"Type" of Interface
Interface is an interesting idea. I find that Bibleworks makes optimal use of every pixel on the screen....I think of it as a "dense" interface. What Logos and Accordance will do with several dialogues or nested menus BibleWorks tends to fit into a single very dense window. Take for example my favorite lexicon, Louw Nida. In BibleWorks, in a single window I get the domain listings, the domains possible for a particular lexeme, and the specific definitions for a lexeme in a particular semantic domain. I can get the same thing in Accordance, but by the time I set the window up to display all that information, it looks amazingly like BibleWorks. Generally, everything I can do in BibleWorks I can also do in Accordance. In BibleWorks I need to spend some time understanding command line syntax to be productive, but in Accordance the real "magic" tends to be buried under the search menu and various combinations therein.
It's subjective, but my feeling after using it for years is that Accordance and Logos simply don't show me as much information on a particular screen as BibleWorks. I think that density is good interface design, but I'm sure it looks different to someone who is just starting out. I'm amazed that after all the work that has gone into the graphic user interface design, we've seen the rebirth of the command line in utilities like Gnome Do, Launch Bar and Launchy. Sometimes the more productive interface isn't the most graphically appealing.
Just my 2 cents worth today.
Pastor Clint Cozier, Ph.D.
Pastor, Southminster Presbyterian Church