Accordance Note Taking Discussion

[Greg Terry]

I have been using Accordance for over 15 years and I cannot remember a time when there were so many widespread problems with the software. Accordance was originally developed for the Mac OS yet now I have seen comments from one of the developers that he hasn't tried the program on a Mac and isn't aware of many of the issues experienced by Mac users. It seems Accordance Mac users are relegated to second class status. In my experience, little if anything has been done to mitigate any of the Mac OS issues I have experienced and yes, I have tried each supposed fix released to this date. I can no longer justify spending any money on a software platform that falls far short of not only the promised new features, but even the basic features we have experienced for many years. I will no longer recommend Accordance to anyone either and I have unsubscribed from the shameless emails promoting the new version of Accordance. I will still use Accordance if I can find a version that functions somewhat well (though it appears at this time the Accordance download server is non-functional too), but it will now be in a secondary role.

 

I know many of you are more patient and long suffering than I am. Good for you. I am not going to go through a bunch of workarounds and keep trying supposed fixes any longer. My time is too valuable for that. The Accordance company is not what it used to be and likely never will be again. That is very clear. The Accordance software program is an embarrassment and is no longer a software program for professional use. It is a real shame that such a useful program has fallen to such an amateurish endeavor that requires the user to wrestle with the program rather than use the program for productive work.

[A. Smith]

1 hour ago, Greg Terry said:

I have been using Accordance for over 15 years and I cannot remember a time when there were so many widespread problems with the software. Accordance was originally developed for the Mac OS yet now I have seen comments from one of the developers that he hasn't tried the program on a Mac and isn't aware of many of the issues experienced by Mac users. It seems Accordance Mac users are relegated to second class status. In my experience, little if anything has been done to mitigate any of the Mac OS issues I have experienced and yes, I have tried each supposed fix released to this date. I can no longer justify spending any money on a software platform that falls far short of not only the promised new features, but even the basic features we have experienced for many years. I will no longer recommend Accordance to anyone either and I have unsubscribed from the shameless emails promoting the new version of Accordance. I will still use Accordance if I can find a version that functions somewhat well (though it appears at this time the Accordance download server is non-functional too), but it will now be in a secondary role.

 

I know many of you are more patient and long suffering than I am. Good for you. I am not going to go through a bunch of workarounds and keep trying supposed fixes any longer. My time is too valuable for that. The Accordance company is not what it used to be and likely never will be again. That is very clear. The Accordance software program is an embarrassment and is no longer a software program for professional use. It is a real shame that such a useful program has fallen to such an amateurish endeavor that requires the user to wrestle with the program rather than use the program for productive work.

 

I was quite vocal about my frustrations with accordance after the 'release' of version 14. It was/is a blunder. I'm finding the program quite useable now, but it is full of small bugs, no question. I've only ever used accordance on a Mac. It seems to me there are more difficulties in the windows app (I know OP is using Mac). And, yes, I think the iOS, and especially iPad versions, are disappointing. 

 

But--and this is a big deal--I also use the other major bible software. And I can tell you that I simply cannot do what I need to do anywhere near as simply, easily, and quickly, as I can on accordance--assuming I can do it at all. I find the other software outrageously bloated with useless modules and useless feature. Useless to me. I am working with primary texts 98% of the time. This is where accordance shines. The other guys don't even get close. So, frustrations and bugs being what they are . . . oh well. I suppose you could say I'm stuck. Or that I'm overly accommodating and patient. I don't know. But accordance does what I need better than anything else, even with its problems. That's the bottom line for me and I don't see that changing at all. The other software hasn't really closed the gap much at all IMO. So, here I am. Accordance is it, for better and worse. And it's mostly better. 

[Lawrence]

It's not about patience. It's about being able to get on with ministry.

To that end, it's good practice to go dual platform with at least the basics, even when things are going well.

 

That's just like bringing your sermon presentation on a USB even though you've already emailed it to the team.

 

Accordance is facing a problem of its own making, and I hope they can pull through.

