I have absolutely NO clue what it would take technologically to make any of these things happen.

And I guess I'm trying to work through different ways in which these ideas could be implemented starting from where we are with the hope that some of them might be useful!

Also,if we remember my original post,I’m championing for the little guy.

Thank you,Cynthia,for running with the ideas,+championing the little guy.

Thanks,Graham,for taking the time to,as a user with much expertise,show us how L7 works now,and positing around ideas folks have suggested in this thread.

Hello Graham:  Please see my responses in bold below

Hi Cynthia

 I’m not sure if your ”interesting example” is ACTUALLY interesting or what we in the south say more like “Bless her heart!”. 

I'm not familiar with the meaning of that expression but it sounds as though my comment might have come across as somewhat condescending.If so,that was not intended and I apologise.I was simply trying to explore the specific example you had mentioned and found it interesting that it could be 70%addressed with what we currently have in the product.

I guess that's the danger of talking over the internet.  I didn't take offense...I was trying to jest and failed miserably.  I'm sorry about that.  You humility is a lovely witness.

Anyway,an obvious button COULD be something like what you are showing above,but in my mind I think I’m thinking more of a help icon that would look the same on every window.

Thanks for the clarification.So working that through a bit there is currently a help icon on the top right with a number of options-including pointing to various sources of training /discussion.But I don't think it is those that are the focus of this discussion as they don't provide information within the product itself.

Correct.I’m aware of that little,obscure?tucked away in the upper right hand corner but have you navigated through those things before?It takes forever because there’s so much there and again,as MJ pointed out,most new or like-new users don’t know what they need,so how can you search for something that you don’t know what you need?

But it does provide access to the Logos help file.If,using the earlier example,we want to know how to compare texts-and if we happen to know we need to use a tool to do it,we can open the Tools section of the helpfile and select the Text Comparison Tool which tells us what it does and how to use it.

AND THERE YOU SAID IT!!!!We have to know that we need to use a tool!For the end user,I think they are looking on the screen right in front of them thinking,“Okay,this should be simple,all I want To do is compare my KJV on my screen that I’m reading with my NASB.Where the heck are they?” I don’t think they are thinking,”Okay,I want to compare two of my Bibles.Let me go over to help,scroll down to the Logos Help file,click on the button that says tools,scroll down to text comparison” just to find “Click on Tools,click on text comparison,click into the reference text box and type your passage,click into the resource picker and choose the Bible versions,etc.,etc.” Me personally,I’m thinking something like,“I want to compare my KJV with my NASB.I can’t see how to do that.Oh,look-y here,a help button(up pop friendly help box that says,“what can I help you find?”).I type in “compare bible versions).Up comes the Text Comparison tool that shows options for the Bible texts I can compare in my library.I click the NASB(because in my example,my KJV is already open),and voila,Bob’s your uncle....and I go about comparing the two versions.

However there are a couple of limitations with this:

1. It assumes we know there is a tool that will do what we want
2. It doesn't open the tool,rather it tells us how to do it

There is,however,a "How-To" section which-while it doesn't cover the sort of things we are talking about-could presumably be extended to do so. Agreed.  Instead of having to hunt for it,wouldn't that be better linked in the window where I'm looking for that help?

I'm not at all sure this is the right way to go about addressing the issue but it is an option.

You know,that just made me think of something. How about something like Word on my Mac. If I am using Word in a most basic way,then only my editing toolbars are visible at the top. But the moment I input a chart or a pictures,the coordinating toolbars appear. Microsoft pre-populated the functions that everyone needs for editing that chart or picture on the tool bar. So immediately,I know I can crop my picture,recolor it,etc. However,I can re-populate Microsofts prepopulated toolbar(as your example above)if I want to with other(more advanced)functions. When I am no longer using a document with a chart or tools,those toolbars disappear.

I like that example-it is really helpful.

I like it too.  Maybe it's a bit "pie in the sky" but as I've said,a girl can dream.

I guess the problem though is that Word really operates with a single panel view and so changing the icons in the ribbon at the top depending on what is being edited in the panel makes sense.With Logos operating with many multiple panels it probably makes sense to have panel /function specific icons.

Have you seen the "quickstart cards" on the homepage of the webapp?

I haven't.  Honestly,I didn't know they existed.  When you say webapp,you mean they are OUTSIDE of my program?  If so,then that's ANOTHER example of how I would have to go looking somewhere else for help that not only would I need to know existed,but also,I'm not even sure I know what to call it and...I don't even know help exists there or what kind of help I'd get(as in me with the webapp or your wonderful suggestion of saving a search string to favorites.)  There's so much "help" scattered all over the place that differently approaches the help function I need,how would I know that if THAT help function didn't work,let me go find another?

I'm just wondering how that concept would fit into what we are discussing here?Clicking a card takes you to the relevant Tool /Guide but at least it is starting from a functional perspective. Agreed,it would be some type of beginning.

These are just some thoughts in my head that I’m thinking of to make the program more user friendly for those who don’t know how to find tools or create their own shortcut tool bar or whatever.

Absolutely and I think its a very important discussion

 I realize that in many of my examples,I’m speaking in very basic basic terms to things that may not appeal to most of the users on this board,and I have absolutely NO clue what it would take technologically to make any of these things happen.

