PDA

View Full Version : Wish List for 7+



tcblack
06-09-2006, 01:06 PM
I've held off on wishlist items for awhile now, but I suspect that the flury of activity surrounding the v7 release is starting to normalize so perhaps it's not too early to post a few additional feature requests?

I'm going to gamble on it being OK Now :D

Editor / Notes

Spell checker in the editor.
Autolinking of Bible verses in the Editor (Type a reference and it's automatically linked with a popup (eg. type John 3:16 and it autolinks))
I'd like to add a few autoformat buttons to the editor toolbar, things like "heading 1", "Heading 2", "Blockquote" etc...
Addons

I'd love a smart tags plugin for MS Word (or better openoffice.org!) which would enable me to type a reference in that program and have it provide options for
turning to that passage in Bibleworks
Replacing the reference in WORD with the text of the passage
inserting user notes for said passage into WORD.

Maps

Autofind box in the toolbar (Start typing "Bethany" and a drop down list starts locating all the map links to Bethany" before we even finish typing "Bet")
The map rendering is pretty resource intensive, it would be nice to have a "Low/High resolution" button on the toolbar that would quickly jump between detailed and not so detailed rendering.
It would be nice if there were a "show only Checked Items" in the overlay dialog. There is after all ALOT of stuff to wade through there.



:cool: I have no doubt that many of you have more to add. So what do you say folks, what would you like to see? :cool:

Michael Hanel
06-09-2006, 05:09 PM
I've held off on wishlist items for awhile now, but I suspect that the flury of activity surrounding the v7 release is starting to normalize so perhaps it's not too early to post a few additional feature requests?

I'm going to gamble on it being OK Now :D
Editor / Notes
Spell checker in the editor.
Autolinking of Bible verses in the Editor (Type a reference and it's automatically linked with a popup (eg. type John 3:16 and it autolinks))
I'd like to add a few autoformat buttons to the editor toolbar, things like "heading 1", "Heading 2", "Blockquote" etc... I have no doubt that many of you have more to add. So what do you say folks, what would you like to see?

Well they're getting closer to tweaking, but I think they're still finishing up parts of BW7 that they have pledged to get out the door (The Robertson grammar for one, and of course some of those modules, which I'm very much looking forward to :) ). But it's nice to have an organized list of things for them to do when they're ready to start more tweaking :)

I agree on adding more support to make hotlinks easier. This is a feature I would use a lot.

Also relatively minor ones: short-cut keys to select Unicode Greek, or Unicode Hebrew fonts. Right now for instance Control-G only selects the BwGrkL font. (Although I've cheated lately and made my default Greek font Palatino Linotype....is this cheating?)

Hmm. I'm sure there are other things, but right now I'm drawing a blank.

Personally I'm not a big fan of spell-check, not because I don't spell words wrong, but because I'm not a power user when it comes to spell-check and mixing languages and such in documents, I find more frustration than help, but that's just me :)

Dan Phillips
06-09-2006, 10:00 PM
The Robertson grammar for one

Let me be the first to say, "Huh?"

:eek:

Michael Hanel
06-09-2006, 10:23 PM
Let me be the first to say, "Huh?"

:eek:

See this thread (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1496&highlight=robertson).

jfidel
06-09-2006, 11:00 PM
I would like to see a right mouse menu that automatically enters a Greek/Hebrew word or lemma into KWIC.

Links to Josephus and Philos from lexicons.

John Fidel

Adelphos
06-09-2006, 11:24 PM
I have no doubt that many of you have more to add. So what do you say folks, what would you like to see?

I've been asking for a "You-know-what-I-mean" button for command line searches since version 3, but they keep ignoring me.

wezlo
06-10-2006, 08:13 AM
I'd love a linux port using winelib (it's the same executable, but is mapped to the wine project). If they had that, I'd jump for joy. Google's done it with picassa and are working on google earth, it's a doable option...

tcblack
07-26-2006, 12:37 PM
I have no doubt that many of you have more to add. So what do you say folks, what would you like to see? :cool:
Let's add "Save as HTML" to the editor. I'm using lots of external links (Http://) and would love to export those directly rather than having to manually recreate them.

Ben Spackman
07-27-2006, 01:56 AM
I posted mine (http://bibleworks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1207) a while back. The only thing I'd add would be a keyboard shortcut for "add current verse as link" in the notes and editor.

pastor-steve
07-27-2006, 02:45 AM
This has been said before, but what I'd like to see most is poetry formatting and paragraph breaks in English versions. As has been said before, the formatting is part of the translation - without it some of the meaning is lost.

I have seen these in other programs so I assume they're available in the source versions. (I know they are in the NET Bible since I processed one myself when we had to add NET to BW.)