From what I can see (I don't work at Accorance), there's a complex interplay among various issues:

- backwards compatibility problems arising from one or more new file formats to support new features;

- regression testing: either missing or failing to catch new bugs;

- a legacy programming environment that makes it hard to implement modern software-engineering best-practices;

- management policies that resulted in losing significant personnel and their accumulated knowledge;

- pushing out a new and unstable version without first fixing major problems with the previous version; and

- a rushed schedule that may have compromised version-control discipline, etc.

 

Regardless, as a major platform, Accordance should recognise that people depend on its software, and make sure to offer a version that is guaranteed to work. That would have been A.13, but backwards compatibility issues etc have gummed up the works. This is unfortunate, since it also impacts their revenue stream as people can't use the resources they buy. This in turn exacerbates the problem, putting a timer on how long they can keep trying before their operating fund dries up.

 

I thought they'd be able to stabilise A.14 by Christmas, and to their credit, they've managed to plug several of the glaring holes.

But the matrix of complex issues makes it hard to get on top of things quickly. Given time, I'm sure they can. But I think we're looking at maybe 3 months, not next week.

 

Given the recent experience, once A.14 is sufficiently reliable, I would like to see A.15 be the 'stability' edition. Give it to the end of 2023, but port the code over to a modern development environment with a strict testing and versioning discipline.

 

I think it's still possible.

[A. Smith]

3 hours ago, Lawrence said:

It's not about patience. It's about being able to get on with ministry.

To that end, it's good practice to go dual platform with at least the basics, even when things are going well.

 

That's just like bringing your sermon presentation on a USB even though you've already emailed it to the team.

 

Accordance is facing a problem of its own making, and I hope they can pull through.

From what I can see (I don't work at Accorance), there's a complex interplay among various issues:

- backwards compatibility problems arising from one or more new file formats to support new features;

- regression testing: either missing or failing to catch new bugs;

- a legacy programming environment that makes it hard to implement modern software-engineering best-practices;

- management policies that resulted in losing significant personnel and their accumulated knowledge;

- pushing out a new and unstable version without first fixing major problems with the previous version; and

- a rushed schedule that may have compromised version-control discipline, etc.

 

Regardless, as a major platform, Accordance should recognise that people depend on its software, and make sure to offer a version that is guaranteed to work. That would have been A.13, but backwards compatibility issues etc have gummed up the works. This is unfortunate, since it also impacts their revenue stream as people can't use the resources they buy. This in turn exacerbates the problem, putting a timer on how long they can keep trying before their operating fund dries up.

 

I thought they'd be able to stabilise A.14 by Christmas, and to their credit, they've managed to plug several of the glaring holes.

But the matrix of complex issues makes it hard to get on top of things quickly. Given time, I'm sure they can. But I think we're looking at maybe 3 months, not next week.

 

Given the recent experience, once A.14 is sufficiently reliable, I would like to see A.15 be the 'stability' edition. Give it to the end of 2023, but port the code over to a modern development environment with a strict testing and versioning discipline.

 

I think it's still possible.

 

Everyone's needs, use, and experience is different. And, from what I can tell, Windows is suffering more than Mac. But, for my professional needs, using accordance everyday for the vast majority of my work (on macOS), alongside Paratext (in parallels VM (and that is a whole other can of worms), I'm finding v14 quite useable; at least as much as v13 at this point, though there are still more than a few little annoyances. 

[Donald Cobb]

16 minutes ago, A. Smith said:

 

Everyone's needs, use, and experience is different. And, from what I can tell, Windows is suffering more than Mac. But, for my professional needs, using accordance everyday for the vast majority of my work (on macOS), alongside Paratext (in parallels VM (and that is a whole other can of worms), I'm finding v14 quite useable; at least as much as v13 at this point, though there are still more than a few little annoyances. 

 

This has also been my experience, using Accordance 14. That's not to say that others haven't had problems, but my usage which is much more than daily, has not raised difficulties for my work flow. I do wonder if the the way installation is done changes behavior. I didn't install v. 14 over 13, but rather renamed 13 (just in case) and installed 14 in parallel. I've read a number of posts saying that a clean installation has often cleared up the worst problems.

