Some may argue these are merely "nice to have". But many of these features are very much substantive, because without them, certain works cannot be converted into e-Sword format or if they can be converted, the usability and functionality is reduced.
So my list so far is:
1) Support a linking system. Why?
a. So one dictionary entry can link to other dictionary entry (to see the definition of an abbreviation used in the dictionary, for example).
b. So that a commentary can link to a specific portion of a topic file. Currently, we're forced to incorrectly use dictionaries for this functionality, when a linking system would make this so much easier.
c. A linking system could correctly capture footnotes in Bibles, commentaries, and elsewhere, instead of what content makers have resorted to.
d. Resources that are converted to e-Sword from other software formats lose this functionality (and the data behind this functionality).
a. Content makers conceive increasingly "rigged" ways of trying to incorporate graphics, like hard-coding a link to a local file. This often results in graphics that frustrate the reader because they work on some PC's but not others, depending on the setup, permissions, Administrator rights, etc.
b. Displaying a real, in-line graphic is so much better than an ugly, local file link (that won't work on some configurations).
c. Resources that are converted to e-Sword from other software formats lose this functionality (and the data behind this functionality). "See below for a diagram of... [missing data]." That's not a good end user experience. And neither is giving the end user broken content.
d. Switching to the Graphics Viewer isn't a very good long term solution. Stop reading here, switch to the graphics viewer, find the right image, are you looking at the right image, are you sure, ok continue reading? I know it wasn't originally designed that way. That's evident from the .map and .mapx filenames. The original intent was likely to just display maps. But I respectfully submit that the need for graphics have outgrown the Graphics (Map) Viewer.
3) Support Greek (and probably Hebrew) characters in the dictionary index. Why?
a. Lexicons like Liddell and Scott's will not display properly because, as best I can tell, e-Sword does not support such characters in the dictionary index. The characters display properly elsewhere, but not in the index.
b. Text in a commentary or Bible would then be keyed to the entry in the dictionary without strong's.
4) Treat Topics like Books, because that's what most are today. 6, 8, 10 years ago, this may not have been true. It is today.
a. Have a window pane (rather than a pull down menu) showing all the topics in the Book (see attachment below).
b. Make the pane re-sizable.
c. Sort the topics according to the database, not alphabetically, to avoid awkward and time consuming display order formatting. It's why a database exists to begin with, to store content and data about how to display the content. Why resort to "rigging" the sort order of content display with 0's, spaces, and other characters given precedence in an alphabetical sort?
d. Allow for topics and subtopics (a hiearchy) because much of the information needs to be displayed in this fashion.
e. Backward compatibility could easily be achieved with the way topics are currently rendered.
5) Add a window pane to Commentary text (similar to #4 above) showing which verses of the commentary have comments (see attachment below).
a. But, e-Sword has the blue (i) feature already showing you, once you're on a verse, if a commentary has a comment for the verse.
i) Yes, but with the suggested feature, you could see AHEAD what verses have comments. I've had people insist that the MacLaren commentary is missing information. It's not. It just looks like more information in other formats because you can see which verses have comments.
ii) This is very helpful for smaller commentaries when people want to "see what the commentary has to say".
c. The window pane would have re-sizable and entries selectable. If you want to skip to another comment elsewhere in the commentary, you can simply by clicking the entry.
a. Currently, when more than one row of tabs exist, the sort order starts on the bottom row in alphabetical order, working its way to the top row.
b. It should be opposite because our brains want to read top to bottom, left to right, A-Z (not top to bottom Z-A). This is probably the most finicky of suggestions, I'll admit that. But I'd love to see it because this has to confuse new users. It confuses me.