And I guess I'm trying to work through different ways in which these ideas could be implemented starting from where we are with the hope that some of them might be useful! And with your know-how and gift of clarity in instruction,you'd be a great guy to do just that!  THANK YOU!

Also,if we remember my original post,I’m championing for the little guy.

Adding this too:  Much of what you mentioned above,I knew about,but that's all because I've hunted for it or was taught it some place or another,but in all examples,the user has to have some sort of knowledge on where to find everything and all the help and tools are outside the screen the user is currently using.  To me,that's not easy to use nor intuitive,and keep in mind,in our text comparison example,we are speaking in the most BASIC of basic needs for Bible software.  What about when they start getting into something more complicated,like say,"What does this biblical word mean" and the software starts throwing out terms like morphology and lemma and...  See what I mean?

Thanks Graham,truly,for your contribution to this forum and this thread.  Your willingness to share your vast information with the likes of me is much appreciated!  Bless you! (Not "bless your heart" but Bless you!) 

P.S.and O/T:  In case you're curious...https://www.southernliving.com/culture/bless-your-heart-response

[;)]

Thanks Cynthia-appreciated[:)]

Just picking up on one point 

I haven't.  Honestly,I didn't know they existed.  When you say webapp,you mean they are OUTSIDE of my program?  If so,then that's ANOTHER example of how I would have to go looking somewhere else for help that not would I need to know existed,

The webapp is available at app.logos.com and is designed to provide access to your Logos library and features when you don't have access to your computer.

Some ideas and features are explored /developed on the webapp first and then incorporated into the desktop at a later stage.So the new Notes Tool-for example-was first available on the webapp and is now available in beta form on the desktop.

And I wasn't suggesting that a user would need to go there from the desktop to get this functionality-but wondering if that functionality would be helpful integrated into the desktop.

Graham

Thanks Cynthia-appreciated

Just picking up on one point 

I haven't.  Honestly,I didn't know they existed.  When you say webapp,you mean they are OUTSIDE of my program?  If so,then that's ANOTHER example of how I would have to go looking somewhere else for help that not would I need to know existed,

The webapp is available at app.logos.com and is designed to provide access to your Logos library and features when you don't have access to your computer.

Some ideas and features are explored /developed on the webapp first and then incorporated into the desktop at a later stage.So the new Notes Tool-for example-was first available on the webapp and is now available in beta form on the desktop.

And I wasn't suggesting that a user would need to go there from the desktop to get this functionality-but wondering if that functionality would be helpful integrated into the desktop.

Graham

Well then,I'm learning something new again!  Nope,never knew about it.  Never even knew it existed.  I guess because the only time I come on here for the most part has been to A.  Ask how to do something and B.Try to Find my Irving Jensen book(SUCCESS!)  or C.Beg FL to make the software more user friendly,I wouldn't know about it.  I'm wondering how would I know about it.  How would anyone know about it unless they come here.  Is it on the home screen,is it advertised someone there and I'm just blind?Do I need to ask m self "I wonder what Logos has as a back up or beta testing site in case my desktop doesn't work.  Let me click Logos Help,scroll down to library backup,know that it's called webapp,search for...See my point?[:D]

Anyway,I super quickly clicked around.  I definitely think there's promise there,but only if they are on the screen where that function is needed.  Not if I have to go looking for it. 

Thanks again!

• General ease of use;many support the idea of "Simple mode."
• More free training(which some suggest wouldn't be needed if usability issues were addressed).
• Search,especially regarding the need to simplify a complex syntax.

• Faithlife Assistant and Bible Browser are a good start,but not advanced or integrated enough to be helpful all the time.
• A search builder might help.

• Speed. 
• Did I miss anything?

quickley

A number of us have commented that we sometimes forget an essential point in some procedure.We need an easy quick way of being able to find the answer.An analogy is that I have forgotten what the parameters are to be able to search in a piece of MSWord text to find four or five digit numbers.I can do a fuzzy search in Google and there is every chance that it will bring up an example where the precise thing I need is explained.I really dont want to have to work through a long training session to find the information that I have mentally mislaid.So we need a comprehensive library of brief information and a good way of searching it.The latter seems to imply a fuzzy search or bey detailed tagging.

There is,however,a "How-To" section which-while it doesn't cover the sort of things we are talking about-could presumably be extended to do so. Agreed.  Instead of having to hunt for it,wouldn't that be better linked in the window where I'm looking for that help?

I like this idea.Lets see if I am understanding it correctly.Lets say I open a search panel,at the top of the panel where the different types of search options are located there is an option which is labeled help.If i select "basic" search and select the help button in the panel,it will take me directly to the topic for a basic search in the help file.Likewise,if I select "morph" and select the help button it will take me to the morph search topic in the help file.This could be applied to every tool panel.It would be right there,one click away and eliminate searching through through the various topics to find it.The help file information that comes up would need to include links to other related info such as advanced searching and videos,which some are included now.

There is,however,a "How-To" section which-while it doesn't cover the sort of things we are talking about-could presumably be extended to do so. Agreed.  Instead of having to hunt for it,wouldn't that be better linked in the window where I'm looking for that help?

I like this idea.Lets see if I am understanding it correctly.Lets say I open a search panel,at the top of the panel where the different types of search options are located there is an option which is labeled help.If i select "basic" search and select the help button in the panel,it will take me directly to the topic for a basic search in the help file.Likewise,if I select "morph" and select the help button it will take me to the morph search topic in the help file.This could be applied to every tool panel.It would be right there,one click away and eliminate searching through through the various topics to find it.The help file information that comes up would need to include links to other related info such as advanced searching and videos,which some are included now.