--Steve

tcblack
10-18-2006, 09:14 AM
As a footnote junkie, I really wish I could add footnotes in the User Notes module.

calvary
10-20-2006, 05:23 AM
A hearty AMEN to the footnote suggestion. That would be extremely useful for my sermon notes.

Blessings,
Dave

Dan Phillips
10-21-2006, 11:18 AM
As I said in my review, an auto-update. At present we have to go to Help, then BW on the Internet, then Check for Updates; then if there are any, check them; then say it's okay to restart; then say it's okay to restart again.

Should be like Avant Browser, Maxthon, etc. Auto-check, then say "Updates are available -- want 'em?" Then if I say yes, do the whole thing, don't make me say OK again and again.

tcblack
10-21-2006, 12:43 PM
As I said in my review, an auto-update. ...Auto-check, then say "Updates are available -- want 'em?" Then if I say yes, do the whole thing, don't make me say OK again and again.

I completely agree. I'm a bit of a stickler for staying on top of things and autoupdate is a boon.

One other suggestion though regarding updates. I like to know not only what files are being updated (which the current process does tell us) but I wouldn't mind a brief "changelog".

chiefplt
11-08-2006, 03:56 PM
I'd love to see a quick way to increase and decrease font size. A lot of browsers and other programs have this - a font size + button and a font size - button. In fact, the online text editor I'm using to write this note has it. It would make viewing much easier. As it is, going into options and changing font size is a very cumbersome process.

pt

Michael Hanel
11-08-2006, 07:01 PM
I'd love to see a quick way to increase and decrease font size. A lot of browsers and other programs have this - a font size + button and a font size - button. In fact, the online text editor I'm using to write this note has it. It would make viewing much easier. As it is, going into options and changing font size is a very cumbersome process.

pt

You can do it in the Editor by hitting Control and then use the mouse wheel up and down. I'm not sure that feature works in any other parts of the program though.

MrShep
11-15-2006, 05:34 PM
One other suggestion though regarding updates. I like to know not only what files are being updated (which the current process does tell us) but I wouldn't mind a brief "changelog".

I was looking for this too...it would be nice (along with the auto-update) to know exactly what changed in the updates.

bcblackwell
01-02-2007, 09:19 AM
I'd love to see a quick way to increase and decrease font size. A lot of browsers and other programs have this - a font size + button and a font size - button. As it is, going into options and changing font size is a very cumbersome process.

pt

Here. Here. I'm a new user, but I was very surprised not to find this in BW7. With presentations it's a must to be able to change font size quickly.

Ben
University of Durham

richardsugg
01-02-2007, 06:08 PM
I think it would be great if you could collapse the resources in the resource summary tab. I've attached a screenshot to demonstrate. With so many lexicons, grammars, and user modules, this would be very helpful in finding what I'm looking for.

Dan Phillips
01-03-2007, 07:25 AM
I'd love to see a quick way to increase and decrease font size. A lot of browsers and other programs have this - a font size + button and a font size - button. In fact, the online text editor I'm using to write this note has it. It would make viewing much easier. As it is, going into options and changing font size is a very cumbersome process.

pt

Ctrl+Shift+ > or < to increase or decrease, respectively. How's that?

MWMiles
01-04-2007, 12:07 PM
I'd like to see more along the lines of us being able to make our own dictionaries and lexicons in the forthcoming version of BibleWorks.

please.

:)

Trajan
01-15-2007, 09:55 AM
I think it would be great if you could collapse the resources in the resource summary tab. I've attached a screenshot to demonstrate. With so many lexicons, grammars, and user modules, this would be very helpful in finding what I'm looking for.

This is an awesome suggestion. It would increase the usability of the Resource Summary Tab 100 fold.

Chris Evarts
01-16-2007, 10:41 PM
I would really like to see the addition of Strong's definitions as a lexicon. It would be great if you could choose to see the Strong's definitions in addition to the ones BibleWorks provides in the Word Analysis tab.:rolleyes:

Thanks

MWMiles
01-17-2007, 11:34 AM
I would really like to see the addition of Strong's definitions as a lexicon. It would be great if you could choose to see the Strong's definitions in addition to the ones BibleWorks provides in the Word Analysis tab.:rolleyes:

Thanks

I'll second this one. I use the Strongs all the time and I have to fire up other software to access it. This would be WONDERFUL to have available in BibleWorks.

MWMiles
01-17-2007, 11:38 AM
I'd like to see Smith's Bible Dictionary included in BibleWorks. Just about every other piece of Bible study software out there has it (many programs have it with the illustrations - which I'd also like) and I use this a lot in preparing Bible studies for students. Please, do try to include this. Please. :) It's good material.

Eagle
01-17-2007, 06:30 PM
What's with all the interest in 19th-century resources? I know they're in the public domain, but come on...

