Accordance Bible Software was used by the largest number of survey respondents (just under forty-five percent). While that's certainly nothing to sneeze at, when you consider that Accordance is the only commercial Bible program currently in development for the Mac, that it has been around for nearly a decade, that it was the first Bible program to be released for OS X, and that it offers the greatest number of features and texts currently available, the fact that it was used by fewer than half of the respondents may actually be cause for concern.

There appear to be a number of reasons why Accordance has not been adopted more widely. The first is simply lack of awareness. Thirty-five percent of the survey respondents did not appear to be familiar with Accordance at all, and many of those were not aware that there was any Bible software available for the Mac. Mac users cannot be expected to buy what they do not know exists; so, clearly, my company must do a better job of getting the word out about Accordance.

Unfortunately (from my perspective anyway), lack of awareness was not the only reason Accordance has not been more widely adopted. Twenty percent of the survey respondents were familiar with Accordance, but had, for various reasons, not yet chosen to purchase it.

The first reason people gave for not choosing Accordance was price. And they were not alone in that complaint. Numerous Accordance users also complained that Accordance is too expensive. Many based this perception on comparisons with the prices of various shareware programs or Windows Bible programs. Others felt that the cost of certain Accordance modules was too close to what one would pay to purchase those works in print. Accordance users frequently said that they would like to purchase additional modules, but that the price to do so was prohibitive.

The second reason people gave for not choosing Accordance was its interface. Many felt that Accordance overwhelms the user with too many palettes and buttons. Others—mostly OS X users—described it as looking "old" and "ugly," due mainly to the fact that the program's icons do not have an Aqua appearance and that the text is not anti-aliased. Still others described Accordance as "unintuitive" and difficult to learn, complaining that they couldn't just scan the menus, play around, and figure out how to do what they were wanting to do.

While the interface criticisms of Accordance were widespread and sometimes harsh, they were by no means unanimous. Those who were able to get past the initial shock of all the palettes and buttons to figure out the Accordance approach were actually quite positive about the interface, praising Accordance for "the integration between modules" and how "EVERYTHING flows together." Accordance was also described as "easy to use" and even "intuitive."

What are we to make of this contrast of opinions about the Accordance interface? Well, to begin with, my company clearly has some serious issues to address in terms of making the interface more aesthetically appealing, more Aquafied, and less daunting for the first-time user. On the other hand, the overall Accordance approach of making every feature and module accessible and interoperable was widely praised, and we must be careful not to sacrifice this level of usability in our attempts to make the interface more intuitive and inviting. It's a tremendous challenge, but if we can succeed at making Accordance more visually appealing and easier to learn without sacrificing usability, we'll have a chance to win over users who currently object to Accordance's look and feel.

Another problem that my company needs to address (and with which we've always struggled) is how to communicate effectively everything that Accordance can do. Numerous people, both users and non-users alike, complained that the Accordance web-site is confusing, looks outdated, and makes it difficult to find information. Many people asked for features and modules which are already available, but which, for whatever reason, they did not realize were available.

Of course, not all the feedback about Accordance was negative. For every negative comment and criticism there were numerous other words of praise, appreciation, and satisfaction. One telling statistic is that of the respondents who felt that Mac Bible software was superior to that available for Windows, a whopping 91% attributed that superiority to Accordance! Another encouraging sign is that the acrimony with which many people criticized Accordance for its shortcomings appeared to be motivated by a strong desire to purchase Accordance. Many of these people wanted to use a program with the depth and power of Accordance, but found the price or the interface to be a stumbling block.

The things people liked best about Accordance were its speed, ease of searching, depth of power, number of available modules (though lots of people wanted more), its stability, its multiple pane interface, its sophisticated original language tools, and the fact that it supports both OS X and the classic Mac OS. Many people also praised the frequency with which the software is updated, and the appropriateness of the new features in each upgrade.

Feature requests included an F-Key like that of Online Bible, AppleScript support, better window management, the ability to create and add your own Bible texts, better import options for User Tools, and a variety of other minor tweaks and enhancements. The most frequently requested modules and add-ons were the Message (which has since become available), the IVP Reference Library (which is currently being developed), Word Biblical commentary, the Amplified Version, the complete Kittel (we currently have the abridged version), the Life Application Bible, and various other modern commentaries and books.

All in all, the feedback about Accordance was humbling, yet hopeful. If we can improve the interface, address people's price concerns, clarify our marketing message, and get the word out to the many Mac users who have not yet heard about Accordance, we have the potential to reach a much wider audience. At the same time, we may be able to give Mac users one more "killer app" with which to evangelize the advantages of the Mac.

Online Bible: Time Keeps on Slippin' . . .

Online Bible is the only other "mature" Bible program still being developed for the Mac: it has been around for a long time, does most of what one would want a Bible program to do, has a substantial number of available modules, and much of it can be downloaded and used for free (or purchased on CD-ROM at minimal cost). As such, it is hardly surprising that Online Bible was used by the second-largest number of respondents (twenty-five percent). Yet as with Accordance, the number of Online Bible users could, and probably should, be much higher.

The major complaint about Online Bible is that it has not yet been ported to OS X, requiring OS X users to run it in the Classic environment. Fully 80% of the Online Bible users who responded to the survey are currently using, or about to switch to, OS X, and as the release date for the OS X version of Online Bible keeps slipping, they appear to be growing increasingly frustrated. As one Online Bible user put it, "Would love to try The Online Bible for OSX but . . . it was due last March, then last May, now 'this summer' -- so development seems to be poorly supported/funded there."

There are a couple of indications that Online Bible users are beginning to look elsewhere for an OS X-compatible solution. A number of people said that they "used to use Online Bible" but that they refused to run it in Classic, so they had resorted to using internet resources or no Bible software at all. A significant number appear to be transitioning to Accordance. More than a third of the Online Bible users are also Accordance users, and while a few appear to be using Accordance grudgingly (One user writes: "The truth is, if OB was carbon, I don’t know I would use Accordance much, though I really want to."), most appear to be using Accordance as their primary Bible program.

Although a few people criticized Online Bible for its interface, saying essentially that it still looks like an OS 7 application, most people praised it for its simplicity and intuitiveness. It was described as "svelte and fast," and lauded for the "absolute ease" of its Strong's Number capabilities. Online Bible's F-Key, which automatically inserts the text of a Bible passage into a word processor, was a favorite feature, and one which was sorely missed by the OS X users.

The only other major criticism of Online Bible was its lack of modern copyrighted works. Most users praised it for its wide array of classic, public domain commentaries and reference works, which can be had for little to no cost; but many did wish for more up-to-date resources, such as more indepth Greek and Hebrew lexicons, better maps, the Message, the English Standard Version, etc.

Aside from the desire for an OS X version, most of the remarks about Online Bible were quite positive. Its combination of features, modules, and price have earned it a tremendous amount of user loyalty. If Ken Hamel can release an OS X-native version of Online Bible soon, Online Bible will continue to be a major force in Mac Bible software.