[jsword-devel] Bible Desktop Vision and Strategy

[Daniel Owens]

Adam Thomas wrote:
> This is a great discussion, and one that we desperately needed to have
> if we hope to move BibleDesktop forward. I agree, we are not going to
> get 100% agreement on this list. The nature of Open Source projects is
> diversity in every respect. Let's be careful to focus on important goals
> as a group and not branch off too early.
>

You can say that again, but then again there aren't that many developers 
working on Jsword and BibleDesktop, making it easier to come to 
consensus. At one point I started trying to learn Java (I'm just a 
module developer), but life got too busy. There was a reason I wanted to 
learn Java--BibleDesktop impressed me immediately (much like BPBible 
did). For several reasons I don't use it all the time, and they are 
feature-related. More on that below.

> If we could snap our fingers and have a completely redesigned
> BibleDesktop application what would it need to do? Obviously, presenting
> the Bible is a usable manner is priority one.
>

Here are my two cents:
1. Support the standard features of existing module types, especially 
Bibles. Book introductions to Bibles, personal commentaries, RtoL 
rendering, linked commentaries in a parallel but not identical window, 
etc., need to be on par with the best of the SWORD applications which 
use the Sword engine. This should be a priority before a wild redesign 
takes place.
2. Add right-click access to features like copy/paste, 
dictionary/morphology look-up, etc.
3. Add skins to customize the gui. In Linux the standard Metal widgets 
look really dull to me. It would be nice to have some options. Windows 
looks much better, I should add. I'm not sure about Mac.
4. Add plugins for expanded functionality (as this thread has 
discussed). This might be a way to reach consensus on features that are 
installed by default. That way when a plugin becomes a standard part of 
most users/developer's workflow, it can be worked in as a standard 
feature. Rather than trying to agree today on what should be done in the 
future, create the option for mavericks to do their magic and let the 
community decide over time what should be standard.

> I agree that we should not approach the redesign with the attitude of
> making this application the swiss army knife of Bible applications. The
> users out of the box experience is crucial and their first impression
> will be based on that experience alone. If they like what they see, they
> may continue digging deeper and learn of the other features such as
> powerful searching, extensibility, and customization.
>

Documentation and advertising are crucial, as well as ready access to 
features. If they features aren't obviously available they won't get used.

> I was taught that in the Web world you have approximately 5-15 seconds
> to give a user what he/she wants or they will bounce to another site
> that does. I don't claim to know the statistics for desktop
> applications, but I have to imagine that some similar rule exists. We
> need to make sure BibleDesktop impresses the user immediately with zero
> configuration.
>

This happened for me, and the reason was that the display of 
cross-references and footnotes, unlike any other SWORD application, was 
just like a printed Bible. Furthermore, search results were displayed in 
a normal Bible pane, not in a separate pane. BPBible comes close to this 
but not exactly like BibleDesktop.

> "Since neither the Kindle app nor the Kindle iPhone
> is designed for reading the Bible, navigation can be frustrating."
>
> So let's be the application that IS designed to handle Bible navigation
> elegantly.
>
> "The usability problem with non-linear content is
> crucial because it indicates a deeper issue: Kindle's user experience
> is dominated by the book metaphor."
>
> Let's not be "dominated" by the book metaphor, let's simply provide it
> as one way of presenting the Bible. I'll bet as a group we could come up
> with at least 2 or 3 different ways that each of us read the Bible. When
> I am doing my "Read the Bible in One Year" study plan I do read chapter
> by chapter in a linear fashion. However, when I am in Bible Study trying
> to rapidly look up scriptures, I am utilizing full-text searches,
> bookmarks, and index lookups. Those are two modes that BibleDesktop
> would need to satisfy my needs and I am positive that others on this
> list could list different ways they use the Bible. Keep in mind those
> modes have nothing to do with commentaries and other "fancy" features,
> they are simply presentation or "workflow" modes of raw Bible content.
>

Included in studying is the parallel display of translations and texts, 
along with commentaries and dictionary support. This kind of complex 
work requires the ability to save a workspace for a particular project, 
which I know is on DM's radar.