Ages ago,around the mid-late 90s,there was a fad around this:They called it Context Sensitive Help.Press F1 and get help on the what your currently looking at.Shift-F1 and get a help cursor which you could point at any button or widget on screen to find out what it did.That legacy feature has passed out of favor these days.Office for example,which used to abound in context sensitive help,now relies on command box to answer questions.Really,a good mix of both context sensitive and a very smart command box are helpful.Logos does have some context sensitive help when you press F1,but it doesn't zero in.For example,pressing F1 in Passage Guide gets general Guide entry.Pressing F1 in Media search gets general Search help.Pressing the Help button in top right is completely unaware of context.

Sort of like F9 Explain this screen? :-)

My problem is that,even after I learn something like that,I often forget.This growing thread is surely striking a cord.

even if it is only  that we forget very easily!!

I resemble that comment.[;)]

Here are the themes I keep hearing from you: 

• General ease of use;many support the idea of "Simple mode."
• More free training(which some suggest wouldn't be needed if usability issues were addressed).
• Search,especially regarding the need to simplify a complex syntax.
• Faithlife Assistant and Bible Browser are a good start,but not advanced or integrated enough to be helpful all the time.
• A search builder might help.
• Speed. 
• Did I miss anything?

These are all things we are thinking about(a lot),but it's super helpful to get the perspective of boots-on-the-ground users like you.I appreciate hearing from everyone here about your real experience,and what we can do to make it better. 

Carry on,we're listening.

I'm not sure that "simple mode" is really part of the picture here:what users struggle with is rarely very simple stuff like how to line up two panels or search for a word.A simple mode could turn out to be a simplistic solution which would not be one at all. 

You hit several of the key points(search builder,better integration,speed).I would say that the approach to date has been mainly to addto what was already there.This does not changethe lack of intuitiveness and accessibility of advanced functionality but is supposed to alleviate the problem by offering more docs and tools.Yet in a way,it compoundsthe problem,since it increases the number of tools and resources one must learn to draw on in order to learn how to do things.

Several areas of need are important:

• Faithlife has been resistant for years to the users' comments that the underlying technology was sluggish.There have been improvements but it continues to be a problem.One gets the impression of band-aid solutions rather than an overhaul.

• Faithlife has defended -- unfortunately with the frequent help of MVPs who seem to think that their mission is "to come to the rescue" -- the notion that advanced software must of necessity have a high learning curve and be somewhat arcane.This is not unlike what can be seen in behavioural issues in which a party cannot change because they refuse to admit that change is needed.

• Faithlife has had a consistent history of pushing out of the gate unfinished tools and what appears like side projects.This means that new tools are often poorly integrated,poorly documented,and are not polished as far as usability and performance are concerned.

I hope you will not read this as scathing criticism as I do not intend it as such.What I do intend is to connect symptoms and root causes.What I see in the ideas of adding more documentation and more tools to remedy these problems is more of the same and superficial attempts to address issues.

This being said,I truly appreciate that you are listening and know that many things are more easily said than done. 

unfortunately with the frequent help of MVPs who seem to think that their mission is "to come to the rescue"

I hope you are not mistaking the realism of >30 years in IT for "coming to the rescue".Despite appearances,computers are not magical-they simply do incredibly simple things at extremely high speeds to give the appearance of magic except when they don't.

Faithlife has had a consistent history of pushing out of the gate unfinished tools

This is probably my biggest annoyance at this time think:

• outlines
• compare pericopes
• narrative character maps
• Bible people visual timelines
• Factbook basics&cleanup
• Time line links
• Saint cycles for all but Latin Rite Catholic...

supposed to alleviate the problem by offering more docs and tools.Yet in a way,it compoundsthe problem

Agreed!The conundrum is that none of us want our favorite little(or big)tool to be disturbed,yet we don't want the clutter the ones we don't use(but might be someone else's favorite).I think that some serious thought needs to happen along the lines ofStreamlining,Consolidation,Integration,and Intuitiveness.Where it's possible to combine two tools into one more powerful one,please do so(Explorer/Information,Bible Browser/Search,Library/Collections,FA/Command Box,etc).If two tools need to remain distinct for some reason but complement each other,then integrate as tightly as possible.

Searching,as we all know,is a major pain point.I strongly support a simplification of the syntax as well as a refactoring of the UI and/or a Query Builder.One of my frustrations has been with the autocomplete not working within existing syntax.

For example,I may wish to find something as simple as when the disciple John is speaking.I can select "{Speaker<Person Abraham>}" from the cookbook,but I can't simply double-click on Abraham and type John since auto-complete doesn't run.I have to type "John" OUTSIDE the braces in order to have auto-complete give me  "<Person John(son of Zebedee)>" which I then have to cut/paste.When I select the above from the cookbook,I would intuitively expect to be able to select "Speaker" and instantaneously be given the replacementoptions that relate to<Person>e.g Addressee,Agent,Patient,Beneficiary,etc.When I select Abraham,I expect to start getting autocomplete results for all the{Speaker}s in the Bible and when I start typing it would,of course,narrow down very quickly.

