This Post has gone on a long time and expressed some great ideas for accordance. For my 0.02, I've never thought of accordance as a basic, consumer program. To my mind, it is a professional grade app and as such requires some prior knowledge of biblical studies method and training to use effectively. This doesn't bother me. In fact, that's why I bought it. I've used others, including logos on pc, and found them totally unacceptable for real research in the languages. This is what I use it for and, thus, I'm not bothered by its initial complexity.
I think a great example is photoshop. If all you want to do is take out red-eye or add sepia tone, that program is way too much work. Just use iPhoto. On the other hand, if your an armature but need to do some more serious editing and creating, you can do it, but expect to spend a few hours on YouTube watching demos first. Then again, if your a professional, most of the layout and terminology is perfectly logical and intuitive. I think it's a matter of what audience the developers are aiming for. I know hat the accordance team has been tryIng to attract consumer level, basic bible study users, but I just don't think this is what the program is. To make it such would require a total redesign and probably upset the schars who depend on the program.
I don't mean to belittle those users who are not 'expert' but to simply offer one man's appraisal of the situation. To my mind, accordance is "designed for schars and right for schars and wannabes (like me)". And, frankly, that doesn't bother me at all. Complex problems require complex (even if elegant) solutions. Anything less is reductionist.
Sorry for typos. Wrote this on the iPhone!
Anthony makes an excellent point and one we should all consider. Accordance "is what it is" and that part of it should not change.
However, The academic base will not support Accordance, by it's self, forever and I think Accordance knows this. Even if one wanted to stay where they were, they cannot do so as far as development, for then you become stagnant water. I certainly appreciate the fact Accordance excels in the areas of word studies/original languages etc. For this reason I have recently tried Logos for my library and Accordance to Word studies etc. The Logos experiment of a couple of months time, has not gone well for me at all and am thinking to giving up on that. Thus, for people like myself, we NEED for Accordance to find ways to acquire more resources. I "for one" love a great deal about the Accordance Ui and, find much I just hate about the accordance Ui. The looks of it , well, I couldn't really give a hoot. The only issue I really have with it is the time used in moving screens around, re-sizing them, and trying to figure out where to put the instant details box. That said, I am pretty used to it now and all of that is pretty much part of my set-up for workflow, thus I could I've with it the rest of my life if need be. Accordance just works, works quickly, with stability and accuracy. It does not "beat-up" my computer, and does not present a lot of information I did not ask for to get in the way of my workflow/thought processes.
I , for one certainly would not want any of those wonderful attributes to change, would not want any of the ability that Scholars need, to change. However, do indeed think there are markets untouched ( scholarly as well ) and the very real need for broader resources to be made available .