> I think the electronic book idea is great. I like the idea of being able
> to flip a page electronically and have a visual representation or my
> relative location within a book. Sure PDFs use continuous navigation by
> default and we can tell relative location by looking at the label that
> says "page 11 of 44" to know where we are. However, many people like to
> feel like they are reading a paper book and I am one of them. I can
> assure you there are many more like me out there and is proven by the
> number of people interested in electronic book format. I also have an
> article from a recent IEEE magazine that discusses electronic books and
> page flipping techniques. This further proves to me that someone out
> there thinks it is worth doing, or at least researching.
>

To me the page-flipping concept feels like eye candy. Not that eye candy 
is necessarily bad, just lower priority. Keep in mind too that Bible 
reading is typically a very tunnel-oriented activity. Most people don't 
read a Bible like a novel but like a manual. They find the section they 
want and read that section. Even Bible reading plans jump around, so 
your place in a Bible is less important. I would say the same with 
commentaries and dictionaries. General books, however, are the 
exception, and there the concept makes more sense to me.

> We all have our ideas of what we want to see out of BibleDesktop as a
> project. Many great ideas have been discussed on this list and I think
> they are all worth investigating. However, emphasis must be placed on
> the core of the application otherwise all the bells and whistles won't
> make any difference.
>

Exactly. This makes me want to try to learn Java again...

Daniel
> Regards,
> Adam
>
>
> Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Jonathan Morgan 
>> <jonmmorgan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> I'll just start by saying that I don't necessarily see the goals as
>>> wrong, just that they may have minor problems or be over idealistic.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:17 AM, DM Smith <dmsmith at crosswire.org> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Here is a starting point for a new statement. Your feedback/input 
>>>> is very
>>>> welcomed.
>>>>
>>>> Vision:
>>>>   Users of Bible Desktop grow closer to God as they explore and 
>>>> study God's
>>>> Word since can be tailored to be their favorite Bible application.
>>>>       
>>> Bear in mind that most users don't want to have to tailor an
>>> application, and often won't at all.  Being configurable is nice, but
>>> the default layout has to be good because that's what a lot of people
>>> will judge and evaluate the software on.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Strategic goals: (Bridges the vision with user expectations of Bible
>>>> Desktop)
>>>>   Reliable - Everything works as expected, without bugs and without
>>>> surprise.
>>>>   Adaptable - The user is able to adapt Bible Desktop to their work 
>>>> flow.
>>>>   Simple - Make each feature of Bible Desktop as simple as possible 
>>>> but no
>>>> simpler. Each feature should be so obvious that it does not detract 
>>>> from
>>>> God's Word.
>>>>   Complete - Bible Desktop does everything a user could ever want 
>>>> in a Bible
>>>> Application
>>>>       
>>> That is impossible (though there is nothing wrong in working towards
>>> it).  It is my firm opinion after many years of software development
>>> that software can only do everything you might want if you don't have
>>> enough imagination.
>>>
>>>    
>>>>   Extensible - If Bible Desktop doesn't do everything, it is simple 
>>>> for a
>>>> developer to add the missing feature to Bible Desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Tactical: (How user expectations of Bible Desktop are achieved.)
>>>>   Reliable
>>>>       Reported bugs are responded to immediately, determining the 
>>>> earliest
>>>> possible release in which they can be fixed.
>>>>       Confusing features (i.e. surprising behavior) is dealt with 
>>>> as soon as
>>>> possible. This may be indicative of a problem with the manual.
>>>>       
>>> But bear in mind that many (most?) will not read the manual.
>>>
>>>    
>>>>   Adaptable
>>>>      The user can choose which features are part of the desktop.
>>>>      The user can choose the placement of those features on the 
>>>> desktop.
>>>>   Simple
>>>>      Simplify the reading of book content. The structure and 
>>>> organization of
>>>> a book should not get in the way. Some kind of page flipping is 
>>>> suggested.
>>>>       
>>> I don't believe page flipping simplifies the reading of book content.
>>> I could elaborate on that at length, but I don't think it necessary.
>>>     
>>
>> For more on similar things to what drives my opinion of trying to
>> exactly replicate the book in the hope that it will be more intuitive,
>> read the following items and make of it what you will:
>>
>> http://www.openbible.info/blog/2009/03/how-to-get-the-esv-for-free-on-your-iphone-for-a-limited-time/ 
>>
>>
>> Pertinent quote: "Since neither the Kindle app nor the Kindle iPhone
>> is designed for reading the Bible, navigation can be frustrating."
>>
>> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/kindle-usability-review.html
>>
>> Pertinent quote: "The usability problem with non-linear content is
>> crucial because it indicates a deeper issue: Kindle's user experience
>> is dominated by the book metaphor. The idea that you'd want to start
>> on a section's first page makes sense for a book because most are
>> based on linear exposition. Unfortunately, this is untrue for many
>> other content collections, including newspapers, magazines, and even
>> some non-fiction books such as travel guides, encyclopedias, and
>> cookbooks. "
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jsword-devel mailing list
>> jsword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel
>>
>>   
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jsword-devel mailing list
> jsword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel
>