I'm not sure that "simple mode" is really part of the picture here:what users struggle with is rarely very simple stuff like how to line up two panels or search for a word.A simple mode could turn out to be a simplistic solution which would not be one at all. 

Francis:  But it is,in the context of this thread.  Keep in mind that while we are talking about MANY suggestions for what could be improved,and I am SUPER SUPER excited about every suggestion and comment here,the original point of my post was for the "little guy" who purchases logos and has no clue how to search for a word or line up two panels.  When I first started,Mark on his Logos 4 videos showed me how to search for a word and all I could do with it,but I had to go looking for help OUTSIDE of Logos and not everyone will do that.  Sadly,we STILL have to go looking for help outside of Logos more than we should have to,which is my point.  So I do think we need a simple mode to get people started and then add modules or functions or packages as they grow into the program.

So I do think we need a simple mode to get people started and then add modules or functions or packages as they grow into the program.

Fair point.It's just that as the thread grew,broader problems became part of the picture and my concern was that it may be thought that a simple mode would be the cure of all ills.I have no issue with a simple mode.I just want to make sure that the broader related issues that affect the rest of us are also properly addressed.I believe that this would also help the "little guy" a great deal. 

You hit several of the key points(search builder,better integration,speed).I would say that the approach to date has been mainly to addto what was already there.This does not changethe lack of intuitiveness and accessibility of advanced functionality but is supposed to alleviate the problem by offering more docs and tools.Yet in a way,it compoundsthe problem,since it increases the number of tools and resources one must learn to draw on in order to learn how to do things.

Several areas of need are important:

• Faithlife has been resistant for years to the users' comments that the underlying technology was sluggish.There have been improvements but it continues to be a problem.One gets the impression of band-aid solutions rather than an overhaul.

Did you know that Audi did not make a Q7 in 2016?  What happened was they decided that the best way to break away from even being compared to Volvo,Mercedes,etc.,was to stay ahead of their price range competitors.  They recognized that their current model was "heavy" and with the newer technology,they could lighten it up by redesigning it.  They unloaded some steel weight and replaced it with airplane grade aluminum,which removed much of the "slug" weight,caused it to be much better at handling curves,and better on gas.  So they basically had to go down to the very frame and redesign from there.  They also noted some design and aesthetic flaws,so AFTER redesigning from the frame,they incorporated new designs that makes it faster,beautiful,and more enjoyable for the driver.

True,a model did not come out for 2016,but they let their plans be known to the automotive world and when the new 2017 model came out,sales were so high that people had to pretty much special order them in order to get one,and now that word has gotten out about the new design,their 2018s are doing even better.

Catch my point?[;)]

Cynthia:Great Audi post.  I hope FL audies up.

Cynthia:Great Audi post.  I hope FL audies up.

Thanks Scooter.  Me too!

Cynthia:Great Audi post.  I hope FL audies up.

Thanks Scooter.  Me too!

I merely read+highlight.  Thus,I can only be a cheerleader as you folks talk of improvements.  I am with you all the way.

FL:  In case you miss this,look at this thread,particularly OP's second comment!

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/171163.aspx

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/171163.aspx

Perfect example.

You nailed it Francis:

Here are the themes I keep hearing from you: 

• General ease of use;many support the idea of "Simple mode."
• More free training(which some suggest wouldn't be needed if usability issues were addressed).
• Search,especially regarding the need to simplify a complex syntax.
• Faithlife Assistant and Bible Browser are a good start,but not advanced or integrated enough to be helpful all the time.
• A search builder might help.
• Speed. 
• Did I miss anything?

These are all things we are thinking about(a lot),but it's super helpful to get the perspective of boots-on-the-ground users like you.I appreciate hearing from everyone here about your real experience,and what we can do to make it better. 

Carry on,we're listening.

I'm not sure that "simple mode" is really part of the picture here:what users struggle with is rarely very simple stuff like how to line up two panels or search for a word.A simple mode could turn out to be a simplistic solution which would not be one at all. 

You hit several of the key points(search builder,better integration,speed).I would say that the approach to date has been mainly to addto what was already there.This does not changethe lack of intuitiveness and accessibility of advanced functionality but is supposed to alleviate the problem by offering more docs and tools.Yet in a way,it compoundsthe problem,since it increases the number of tools and resources one must learn to draw on in order to learn how to do things.

Several areas of need are important:

• Faithlife has been resistant for years to the users' comments that the underlying technology was sluggish.There have been improvements but it continues to be a problem.One gets the impression of band-aid solutions rather than an overhaul.

• Faithlife has defended -- unfortunately with the frequent help of MVPs who seem to think that their mission is "to come to the rescue" -- the notion that advanced software must of necessity have a high learning curve and be somewhat arcane.This is not unlike what can be seen in behavioural issues in which a party cannot change because they refuse to admit that change is needed.

• Faithlife has had a consistent history of pushing out of the gate unfinished tools and what appears like side projects.This means that new tools are often poorly integrated,poorly documented,and are not polished as far as usability and performance are concerned.

I hope you will not read this as scathing criticism as I do not intend it as such.What I do intend is to connect symptoms and root causes.What I see in the ideas of adding more documentation and more tools to remedy these problems is more of the same and superficial attempts to address issues.

This being said,I truly appreciate that you are listening and know that many things are more easily said than done. 

