Peter, You've sure taken this page farther than I had--great job. You thought of MANY things I overlooked.
Ideally the wiki should serve as the data for a SWORD Program chooser like some Linux distribution choosers out there that perhaps could be housed on the main website and included with the CD? Just an idea... A user could answer a few questions on their priorities (using a multiple-page survey) and get a ranked list of programs. With so many variables one page is too much. I haven't looked into what that kind of thing would require to set up, but it would certainly require ongoing updates of the data as new versions of the engine and frontends are released. Back when BibleDesktop was the only cross-platform option this kind of thing was unnecessary, but now there is a large enough list of options that we need to think about how to help people find the right program for them. The situation is not as bewildering as with Linux distros, but it's getting complicated. I suppose the other value of it is that it shows us all where different frontends stand in terms of feature support. BibleCS, for all its critics, still has a place. Daniel -----Original Message----- From: "Peter von Kaehne" <ref...@gmx.net> To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel@crosswire.org> Sent: 3/1/09 9:39 AM Subject: [sword-devel] Wiki front end comparison - a intermediate summary I have worked now several hours on the wiki comparison page. What I tried to achieve is reduction of as many as possible entries into simple yes/no entries (+/- short comment) to make it as easy as possible to actually compare. This meant obviously that the number of list columns has gone up drastically to allow for all features, including the subfeatures of features. In particular I have tried to dissolve the unclassified "other" category as much as possible. I have therefore grouped the features into categories. These are hopefully self explanatory and widely acceptable. I have taken no account of smoothness of operations, ease of finding of features, general beauty etc. What becomes obvious is a) BibleCS remains in the very top of our applications - only Xiphos and presumably (because I have not tested it) BT have the same wealth of features and some more. All others are far behind in at least one major category, often in several. b) The most glaring lack of too many applications in my opinion is incomplete module support. Please do not take deficiences in this area as feature request but as a (show stopping?) bug. c) A lot of the features presented as new in newer applications have been present similar but under a different name in older. d) Bookmarks/tags/lists - all these appear essentially similar as a concept, but with some drastic differences in terms of access, usability and sub features. No application has a complete superset of all others in terms of subfeatures in this field. As a concept, bookmarks appear to me a version of lexicon (or possibly a structured GenBook)_- at least this is how many frontends have gone (some like BibleSword even bring a lexicon like preloaded bookmark list)- but none actually have gone the whole hog and have created a user editable LexDict module with their book marks. Take this as a hint :-) I am very sure that I am biased. I have shot some emails to some of you if I could not find some features. Correct me if I got things wrong. Peter _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
