For the most part Accordance's module categorization makes perfect sense to me. But I wish a few items were categorized differently. For example, wouldn't Jouon-Muraoka and Waltke's Hebrew Syntax be better classified as Hebrew Tools rather than General Tools as they are currently? Also, Conybeare & Stock's LXX Grammar would seem to fit better under Greek Tools than General Tools. There may be others as well. I can't imagine this should have any priority for the developers, but if you happen to have some free time with nothing better to do, would you consider if it makes better sense to reclassify some modules? Thanks.
Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:23 PM
I guess it's a matter of semantics. Yes, those resources are Greek/Hebrew tools, but they are not arranged in Greek/Hebrew alphabetic order, which is the criteria for categorizing those tools as such. General tools is definitely the most ambiguous and we've often mentioned the need to add better default sub-classifications. I'm not sure what the recent consensus is though.
Director of Content Development
Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:10 PM
I see. But the need to be in G/H alphabetical order feels a bit artificial, and I wonder why that needs to be the controlling qualification especially since people typically don't sit down to read modules like them in an alphabetical order. So why test according to a condition that for most people have no meaning? Just my 2c.
Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:38 PM
my understanding is that the Hebrew (and Greek) tools are classified by this condition because it is those tools that Accordance will search in when you smart amplify and the order that the tool is in the library determines its priority. It seems like a simple (and effective) way to me to make sure that you are doing a lexical search only in those tools that properly support a lexical based search. If you triple-clicked on an entry and it jumped you into the middle of Jouon, rather than DCH it could get confusing.
So, even though you don't directly realise it, you are often using a "test according to a condition that for most people have no meaning". :-)
correct me if I have misapprehended something Rick/Joel/Helen.
- Ken Han likes this
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users