You nailed it Francis:

Here are the themes I keep hearing from you: 

• General ease of use;many support the idea of "Simple mode."
• More free training(which some suggest wouldn't be needed if usability issues were addressed).
• Search,especially regarding the need to simplify a complex syntax.
• Faithlife Assistant and Bible Browser are a good start,but not advanced or integrated enough to be helpful all the time.
• A search builder might help.
• Speed. 
• Did I miss anything?

These are all things we are thinking about(a lot),but it's super helpful to get the perspective of boots-on-the-ground users like you.I appreciate hearing from everyone here about your real experience,and what we can do to make it better. 

Carry on,we're listening.

I'm not sure that "simple mode" is really part of the picture here:what users struggle with is rarely very simple stuff like how to line up two panels or search for a word.A simple mode could turn out to be a simplistic solution which would not be one at all. 

You hit several of the key points(search builder,better integration,speed).I would say that the approach to date has been mainly to addto what was already there.This does not changethe lack of intuitiveness and accessibility of advanced functionality but is supposed to alleviate the problem by offering more docs and tools.Yet in a way,it compoundsthe problem,since it increases the number of tools and resources one must learn to draw on in order to learn how to do things.

Several areas of need are important:

• Faithlife has been resistant for years to the users' comments that the underlying technology was sluggish.There have been improvements but it continues to be a problem.One gets the impression of band-aid solutions rather than an overhaul.

• Faithlife has defended -- unfortunately with the frequent help of MVPs who seem to think that their mission is "to come to the rescue" -- the notion that advanced software must of necessity have a high learning curve and be somewhat arcane.This is not unlike what can be seen in behavioural issues in which a party cannot change because they refuse to admit that change is needed.

• Faithlife has had a consistent history of pushing out of the gate unfinished tools and what appears like side projects.This means that new tools are often poorly integrated,poorly documented,and are not polished as far as usability and performance are concerned.

I hope you will not read this as scathing criticism as I do not intend it as such.What I do intend is to connect symptoms and root causes.What I see in the ideas of adding more documentation and more tools to remedy these problems is more of the same and superficial attempts to address issues.

This being said,I truly appreciate that you are listening and know that many things are more easily said than done. 

FL:  In case you miss this,look at this thread,particularly OP's second comment!

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/171163.aspx

Reading Graham's helpful response to the OP,I noticed something that was new to me:

If you want to match on just references to that particular verse put an "=" before it

I had seen Logos search syntax in the form X~<Y>,and X=<Y>,but had never seen<=X>.

If Graham hadn't explained that the=within the<>meant "exact match," I'd have never figured that out without some help.

I think it's a good example of how even a "simple" exact match search has a learning curve,and can be cryptic to some of us.(Especially when we forget it down the road,because we don't use that criteria regularly,then have to "relearn" what it means.)

I think this is why we need some form of graphical search builder where the user can see/apply descriptive natural language options(e.g.,some sort of "Also match passages which include this verse" toggle).

Search really needs friendly terminology too thatanyonecan understand."Narrow intersection operator" or "Range operator" may be greek to some of us who don't have some type of math or computer background.

As an aside,I think I also understand now that<=Job 1:12>is a shortcut for<Bible=Job 1:12>.That wouldn't have been obvious to me before today.While it's good for power users to have less to type,part of the problem that the different syntax should be understood by everyone to be equivalent.

Search really needs friendly terminology too thatanyonecan understand."Narrow intersection operator" or "Range operator" may be greek to some of us who don't have some type of math or computer background.

As an aside,I think I also understand now that<=Job 1:12>is a shortcut for<Bible=Job 1:12>.That wouldn't have been obvious to me before today.While it's good for power users to have less to type,part of the problem that the different syntax should be understood by everyone to be equivalent.

Said so nicely,+oh so!0.

I really,REALLY do not want to have to learn computer mumbo jumbo.The rig should come to me in my every day language.

I agree that a simple mode may not be the solution.I do think that the basic functions of the program should be intuitive and that the more complex functions should be easily learned with some effort.A few suggestions,sorry if I am repeating:

1.Categorize the library using the same categories when a base package is advertised.Allow these categories to function as base collections.That way a new user does not have to create collections or got to Faithlife groups.This will allow the cited by tool,add them to Guides or run searches like power users without having to create any collections..One can always create more complex collections as they advance.I have requested this in the past.

2.Searching needs to have a GUI.Unless you have lots of notes and do lots of complex searching it is impossible to realistically utilize the functions that are available.The suggested searches available are not sufficient.Drop downs for specific wording of searches need to be available and be fast and efficient.Logos can search on items other software cannot,but it doesn't matter if only a few can remember the codes.BTW I consider myself a power user.I think Logos wanted to make the right mouse menu initiated searches the easier way to go,but it still needs work in the functional department.Perhaps not have programers design the search but someone in the company that does not know code.

3.Training videos need to be training focused,not sales focused.They should also be built around what users would be doing in their work and study.I think longer videos would be required with more step by step assistance.The ones available are well produced,but sometimes are too short and end with a sales pitch.The better ones are included in the Mobile Ed courses.

So,even though the original OP was concerned with the "little guy.",I think the concept of ease of learning the program as well as ease of use applies to almost all.

Faithlife has defended -- unfortunately with the frequent help of MVPs who seem to think that their mission is "to come to the rescue" -- the notion that advanced software must of necessity have a high learning curve and be somewhat arcane.This is not unlike what can be seen in behavioural issues in which a party cannot change because they refuse to admit that change is needed.

