Accordance Bible Software Blog Comments

Vince

Vince — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:56:56 -0500

What John said. Your insisting on the "rightness" of the existing syntax is misplaced. What matters is what your users expect and want to use. So, commit to the syntax already. By all means make it a preference, because lots of users are used to the existing syntax. But for a large percentage of searches, the Google syntax is faster, easier, and is known by almost everyone on the planet by now. Why force users to learn a new syntax when it's not necessary?

john

john — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:16:25 -0500

I think its right to cater for the Google generation, because that's what we are and that's what we expect. It's not about right and wrong and better and worse, its about what we're used to.

Now the trouble is, this Accordance hack is not the right way to go about it. If I search for Son of Adam, Accordance still gives me Lk 3:38, but the Google generation expect to get Ge 4:25 and 5:3 as well, unless it is in double quotes.

I think you need to actually provide two full blown different parsing regimes, switchable in preferences - the Google one, and the one you like. Personally I want the Google one, because I do so many Google searches, this is just how I think now.

Ben

Ben — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:25:17 -0500

Thanks a bunch. Accordance rocks! So much better and cheaper than another bible software program that has recently been updated! Keep pushing forward.

CircuitRider

CircuitRider — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:10:12 -0500

THANK YOU for the "Google" type search. I was just about to request that kind of option. I really like it!

Rick Bennett

Rick Bennett — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:54:30 -0500

Dosjon: The decision not to support Pages was not intentional on our part. Pages evidently does not handle pasted text in the same manner as every other word processor (it's one of the only ones we tested that did not work, Mariner Write being the other). As we improve upon this feature we'll see if there is anything that can be done on our end to support Pages as well.

As we've said many times here and in other places, Mellel is our Mac word processor of choice. It is very inexpensive, and is the only one which properly handles RTL scripts (Hebrew, etc.).

In upcoming blog posts we'll describe this feature in more detail. We're excited to see the response thus far, thanks!

Dosjon

Dosjon — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:32:59 -0500

Thanks for the citations with bibliographic info addition! I remember asking for that on the forums awhile ago (along with a few others), and it's fun to see it come to fruition. It'll definitely come in handy for all my papers (especially since I wasn't totally sure how to cite an electronic resource anyway.)

I'm sure this is already on your radar, but I would love to see Apple's Pages added to the list of word processors that'll post bib info to the footnotes. Personally, I'm just tired of Word and am making the switch to Pages. I know the majority still uses Word, but my guess is that as more people discover Pages, they'll make the switch as well.

Keep up the amazing work!

Denes House

Denes House — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:51:02 -0500

Dang, you guys rock! That "Google generation" search is well-executed. Accordance just keeps getting better and better, even when we can't imagine it to be possible!

Way 2 go!