[Erhard]

I installed V 14 over V 13 on several computers on both Win 10 & 11 and have had few issues. For me, the main issue has been the opening window location - sometimes off screen, or at least the top of it, but I can work around that. I still prefer it over the other program. I agree, Accordance really needs to get this one solid and make sure any future versions are solid prior to being rolled out.

[A. Smith]

2 hours ago, Donald Cobb said:

 

This has also been my experience, using Accordance 14. That's not to say that others haven't had problems, but my usage which is much more than daily, has not raised difficulties for my work flow. I do wonder if the the way installation is done changes behavior. I didn't install v. 14 over 13, but rather renamed 13 (just in case) and installed 14 in parallel. I've read a number of posts saying that a clean installation has often cleared up the worst problems.

interesting idea. I’ve not made that correlation but I am now curious. Mine wa a new install, renaming v13 also. 

[dandennison]

As for me, the other software doesn't solve a problem I have. It provides a library with a staggeringly huge selection, but the major e-book distributors solved that problem ages ago and will eventually eat even their lunch. I only use that software to gain access to resources I cannot get elsewhere. The tangible benefit that other software provides is hyperlinking between theological resources. I do not need nor use the other features: they are either solving a problem that other software verticals do far better, or are mass-market theological works written to take advantage of the software's UI which cannot be replaced by other more scholarly works from different perspectives.

 

The problem that quality Bible software resolves is a truly unique niche:

We work with a very structured text, down to the sub-lexical level. Bible software is not an e-book reader, it is a database with a book UI.

Back when Accordance/GRAMCORD were first created, they recognized this.

 

Although it is easy for other software to copy the features that grammatically tagged text brings to the user, there is much more in Accordance than that.

• Consider the MT-LXX and Targums Wordmap modules: the problem being solved is much more than hyperlinking a text, cross-highlighting between translations, or providing tooltip definition functionality. The problem those modules resolve is the relationships between words at the subsentence level across different works. The MERGE operator was created for MT-LXX.
• Consider the Holmstedt or Anderson-Forbes database: so much more is tagged onto the words and text than first may appear.

Bible software's job is to expose the text and its relationships, so that it is easy to understand how translations, similar passages, clauses, subjects, verbs, words, and much more relate to each other. This is why we are here so vocally in these forums. Nothing else available today does this better, and if there is, please point me to it since I care about the text and will only use a tool that enables me to dig deeper.

 

With BibleWorks off the scene, Accordance is the tool for the job of exposing the text, especially with commands like INFER and MERGE. However, its programming model is both an asset and a liability. On the asset side, it's super fast and super small. On the liability side, using Pascal in the 2020s carries with it some interesting challenges to say the least.

 

May our favorite software continue to focus on what makes it great.

 

Dan

Edited January 2, 2023 by dandennison

[Randy Cue]

We are blessed to have multiple Bible software. Each comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. We should try the best we can to make use of the strengths of each in whatever our tasks are. I, for one, will continue to use both of the products I have.

[Kiyah]

16 hours ago, Greg Terry said:

It seems Accordance Mac users are relegated to second class status.

As a Windows user I definitely have felt like a second class citizen. The excuse that I was given for Dark Mode not being available for Windows (until now) was simply "Accordance was historically only for Mac" as if that was an answer as to why it took them 3 years and now a whole new version to release it for Windows. They literally advertised a feature for Windows for v13 that they had no idea how to implement, and their excuse was "Accordance was historically only for Mac." I don't recall getting a Windows discount for my upgrade to v13, I paid the same as everyone else.

 

They still haven't fixed a Windows bug with the Content Update checker that I and another use reported well over a year ago.

[Accordance Enthusiast]

12 minutes ago, Kiyah said:

As a Windows user I definitely have felt like a second class citizen

 

That has always been the case since I used Accordance. 

 

The windows version is months or years behind the Mac version, especially with a new version.