Chris

Dan Phillips
01-17-2007, 07:04 PM
I have to agree. With BDB, etc -- why would anyone need or want Strong's? With ISBE, why Smith's?

Eagle
01-17-2007, 07:36 PM
...how about HALOT, BDAG and ABD? :)

Chris

MWMiles
01-17-2007, 07:55 PM
I fail to understand why people would take the time to bother themselves to question the validity and usefulness of older works that they haven't taken the time to look at or use themselves.

Our church happens to make use of both the Stongs and the Smiths in our Bible studies that are passed out to students and have done so for years. These works are solid. I understand that other works are available. This doesn't change the fact that the Strongs and Smiths are equally useful, and quite a lot easier for people that don't spend 25 hours a day in Bible study to pick up and use. We prepare lessons with references to both the Strongs and Smiths so that everyone in the church can buy these two books in physical format (or we give them to them) and check out the studies themselves. Not everyone in church has a set of ISBE on the shelf and many don't own computers. Most wouldn't have a clue what HALOT was.

Perhaps if the means were available for me to incorporate the Stongs and Smiths into BibleWorks on my own then I would not have to ask BibleWorks to consider adding them. Then I could hoard them for myself and not bother to share them with people that turn up their nose at valid works because they are OLD.

Perhaps you need a new Bible. Last weeks version is old news. What's it to you if I ask for a feature that you yourself don't use? I don't complain because the NIV is in BibleWorks, do I? I haven't made use of the Young's Literal Translation and I'm not up here whining about it being included in BibleWorks.

I did not know that when requesting works to be added to BibleWorks that I had to run my request past the self-appointed committee for their scorn.

Any more questions?

Have a nice day. :D

Eagle
01-17-2007, 08:29 PM
Let's be clear... a lot of information in any 19th century Bible dictionary is flat-out wrong. You don't have to "study the Bible 25 hours a day" to know that.

As for Strong's... whatever. Also outdated. BibleWorks offers significantly better resources.

These facts need not offend you.

Chris

Eagle
01-17-2007, 09:46 PM
p.s. You ask "What's it to you if I ask for a feature that you yourself don't use?"

I teach the Bible and the biblical languages. I have to deal with it when my students use outdated and misleading resources. Sometimes it's better to have less information rather than misleading information.

I really wonder what it is about a 19th-century bible dictionary that's so attractive when there are less outdated mid-20th-century resources that are now very, very cheap as well.

When Smith's dictionary came out, Akkadian was barely deciphered. Ugarit hadn't been discovered, and neither had the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are things (to name just a few) that radically transformed our understanding of the cultural, historical and linguistic contexts of the Bible.

I consider it borderline irresponsible to interpret the Bible without the knowledge that these and other new scholarly advances have added. And I respect laypeople enough to think that they deserve the benefit of the best scholarship.

Chris

Dan Phillips
01-17-2007, 11:24 PM
I was mentioning the free ones, Chris.

Duh!

:D

sandersann
01-19-2007, 01:52 PM
The reason why we use so called references is because they are supposed to accurately and authoritatively inform us about the social, religious, political, economical, and cultural background of the NT and the OT.

For the reasons Chris mentioned, older works can no more be seeing as accurate and authoritative and as such do not deserve to be used as reference without major disclaimers and corrections.

Laypersons do not have the ability to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate information in an outdated dictionary (the untrained eye (and sometimes even those who should know better tend to trust what is in print without much critical assessment), why go through the extra trouble for the sake of a free and beloved resource (albeit inaccurate and misleading) when there are more recent works that are affordable and allow one to get a more accurate picture of the Bible milieu (to the extent of our current knowledge).

It is one thing not to know better and disseminate misleading information, it is another thing to know better and use outdated and inaccurate information even if it is convenient, free, or revered .

No work is perfect, but century old dictionaries have so many outdated material that using them can be dangerous at time

If I would not dare using them in a research paper that only the prof would read in what is only an academic exercise, why should have used them to feed believers souls when I know the material is stale and potentially toxic?

I am persuaded that believers deserve the best (my best and the best resources available)

Alain

Adelphos
01-19-2007, 09:56 PM
Disclaimers and corrections apply to the new references as much as they do the old.

Assumptions underlie all reference works, and the assumptions underlying much of the newer works -- the palpable arrogance of modern scholarship notwithstanding -- and spanning all disciplines, including archaeology, linguistics, history, et cetera, are in many cases no more accurate or verifiably ascertained than the assumptions of old.

This isn't the place to debate the multiplicity of examples that could be proffered, especially examples from experts in Greek who can't speak Greek, or experts in Hebrew who can't speak Hebrew, or experts in archaeology who couldn't accurately date a fresh bananna if their life depended on it, ad nauseum, and so forth and so on.

Accordingly, let every one feel free to employ the new works until his heart's content, but let's also allow the old works to remain, especially since they're free, and especially since in many cases they still show themselves cedar-like in the storm to some of us who still find value in them.

