On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Chris Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> On a different point, if we genuinely believe that Sword for Windows
> is not or should not be undergoing active maintenance then we should
> probably remove it or de-emphasise it. It is quite understandable
> that an average user like him will look at the website, find a product
> entitled "The Sword Project for Windows", assume that it is the best
> software offered by CrossWire for Windows, try it, dislike it, and
> then avoid CrossWire software in future.
The SWORD Project for Windows is the only full-featured frontend for
Windows. Indeed, it is probably the most full-featured frontend for
Sword, period. You can complain about the interface. I think there are
definitely easier to use and more polished programs (at least in some
respects), but they are all lacking features.
I don't want to get into a lengthy debate, but a full featured system
that is not used will not help anything. I, for one, will not use
Sword for Windows in its current state, and I think you can see in his
response to it how the average user will respond. [note that I have
considerable exposure to usability ideas, so I tend to view
goal-directed design and usability as more important than feature
lists.]
Bible Desktop suffers the inherent lag of JSword behind Sword (so
drivers for GenBooks, for example, are still lacking I believe).
GnomeSword may once have been buildable on Cygwin, but it isn't
presently. And SwordBible certainly shows some definite promise, but I
think it's still a bit basic at present.
How about BPBible? I'll willingly admit to bias here, but I claim
that it supports most features that ordinary users will actually use
(Install Manager style support is an exception, but that is currently
a work in progress), and does so in a way that I hope means users will
like it and use it.
Regarding the review in general, I can't help thinking we were a bit
cheated. We got low marks on support, though we've actually got very
good, prompt support at present (between email & the forums). I find no
record of the unanswered email he claims to have sent, so I'm willing to
place the fault on him (such as he didn't actually send the email, he
managed to make it look very spammy to the filters, or he acted like a
jerk (since I just delete rude messages)). His discussion of the forums
is just plain inaccurate.
I'm still pretty well certain that we have the widest selection of
modules among free programs, too, so it's a bit annoying that programs
who've copied our library got higher marks. It seems like we ought to
get a little credit for the fact that The Word, e-Sword, Online Bible,
and Zefania are all enjoying content that came from us.
I would have thought that e-Sword has more modules than we do.
Anyway, you can't really expect a person investigating the usefulness
of available software to determine whether it has been helped by the
work of others.
Only a 3 of 5 for extensibility? Based on his own criteria, he's wrong.
His assessments of the UI & searching are partly legitimate and partly
due to inadequate documentation (which is to say that he doesn't know
about the search functionality) or his not reading the documentation.
Again from the usability point of view, I claim that if a person
cannot use a feature, the fact that it is there does not help them.
However, I have certainly had no trouble searching with Sword for
Windows.
Jon
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
