Outline format for Lexicons

[Battlesman]

For a long time I’ve desired an outline-friendly lexicon format. Now a competitor has such a feature. 

 

Could we please see such a feature in Accordance lexicons?

 

Thank you!

[Rick Bennett]

For a long time I’ve desired an outline-friendly lexicon format. Now a competitor has such a feature. 

 

Could we please see such a feature in Accordance lexicons?

 

Thank you!

 

Obviously, I'm a bit biased here, but personally I don't think replicating this as a user-actionable item is worth the time. We've already taken the liberty to re-format lexicons into a more digital friendly format, specifically with LSJ, and BDB (BDAG and HALOT were developed prior to this decision, but also weren't as bad as those two). 

 

And, you probably know that amplifying with context (i.e. highlighting the relevant scripture reference when looking up a word from a text) is much simpler in Accordance than what is explained in that video…just triple-click the word (with BDAG as your preferred lexicon; amplify with context is a default preference)!

 

We could also take a look at making BDAG and HALOT more digital friendly by displaying sub article numbers/letters in the browser, but there have been technical reasons why that wasn't done.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[tmykkanen]

For a long time I’ve desired an outline-friendly lexicon format. Now a competitor has such a feature. 

 

Could we please see such a feature in Accordance lexicons?

 

Thank you!

 

+1

 

I too (along with the other Accordance users in my class) would like to see this.

 

The current formatting of BDAG and HALOT make reading the entries cumbersome.

 

Obviously, I'm a bit biased here, but personally I don't think replicating this as a user-actionable item is worth the time. We've already taken the liberty to re-format lexicons into a more digital friendly format, specifically with LSJ, and BDB (BDAG and HALOT were developed prior to this decision, but also weren't as bad as those two). 

 

And, you probably know that amplifying with context (i.e. highlighting the relevant scripture reference when looking up a word from a text) is much simpler in Accordance than what is explained in that video…just triple-click the word (with BDAG as your preferred lexicon; amplify with context is a default preference)!

 

We could also take a look at making BDAG and HALOT more digital friendly by displaying sub article numbers/letters in the browser, but there have been technical reasons why that wasn't done.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

I examined BDB and LSJ and they don't seem much better compared to BDAG and HALOT.

 

I agree, highlighting in context via triple click is a great feature (I imagine something similar can be done in Logos). However, that is most useful for determining what BDAG or HALOT thinks is the use in context. It doesn't help much at all for reading the whole entry to get a sense of the lexical range and other possible uses.

 

Reading the entry for a word such as επι, for example, would be much easier with a feature similar to the video. Even enabling something persistent indenting in resources would be helpful (currently, the first line is indented, but the remainder of the paragraph is flush left).

[Rick Bennett]

re: BDB and LSJ my point was to compare them to the print edition. You'll see we diverged from the print layout to make each more readable.

 

And, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I'd say the first time an electronic text appeared "unbound by the limitations of print" was a web page (1990s).

 

Seriously though, thanks for the feedback. My comments have no bearing on whether such a feature will ever come to Accordance. But from a content design and development perspective we will continue to take the liberty of diverging from the print edition to make for the best possible user experience on our platform.

[Brian W. Davidson]

BDB and LSJ certainly needed it and I like what accordance has done with them. Personally, I find BDAG and HALOT to be fine as they are, and I wouldn't want them to be changed. I use these two everyday multiple times a day and for long periods, and I like that they look very similar to the print versions.

 

My desire is to see a way to more easily navigate through the sections of DCH's long entries.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Brian W. Davidson

[Mark Nigro]

Setting line spacing to aboug 60% for these modules makes a tremendous difference in the ease of perusing BDAG, Halot and others. The outline "appearance" is in fact already there but it becomes more noticeable with the spacing increased. I also have the background and font customized to make it clearer and set it apart from other modules surrounding them.

[Alistair]

Setting line spacing to aboug 60% for these modules makes a tremendous difference in the ease of perusing BDAG, Halot and others. The outline "appearance" is in fact already there but it becomes more noticeable with the spacing increased. I also have the background and font customized to make it clearer and set it apart from other modules surrounding them.

 

Is this something that can be set for these specific modules only, or does it have to be set for all tools?

[Mark Nigro]

 

Is this something that can be set for these specific modules only, or does it have to be set for all tools?

Absolutely. Every module can be customized completely and individually.

 

1. Open your library pane

2. Right click on the module and select "Set Default Display."

3. Once there, you can use a "display theme" to start off with and modify font, line spacing etc. or, click on "Customize Theme" to completely customize everything, including background etc.

 

[Mark Nigro]

Here are a couple of screen shots to show you how I have set BDAG and HALOT, for example.

 

Let me know if you need/want shots of the steps to customize the display.

[tmykkanen]

The outline "appearance" is in fact already there but it becomes more noticeable with the spacing increased.

 

Yes, adjusting the spacing, font, etc. helps. Thanks for point that out, Mark. I'm grateful that we have the ability to do this for our modules. However, the outline format in the video is different because it breaks up later entries into bullet points. Compare the entry for μακαριος in the video with the one in BDAG in Accordance for an example of the difference (see esp. entry 2.a.).

 

 

BDB and LSJ certainly needed it and I like what accordance has done with them. Personally, I find BDAG and HALOT to be fine as they are, and I wouldn't want them to be changed. I use these two everyday multiple times a day and for long periods, and I like that they look very similar to the print versions.