 

The bugs I report are not always corrected, and usually takes 6 months to 1 year from report to solved.

 

Accordance is not bad, but it is sad that it's not as good as promised or supposed to be.

 

One of the frustrating things is that it crashes so often, and this wastes a lot of time...

 

A good solution would be not to upgrade to the new version until it is the old version. I.e., until the new bug filled version is released and the previous version is in a good working condition.

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

I run both major Bible software apps. I have over 13,000 books in the other app, and I have a substantial Accordance library as well.

 

The Accordance 14 rollout was messy and a hard learned lesson for the company. So far, Accordance 14 has been pretty stable for me on the Mac, and maybe Accordance 15 should be their “Snow Leopard” release (fewer major features and really double down on finely tuning the app on both platforms and provide a solid experience across platforms).

 

I use both Bible software apps and always will, but I’ve still been pivoting to Accordance as my primary Bible software app for multiple reasons:

 

1. It still has an easier to use interface and is overall faster than the other guy’s.

 

2. The overall set of modules and features are of a generally higher-caliber than the other guy’s, especially for biblical language studies.

 

3. The grass isn’t 100% greener with the other guys. They’ve had multiple layoffs, the “Connect” subscription fiasco, been slow at implementing the remaining Wordsearch features into their platform (I was sure version 10 would add a couple of them, it didn’t), having to phase out their church offerings, and their app has has its own share of bugs (the indexer has caused issues in the past, they also used to “code first, fix later” at times). I’ve had plenty of frustrations with them, and overall, more than I’ve had with Accordance.

[MatthewJames]

I would like to concur with those individuals who are expressing the view that it is of the utmost importance for Accordance to focus on making v15 the most stable version (on both platforms) they have ever had. I don't care if they don't put another new feature in v15, but I absolutely have to have a stable program that doesn't make me want to pull my hair out half the time I use it because of all the quirks that pop up at regular AND random intervals. Please, please just give us a super-stable finely-tuned version. 

[JonathanHuber]

12 minutes ago, MatthewJames said:

I don't care if they don't put another new feature in v15

 

My one feature request is cmd+shift+click to open a commentary from the info pane without it being tied 

[Solly]

26 minutes ago, JonathanHuber said:

 

My one feature request is cmd+shift+click to open a commentary from the info pane without it being tied 

Oh, I like that request. +++++++++++...

[docdave]

17 hours ago, Nathan Parker said:

3. The grass isn’t 100% greener with the other guys. They’ve had multiple layoffs, the “Connect” subscription fiasco, been slow at implementing the remaining Wordsearch features into their platform (I was sure version 10 would add a couple of them, it didn’t), having to phase out their church offerings, and their app has has its own share of bugs (the indexer has caused issues in the past, they also used to “code first, fix later” at times). I’ve had plenty of frustrations with them, and overall, more than I’ve had with Accordance.

 

Amen

[c. stirling bartholomew]

Bible Software is not "Rocket Science."  A Space Shuttle will not burst into flames if something goes wrong. I agree that stability is desirable and that is why I am using version Accord 9.6.8 Aug 2012. If you want stability look for a version with high numbers after the dots Acc 10.x.x.   
 

 

 

[Kristin]

3 hours ago, MatthewJames said:

I don't care if they don't put another new feature in v15, but I absolutely have to have a stable program that doesn't make me want to pull my hair out half the time I use it because of all the quirks that pop up at regular AND random intervals. Please, please just give us a super-stable finely-tuned version. 

 

I couldn't have said this better myself. All I want is no more highlight and note corruption. If I get that, no more corrupted highlights and no more corrupted notes I have spent years working on, I would be happy. Bonus would be a simple way to export my notes to preserve my work, but all I really need is no more corruption.

[Gary Pauley]

On 1/2/2023 at 2:27 AM, A. Smith said:

 

I was quite vocal about my frustrations with accordance after the 'release' of version 14. It was/is a blunder. I'm finding the program quite useable now, but it is full of small bugs, no question. I've only ever used accordance on a Mac. It seems to me there are more difficulties in the windows app (I know OP is using Mac). And, yes, I think the iOS, and especially iPad versions, are disappointing. 