With Logos 6,Search syntax grew further with datasets and Labels,presumably because users had been wanting to query the(bible)text from a grammatical,semantic and theological perspective.For example,the question in Jn 1:19(=John 1:19)[:)]can generate 4 queries from the Context menu:-

1.{Label Question WHERE Rhetorical~!1 AND Type~"Wh-"}    ---->could not find any documentation!But{Label Question WHERE Rhetorical~!1}produces similar results to{Section<SpeechAct=Info:Quest>}

2.{Section<PropositionalOutline=Question>}    ----->Lexham Prop.Outlines Glossary(glossary)

3.{Section<SpeechAct=Info:Quest>}    ------>Speech Acts Dataset Documentation(manual)

which states "The Speech Acts of the New Testament dataset is complementary to the Sentence Types of the New Testament dataset.The formal features of a Sentence Type is,by itself,not always able to provide the most useful information to the user in their searches.For example,if a user wanted to search for all of thecommands in the New Testament,a list of every instance of theimperative moodmay provide a good starting point,but it would not provide all of the data.There are several places where a sentence type other than theimperative is used to give a command.For example,Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:10 “I appeal to you that you all agree.” Here Paul uses adeclarativesentence(according to the Sentence Type Dataset)to make acommand.One would not be able to find other such examples if this data set were not created."   

It recommends{Section<SpeechAct=Oblig:Direct>}for commands.

4.{Section<Sentence=Interrogative>}   ---->  Sentence Types Dataset Documentation (manual) answers best the Q's of Jesus

which states "The Speech Acts of the Bible Dataset is complementary to the Sentence Types of the Bible Dataset.One(Sentence Types)involves formal criteria,the other(Speech Acts)involves pragmatic criteria focused on the volition or intent of the speaker/writer.The complementary nature of these datasets can be better understood in the nature ofcommands.Formally,these areimperative statements as annotated by the Sentence Types Dataset.However,other types of statements can be intended as commands without using the formal structure of an imperative....The Speech Act Dataset is used to locate these more pragmatic usages.The combination of the two(formal and pragmatic instances)can provide a more complete list of commands or questions."

For commands use{Section<Sentence~Imperative>}

.

So,to combine questions:

{Section<Sentence~Interrogative>}OR{Section<SpeechAct=Info:Quest>}

which makes it awkward to answer "What are the questions of Jesus"?

Purely from my own efforts I would recommend{Section<Sentence=Interrogative>}   INTERSECTS {Speaker<Person Jesus>}

Then I find that the documentation recommends,forrhetorical questions:

{Section<SpeechAct=Info:Assert>}WITHIN{Section<Sentence~Interrogative>}    --->!!??

So did you want Jesus' rhetorical questions with my recommended query?Did it matter?

.

If you have gotten this far,it's taken me over 2 hours to answer "What are the questions in the bible" combined with "What are the questions of Jesus?",because I had to start over again with query(s)that have been asked/requested many times by users.Ask me about highlights in resources,something I wanted in the Search,and I'll respond quickly with{Highlight My Style}! 

My point:  a simple Search language ain't Simple!Faithlife Assistant is a testimony to that,if you managed to ask something it understands e.g.Find questions in the bible--->searches for "questions" in Top Bibles.The complexity of Logos has grown with the thirst for knowledge of its users.

Then we have the complexity of a requestlike this one,where I struggle because I'm not a student of Greek grammar.I also struggle with Google syntax!So it ain't easy.

That's not to say something can't be done,but it will take enormous effort to simplify the 'dataset' searches to provide the answers you want every time.

I see bad suggestions in Search panel "help",bad parameters like "Match equivalent preferences" in the menu,hidden(but documented)[Match]parameters for the Find box and too much information for 'dataset' searches in the Context menu(should be user controlled).Probably more,but I don't have the time.

Dave:  

1. WOW,what a post! Thank you.

2. You’re amazing!

3. If FL can’t simplify this,there is not a SLIVER of hope for the likes of me,and that makes me sad. 

My point:  a simple Search language ain't Simple!Faithlife Assistant is a testimony to that,if you managed to ask something it understands e.g.Find questions in the bible --->searches for "questions" in Top Bibles.The complexity of Logos has grown with the thirst for knowledge of its users.

Not disagreeing.I just don't remember the users wanting all these datasets.I honestly(sort of)thought it was a strategy relative to the seminaries or Bible college classes.Certainly not the bread and butter pastors(given the arcane syntax,works here,not there,etc).Indeed(as noted earlier),I thought(and still think)Rick's bird-dogging was in prep for a killer search system.

And being a Don Juanita,I still think such a search system would be a 'century' feat(looking at the general development of Bible study...english,affordability,Sunday Bible Class movement,and later the excitement of 'searching' using a 'computer' even in your own home).

My less favorable guess about the datasets,was Bob wanted to keep the pitchfork-holding users busy,while he diverted Logos coders to Proclaim,and his more recent purchase.Which seems to be working...Proclaim now healthily profitable.

I see bad suggestions in Search panel "help",bad parameters like "Match equivalent preferences" in the menu,hidden(but documented)[Match]parameters for the Find box and too much information for 'dataset' searches in the Context menu(should be user controlled).