Oh... as far as the lay person being mislead, that's easily handled... just make sure he stays away from the "professionals" and he won't have a thing to worry about.

bobvenem
01-20-2007, 08:29 AM
Perhaps the issue is methodology rather than the works themselves.

Do the Scriptures inform scholarship, or vice versa? If the former, then "accurate" resources reflect the timeless texts of Scripture. If the latter, we will all look like fools in 100 years. :rolleyes:

Bob Venem
Fargo, ND

Eagle
01-20-2007, 08:41 AM
Scott,

Likewise, medical science in 2007 is imperfect and subject to constant revision. Do you therefore not care whether you receive medical treatment based on 19th-century knowledge or 21st-century knowledge? If you don't care, then I will at least grant that you're consistent and we needn't debate this further. But if you prefer up-to-date care for your body, why do you refuse it in matters pertaining to your soul?

One of the most unfortunate results of your rejection of scholarship is that it has left you without a critical framework to discern who is a friend and who is a foe. To you, apparently, all practitioners of modern scholarship are enemies -- because you don't know what information is truly out there, you can't assess how it's being used by a given scholar. Thus, you end up like the man afraid to leave his own house because of vague and murky terrors.

Chris

jakemccarty
01-20-2007, 03:59 PM
Disclaimers and corrections apply to the new references as much as they do the old.

Assumptions underlie all reference works, and the assumptions underlying much of the newer works -- the palpable arrogance of modern scholarship notwithstanding -- and spanning all disciplines, including archaeology, linguistics, history, et cetera, are in many cases no more accurate or verifiably ascertained than the assumptions of old.

This isn't the place to debate the multiplicity of examples that could be proffered, especially examples from experts in Greek who can't speak Greek, or experts in Hebrew who can't speak Hebrew, or experts in archaeology who couldn't accurately date a fresh bananna if their life depended on it, ad nauseum, and so forth and so on.

Accordingly, let every one feel free to employ the new works until his heart's content, but let's also allow the old works to remain, especially since they're free, and especially since in many cases they still show themselves cedar-like in the storm to some of us who still find value in them.

Oh... as far as the lay person being mislead, that's easily handled... just make sure he stays away from the "professionals" and he won't have a thing to worry about.

There's some wisdom in this statement. My PhD studies have forced me to seriously interact with material and to come to new conclusions. Sometimes certain epistimologies are better served with ignorance. I have relatives in fundamentalist denominations who are happy and serve others at soup kitchens. They loathe most of the Church, and they could care less about the facts... but that's just fine by me!

Adelphos
01-20-2007, 06:35 PM
Likewise, medical science in 2007 is imperfect and subject to constant revision. Do you therefore not care whether you receive medical treatment based on 19th-century knowledge or 21st-century knowledge? If you don't care, then I will at least grant that you're consistent and we needn't debate this further. But if you prefer up-to-date care for your body, why do you refuse it in matters pertaining to your soul?

One of the most unfortunate results of your rejection of scholarship is that it has left you without a critical framework to discern who is a friend and who is a foe. To you, apparently, all practitioners of modern scholarship are enemies -- because you don't know what information is truly out there, you can't assess how it's being used by a given scholar. Thus, you end up like the man afraid to leave his own house because of vague and murky terrors.


The Bible and the indwelling Holy Spirit is my textbook for matters pertaining to the soul, not the ascertained paradigms of science.

I'm surprised you missed the dichotomy. One who understands the difference wouldn't have.

Your additional assertion that to me "all practitioners of modern scholarship are enemies" is only further proof that you have no clue as to how to handle facts and evidence, for you not only cannot evidentially or factually substantiate such an assertion, but the fact that you make such unsubstantiated assertions in the first place only demonstrates how foggy your own thinking truly is.

In short, of the two of us, you are clearly the one who is clueless as to "what's out there", but that's common for someone who, as you so clearly demonstrated by your own words, places his faith for matters of the soul in "up-to-date" human inventions instead of on the supernatural revelation of God as found in the Scriptures and illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Eagle
01-20-2007, 10:06 PM
You know, Scott, every time I look here there's about one person reading, so I won't assume that there's any "larger BibleWorks community" to hold your silliness in check. And certainly this particular thread was not meant to as a forum for troglodytes such as you to hold forth. So I'm out.

In any case, rational minds can certainly decide for themselves who's making sense here.

Chris

admin
01-22-2007, 09:25 AM
Ok, this discussion is now off-topic. Furthermore, Chris/Eagle, you have degenerated into name-calling. Name-calling is a violation of the forum membership rules (http://www.bibleworks.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_posting_policy). This thread is locked. Chris, if you persist in this kind of behavior, I will have to ban you from the forums.

Admin