 

But--and this is a big deal--I also use the other major bible software. And I can tell you that I simply cannot do what I need to do anywhere near as simply, easily, and quickly, as I can on accordance--assuming I can do it at all. I find the other software outrageously bloated with useless modules and useless feature. Useless to me. I am working with primary texts 98% of the time. This is where accordance shines. The other guys don't even get close. So, frustrations and bugs being what they are . . . oh well. I suppose you could say I'm stuck. Or that I'm overly accommodating and patient. I don't know. But accordance does what I need better than anything else, even with its problems. That's the bottom line for me and I don't see that changing at all. The other software hasn't really closed the gap much at all IMO. So, here I am. Accordance is it, for better and worse. And it's mostly better. 

 

I feel the same way. The ease of use with Accordance has brought me back after trying the other major Bible software product. It is a fine product, but I don't have time to trifle with it when I can run to Accordance and get done what I want in half the time. Admittedly I am among the fortunate who are not having problems. I am extremely happy with what I have in the product at this time. Hope that comes to others who are not having the same experience soon!

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

What would an ideal Accordance 15 “Snow Leopard” release look like that focuses mostly on stability and performance?

[JonathanHuber]

7 minutes ago, Nathan Parker said:

What would an ideal Accordance 15 “Snow Leopard” release look like that focuses mostly on stability and performance?

Remember when Silas mentioned changing some file formats to make the program less susceptible to file corruption? Lots of that. Lots of bug fixes. Update the code base. And add shift+cmd+click to open a commentary from the info pane without it being tied. 😜

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Sounds good. And any changes that Silas or anyone else makes, the number one thing to remember is not to release it publicly until we know 100% sure it’s ready. 🙂 

[ekim37]

I hope the company doesn't run out of business because of this... I've invested too much... I can't start over with Logos.  

[Rich]

12 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

 

Here's one suggestion:

 

1. Given the legacy issues, it should be allowed to be non-backwards compatible. Bring Accordance 14 up to speed as much as possible, then leave it as the legacy version.

 

2. Accordance 15 would have new and robust file formats. The file formats would themselves be versioned (include their format-version number in the file) so that new file formats can co-exist beside old ones, and the application would be able to decide for itself whether it recognises the file formats. The application must never corrupt data, especially user data. At worst, it loses a portion of the work that the user was working on when the computer (or app) crashed. But earlier work should still be there on relaunch. A journalling approach to data files might be considered.

 

3. Web references go to a single web domain that is maintained properly. Currently there's a cluster of slightly different domain names that all need to be maintained.

 

4. Unify the code base for Mac/PC/Linux/web, leaving just a small platform-specific portion to interface with the operating system.

 

5. The user interface doesn't need to change much, though there may be difficult decisions if there are current differences between Mac and PC versions.

 

6. The programmer's development environment should be one that allows modern best practices in versioning, testing, etc.

 

I'm not sure I agree with #4 (even if it is possible) — because doing so would likely create a lowest-common-denominator approach to UX and feature sets.  

 

Honestly, much of this list makes many assumptions about the inner workings / platform that we have no visibility into (or likely ever will).  Maybe our suggestions should be result oriented rather than implementation oriented?  declarative rather than imperative?  i.e. instead of "best practices of versioning / testing" and coding / architecture demands, we should be speaking to the results: we want releases that are stable and are feature consistent across all platforms... we want our configuration to be backward compatible and support cloud syncing for easy use across multiple platforms / installations... etc...

[A. Smith]

3 hours ago, Nathan Parker said:

What would an ideal Accordance 15 “Snow Leopard” release look like that focuses mostly on stability and performance?

 

There is zero chance that I will pay for an update to a program I already own simply so it will run as it should have from the beginning. If it takes a .0 update to get solid performance and reliability, there is a MAJOR problem. 

 

BTW, I don't think this will happen. But since you asked the question.