Okay, when I read a dead tree Bible Commentaries I am a multi-finger reader i.e. I have multiple fingers holding positions for the translation, the notes, the commentary etc. I would like the ability to set up layouts similar to the layout examples below with minimum resource panel header information. The multiple panels would scroll together only at pericope level - no attempt at word, phrase or verse level scrolling. I would even be willing as a user to have to tag the scroll position points myself.
Why to I want this so badly? Because it allows me to tie the original text/translations/notes/commentary on a passage together without forever loosing my position in the element I'm not using at the moment. It saves tons of scrolling back and forth, too far, too near, totally lost again ...
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
Would a "sync with resource" command do the trick? Instead of a link set that has trouble with the way resources are divided in different ways, one could invoke a command that syncs other open resources (i.e., bring to the same milestone) with the active resource (when possible).
In each case there is only one resource open so the problem is one of syncing within a resource. From my quick analysis, I don't believe that one can trust the current milestones to scroll smoothly in the sense that the various internal segments may include within a single segment , overlapping milestones and not all milestones are present in all segments. So if I understand your suggestion correctly, I don't think it would work.
Do you have a concrete idea as to what kind of approach could solve the problem (aside from the description of what you would it to achieve)?
Love the concept
Agree that this would be a very useful feature (especially for series like Hermeneia and WBC).
Francis: Do you have a concrete idea as to what kind of approach could solve the problem (aside from the description of what you would it to achieve)?
It requires:
That provides the basic functionality needed. It's the sort of thing that could be implemented one commentary series at a time rather than expecting instant tagging on the part of Faithlife. As it was used, I would expect requests for the following sorts of things - things I lack the information to appropriately prioritize:
Note: there is a potential bonus: if one could suppress panels, one could retain only the translation and actually read the commentary's translation as a Bible :-)
André Kamphuis:Agree that this would be a very useful feature (especially for series like Hermeneia and WBC).
Hermeneia and Anchor are the ones that forced me into devising a solution rather than just griping :-)
Andrew116: Love the concept
"God commands you to pray, but He forbids you to worry." - The Curé d'Ars.
This would be one feature that I would use almost constantly.
Agree much need but as always its another level of tagging and another cost Logos is not going to directly re-coup from us who already own these resources. FL would need to outlay the money with no immediate return from us users who would benefit. Now if every user who ever asked for any kind of extra tagging to be added to resources post purchasing them got on board with the newly announced Faithlife Connect Essentials (No Library) maybe, just maybe FL would then be in position for all this extra tagging.
Absolutely brilliant and needed concept M.J., love it so this is not meant to be a negative response to your suggestion but a reality check, the bottom line is how is this or any other suggestion we come up with going to be funded if only a very small proportion of the user base is actually supporting on going maintenance and improvement of what we currently have, let alone all that we would love to have in addition.
Disciple of Christ (doc):Absolutely brilliant and needed concept M.J., love it so this is not meant to be a negative response to your suggestion but a reality check, the bottom line is how is this or any other suggestion we come up with going to be funded if only a very small proportion of the user base is actually supporting on going maintenance and improvement of what we currently have, let alone all that we would love to have in addition.
Ah, but I was a bit ahead of you, suggesting that it be implemented even if the user had to do the tagging :-) But more seriously, there are a number of places where the tagging would be of use to Logos. And the tagging is sufficiently standardized that I suspect it could be easily automated from a single sample per series. But you are correct that Logos has to look at the cost/benefit ratio before implementing.