I understand that there is complexity in searching.  I just dont understand why I cannot find a go to page that explains in simple terms how to conduct searches.I also do not understand why the complex search rules cannot be automated with simple commands or a drop down menu so I do not have to type in all the complex rules to do a search.  I guess because it is so complex,I would be willing to pay for a resource that was written to explain it well,though there would be an uproar if such a resource was sold.

I've been following every post of this now seven-page long thread with a great deal of interest and a sense of justification as to why/how I've been so unsuccessful over the years in using Logos for the primary purpose I purchased it 10 years ago--i.e.search capabilities that I understood to be marketed as easy-to-use but head-and-shoulders-above any other Bible app out there.  Search capabilities that would allow me to quickly and reliably search and study scripture as never before possible.

That's what I was after!  I had several paper Bibles,a few paper commentaries,and a couple of paper books on theology and church history--resources that wereeasily read but not so easily searched and studied.  So I took the plunge with Logos...and I've taken it again with every new release since,and have regularly plunged deeper and deeper with all the highest-end feature sets,a good variety of base package libraries,and a lot of additional resources not offered in base packages.

When I contrast where I am today with where I was 10 years ago,I find my library has grown from a total of roughly 40 paper resources(Bible and other)to 3400 resources,all supplemented by too many datasets,features,and tools to keep track of--3400 resources that I find areeasily read but not so easily searched and studied.

I'm not going to give any specific search/study examples here that I have struggled with.  The fact is I no longer even attempt any but the most basic of searches.  I use to make the effort,but the vast majority of my attempts left me scratching my head.  Why didn't I getanyhits--not a single one?  Why did I gettheseresults when I thought I was asking for something else?  Why didn't I get any results from resources A,B,and C?  They're in my library and Iknowthey have information that I would expect to be returned from this query--information I want.  But nope--not included in the results.  I too often found that the time I had available for Bible study had gone entirely to Logos study.

There was a time I asked for help,and as always,kind and faithful MVPs as well as a few other of the very technically oriented users would explain why I was seeing what I was and/or not seeing what I thought I should.  I thank each and every person who has been so kind.  But eventually I came to realize that there were just too many variables in where and how to do searches,and too many technical and/or syntactical hurtles to overcome in the learning curve to be productive with searches.  The truth was,I simply didn't have the time to develop that skill.  It wasn't going to happen so I'd best just get on with reading my resources.

That's basically where I am today--grateful for my library--still wishing I could better utilize it. 

I see bad suggestions in Search panel "help",bad parameters like "Match equivalent preferences" in the menu,hidden(but documented)[Match]parameters for the Find box and too much information for 'dataset' searches in the Context menu(should be user controlled).Probably more,but I don't have the time.

Thank you,Dave,for bringing attention to those issues!

I stumbled across one of the bad suggestions in search panel "help",last night.

Help suggests "{Speaker<Person Jesus>}{Addressee<Place Jerusalem>}" but the wiki suggests using{...}WITHIN{...}.

This produces two different results.

I think the omission of an operator between two search extensions puts an unnecessary burden on the user to know which default operator is being used.

Personally,I have no clue.Is it AND?WITHIN?NEAR?INTERSECTS?

The only way I could find out for certain(on my own,without having to ask)is trial-and-error,to see which operator happens to produce the same results.Yet that's not without its risks.Two different searches might just happen to produce the same results.

I think this illustrates why some of us need to visibly see the operators that the program is using for cases like this.Without that information being visible/known,we run into situations where the program isn't necessarily performing the same search that we think it is doing.

"The program is searching for exactly what you told it to," seems inadequate,because the far-less-knowledgeable of us are obligated to guess or remember or research what the search is actually doing.

(I think it's great that the program has so much power to perform searches like this,but it's a lot for most of to digest.Should the program be "simpler," or must we be "experts?" That's the issue at hand,and right now,the program seems to be forcing us to understand it.That makes this particular learning curve steep as well as treacherous,which not a pleasant user experience.)

Help suggests "{Speaker<Person Jesus>}{Addressee<Place Jerusalem>}" but the wiki suggests using{...}WITHIN{...}.

As an aside,not all of us use the same source of help.For example,some users turn to the in-app help.Others like me turn to the wiki.

If there are discrepancies,or it's explained better in one source,but not as obvious in another,that creates a problem.

I think the omission of an operator between two search extensions puts an unnecessary burden on the user to know which default operator is being used.

It just occurred to me that the Bible Browser has a similar issue.If I click on two facets,I have no idea which operator is being used between them.

I suspect others have asked that the Bible Browser would have an option to also display its search query,so we could see a)what it actually is searching for, b)perhaps learn by seeing what it constructed,and c)be able to copy the search,if we wanted to do something more complex,e.g.,(THIS OR THAT)AND NOT OTHER.

I suspect others have asked that the Bible Browser would have an option to also display its search query

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/129323/840288.aspx#840288 

.....The fact is I no longer even attempt any but the most basic of searches..... 

.....I too often found that the time I had available for Bible study had gone entirely to Logos study....

....The truth was,I simply didn't have the time to develop that skill...

Exactly!

I guess this is fact for the majority of users,including me.

{Label Question WHERE Rhetorical~!1 AND Type~"Wh-"} 

{Section<PropositionalOutline=Question>}

{Section<SpeechAct=Info:Quest>}

{Section<SpeechAct=Oblig:Direct>}

{Section<Sentence=Interrogative>}

I felt my eyes begin to glaze over when I started reading these strings...  Because I am not a programmer.