 

My desire is to see a way to more easily navigate through the sections of DCH's long entries.

 

 

Different strokes and all. I wonder if that's why logos implemented it as user selectable instead of across the board. It seems like a helpful way to implement something like this.

[Rick Bennett]

 

We could also take a look at making BDAG and HALOT more digital friendly by displaying sub article numbers/letters in the browser, but there have been technical reasons why that wasn't done.

 

 

This is something we can still do. We have a couple different ways to accomplish it, namely breaking up the articles by section number, heading, etc. but only displaying that in the browser (Table of Contents). This does not change the format of the main content of the module. But, by doing so it would require v. 11+; or another method would limit the ability to amplify with reference accurately (that's what I meant by 'technical issues').

[Daniel R]

This seems silly to me. Also, the Logos video doesn't make things more like a paper book. Paper books don't change into outline mode. With a paper book, you can still get lost in dense paragraphs just as easily as on a screen. Fortunately, as Mark Nigro notes, we have the ability to set our workspaces with the best settings for our eyes. 

 

Secondly, how much info will get lost in this reduction process by Logos? Lexica like BDAG and HALOT are not always consistent with how their sub-entries are created (nor consistent about always giving the same kind of information, as some entries are never given an emboldened gloss). BDAG and HALOT are too methodologically inconsistent for this to work nicely all the time. 

 

And what is the end use of learning how to use a lexicon? And does this outline reduction from Logos serve that goal? If you want to use a scholarly lexicon, practice learning how to read the sometimes-difficult entries, so that its easier when you are doing it for professional work in the future. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Daniel R

[Mark Nigro]

Yes, adjusting the spacing, font, etc. helps. Thanks for point that out, Mark. I'm grateful that we have the ability to do this for our modules. However, the outline format in the video is different because it breaks up later entries into bullet points. Compare the entry for μακαριος in the video with the one in BDAG in Accordance for an example of the difference (see esp. entry 2.a.).

 

 

 

 

Different strokes and all. I wonder if that's why logos implemented it as user selectable instead of across the board. It seems like a helpful way to implement something like this.

 

Sure, it might be helpful to some. Personally, I find it counterintuitive.

 

I own Logos too and have the outline feature but I avoid it. It feels like it truncates too much information from what should be laid out in a collective paragraph format, in my opinion. You still have to read through all that text anyway, only now the outline format makes it a "scrolling" approach from top to bottom rather than left to right. But it ends up elongating the entries so much into a very long stretch of text that you now have to scroll down through in order to get to the subsequent headings. If searching for the right heading is the goal, then this actually works against you by creating more searching. Accordance's current layout lets you scan less distance to see more headings.

 

What is worse, the outline feature doesn't allow individual collapsing/expanding of those bullet point sections and subsections. It's an all or nothing approach to the outline view. If you decide you've found your appropriate subsection, you either have to read down through a longer list of "truncated" points or you have to go back to turn off the outline filter in order to see the information together. To me it seems to create another disadvantage while trying to fix a problem that isn't there. 

 

If Accordance were to do this (not that I think they need to), my hope would be for collapsible bullet points. But that is a lot of (what I consider to be) unnecessary programming.

 

Perhaps it's just the times we are living in, and people are getting used to reading in smaller bits of information due to social media like Twitter, FB and Instagram etc. But the points that Logos make in that blogpost and video are really more about marketing than describing an actual problem in the layout of lexicons. Scholarship and study are disciplines, after all. But like you said, different strokes

Edited March 5, 2016 by Mark Nigro

[Daniel R]

^ what he said

[Michel Gilbert]

Hi,

 

I own HAL in Logos and use it without the outline feature. I don't own HAL in Acc., but based on Mark's screenshot, HAL appears the same in Acc as in Logos' non-outline mode.

 

Everyone wants to get to the relevant section of a lexical entry as quickly as possible, but even if Acc had an outline feature like Logos, the Logos version of HAL is still faster in two ways. First, you double click to the entry vs. triple click. Second, Logos goes to the correct homonym without scrolling up or down (99+ % of the time) vs. Acc which only goes to the correct homonym if the verse is listed, or if the first homonym, the default one, happens to be the correct one. So, on other fronts it's not simply “different strokes” - there is already one click less and much less scrolling looking up entries in HAL/CDCH in Logos.

 

So, if the debate is about speed and ease of finding the correct gloss, I think Logos wins at the moment, especially for someone like me who likes to see what the editors of HAL say, and then reads the rest of the entry, including comparative semitics data.

 

But, there is something Acc could do to entice me away from Logos to “make the switch” to HAL in Acc (besides a Linux version). If the verse isn't listed, I would like it if Acc went directly to the Stem, i.e., (for those who don't know offhand), to qal, niphal, etc. These are already tagged and in the database. Like Mark said, “Perhaps it's just the times we are living in, and people are getting used to reading in smaller bits of information.” Everyone wants to find a gloss asap, for the correct word, and then either keep reading the text, or keep reading the rest of the entry, e.g., the meanings for the other Stems.

 

I'm not trying to reopen the add homonyms to the list of separate words issue, so don't take this as an ad hominem attack on Acc. I just think other issues should be dealt with before the outline one, if ever.

 

Regards,

 

Michel

[R. Mansfield]

I'm not trying to reopen the add homonyms to the list of separate words issue, so don't take this as an ad hominem attack on Acc...

 

Nice. I always appreciate clever wordplay.