.....The fact is I no longer even attempt any but the most basic of searches..... 

.....I too often found that the time I had available for Bible study had gone entirely to Logos study....

....The truth was,I simply didn't have the time to develop that skill...

Exactly!

I guess this is fact for the majority of users,including me.

This is!0 of me as well

I just don't remember the users wanting all these datasets.I honestly(sort of)thought it was a strategy relative to the seminaries or Bible college classes.Certainly not the bread and butter pastors(given the arcane syntax,works here,not there,etc).

The request(s)were simple enough,but the solution via datasets came from FL.Then the number of datasets began to grow,together with the need for documentation.

I just dont understand why I cannot find a go to page that explains in simple terms how to conduct searches

This wiki articlemight be your answer.

I also do not understand why the complex search rules cannot be automated with simple commands or a drop down menu so I do not have to type in all the complex rules to do a search.

You might have missed the significance ofthe Context menuin generating the Search query.Just right click on a word and let the context menu do the work for you.But then you have to modify the query e.g.to get the questions of Jesus.This is where the wiki can give you the{Speaker}term and some examples underhttps://wiki.logos.com/Search_HELP#Proximity.

I've been following every post of this now seven-page long thread with a great deal of interest and a sense of justification as to why/how I've been so unsuccessful over the years in using Logos for the primary purpose I purchased it 10 years ago--i.e.search capabilities that I understood to be marketed as easy-to-use but head-and-shoulders-above any other Bible app out there.  Search capabilities that would allow me to quickly and reliably search and study scripture as never before possible.

That's what I was after!  I had several paper Bibles,a few paper commentaries,and a couple of paper books on theology and church history--resources that wereeasily read but not so easily searched and studied.  So I took the plunge with Logos...and I've taken it again with every new release since,and have regularly plunged deeper and deeper with all the highest-end feature sets,a good variety of base package libraries,and a lot of additional resources not offered in base packages.

When I contrast where I am today with where I was 10 years ago,I find my library has grown from a total of roughly 40 paper resources(Bible and other)to 3400 resources,all supplemented by too many datasets,features,and tools to keep track of--3400 resources that I find areeasily read but not so easily searched and studied.

I'm not going to give any specific search/study examples here that I have struggled with.  The fact is I no longer even attempt any but the most basic of searches.  I use to make the effort,but the vast majority of my attempts left me scratching my head.  Why didn't I getanyhits--not a single one?  Why did I gettheseresults when I thought I was asking for something else?  Why didn't I get any results from resources A,B,and C?  They're in my library and Iknowthey have information that I would expect to be returned from this query--information I want.  But nope--not included in the results.  I too often found that the time I had available for Bible study had gone entirely to Logos study.

There was a time I asked for help,and as always,kind and faithful MVPs as well as a few other of the very technically oriented users would explain why I was seeing what I was and/or not seeing what I thought I should.  I thank each and every person who has been so kind.  But eventually I came to realize that there were just too many variables in where and how to do searches,and too many technical and/or syntactical hurtles to overcome in the learning curve to be productive with searches.  The truth was,I simply didn't have the time to develop that skill.  It wasn't going to happen so I'd best just get on with reading my resources.

That's basically where I am today--grateful for my library--still wishing I could better utilize it. 

You just described my entire Logos journey! Except,I think the Bible teacher in me so desperately wants this to be accessible for the “little guy” that I haven’t quit fighting for them(yet),because FL seems to be listening. 

I think the omission of an operator between two search extensions puts an unnecessary burden on the user to know which default operator is being used.

It just occurred to me that the Bible Browser has a similar issue.If I click on two facets,I have no idea which operator is being used between them.

Both use the AND operator.Not quite the same as INTERSECTS(which issaferthan WITHIN most times).

I’m all for a “Smooth operator 🎶 Smoooooth operator  🎼  instead of a complicated one. Man I love that song and her voice.What a classic by Sade 👍😁👌 Bring the Smooth Operator to Logos,hey,I’ll even take the Smooth Criminal if I have to 😜

DAL

I think the omission of an operator between two search extensions puts an unnecessary burden on the user to know which default operator is being used.

It just occurred to me that the Bible Browser has a similar issue.If I click on two facets,I have no idea which operator is being used between them.

Both use the AND operator.Not quite the same as INTERSECTS(which issaferthan WITHIN most times).

Dave and Petah: This conversation,though totally Greek to most of us on here who are rallying for change,has been a wonderful example of how wacko this all is. I mean,in reality,you two are clearly power users,but for the average user,I think this thread has proven that a fair number of us have little clue as to what you are talking about,never mind how you came up with it all. And that’s the point...I didn’t purchase Logos because I had to know all of this. I purchased it because it promised me that “Bible study has never been easier.“.Well,that’s!0 if I want to use it as I did my paper books,but that’s not what I spent all my money for,and finding material in my library beyond anything basic is a mystery and just getting worse and worse.

I’m all for a “Smooth operator 🎶 Smoooooth operator  🎼  instead of a complicated one. Man I love that song and her voice.What a classic by Sade 👍😁👌 Bring the Smooth Operator to Logos,hey,I’ll even take the Smooth Criminal if I have to 😜

DAL

I just have to say...this is REALLY funny.