Change in Person Tagging process
@Dennis J Yancey has posted:
I see that yet again changes have been made to the memories viewer / memories processing logic - that just defy logic.
I see that that now to person tag a story or pdf - you have to go all the way to the bottom of the screen and look for a small icon that represents person tagging (far away from where it used to be, and far away from the list of people already tagged. and in a place that is not obvious or logical on the computer screen. )
Can you at least place it in the upper portion of the screen - and make the icon larger so it is caught by the eye of the average user ???
There really was nothing wrong with how it was before. I dont understand why people insist in making changes that just dont make sense. Fixing what was never broken n the first place.
here is one sample case: (since I cant seem to post a picture) im posting a link below.
(note I am using a full screen computer and not a smart device).
also note this only applies to stories and documents (pdfs) and not image files.
https://www.familysearch.org/memories/memory/206732183?c=my-memories
why cant the link (or clickable item) for tagging be placed INSIDE the top right side information bar?? (and NEAR the names of the people alread tagged)
We have closed this discussion in the Memories Categories of the Community and moved this discussion here, to the Memory Viewer Feedback group. If you have further comments or discussions regarding the Memory Viewer, please post in this group. Thank you!
Kommentare
-
I've remained largely silent on this subject for quite a while, but @Dennis J Yancey moved me off my "silence" position. I am a FamilySearch Center Coordinator (formerly "Director" and whatever other titles were used previously), and I can testify to the frustration of many attempting to try to get familiar with FamilySearch, only to log in again a few days or weeks later to find that things don't work the way they did just as the person was getting familiar with the site.
It seems that changes are being made almost randomly when some one individual sees something they think would be better if placed in a different location, or required a different sequence of mouse clicks to access, etc., so they simply change it! The number of changes in the past year or more have been rather absurd. As @Dennis J Yancey quite correctly stated, "There really was nothing wrong with how it was before. I don't understand why people insist in making changes that just don't make sense. Fixing what was never broken in the first place."
For newer users, it's demotivating as they try to do what President Nelson has said on multiple occasions is "the most important work on the earth today." People diligently try to get used to the FamilySearch website, only to find that it doesn't work the same way the next time they come back to it. Our brains begin creating mental maps for things, and once that map has been sufficiently created to allow us to "know" where to go, what to click, etc., we start enjoying the thing we're doing, or at least do it relatively effortlessly. Yet it's as if FamilySearch has decided to entirely forego beta testing (and sometimes even alpha testing!), and has opted to make the end users the beta testers.
I've served as a Senior Service FamilySearch missionary, been part of a one-year pilot study group led by a FamilySearch employee, and am a ward T&FH leader, among other long-standing associations with FamilySearch. And I'M frustrated with all the changes - the only constant in FamilySearch anymore seems to be change.
It would be great if FamilySearch created a requirement that all visible changes short of a complete website overhaul, have to be justified as to why they're being proposed, with final approval of at least two supervisory level individuals. While it may not be literally true, the appearance seems to be that any programmer can make any random change s/he wants in order to add to the list of "what I've done" during their next performance evaluation. Making changes for the sake of making changes should not be a legitimate item in a performance evaluation - the changes need to be adequately staffed, and in many cases supported by a number of end users providing input. This has just gotten too common, and therefore too wearying for many users.
Also consider that there is a reasonably large percentage of FamilySearch users that quite easily qualify as "senior citizens." Their (our - I'm one) brains don't retain as well as they used to, and the mental maps, unless well established, don't work as well. So by putting roadblocks with no detour signs in the way, FamilySearch is creating disincentives for frequent use of the website, because it's becoming just too much of a chore trying to find things that "used to be right there" where they have "always been." Enough with the changes for change's sake!
—Chris
0 -
Amen!!
Couldnt agree more about how FS had decided (a long time ago) - to make its users - its alpha and beta testors.
Family Search should be the gold standard of what a genealogical application and its support staff shoud be like and should reflect the standards, principles and ideals of someone who emulates the Savior Jesus Christ, someone who is focused on bringing light and peace and happiness to the world - way too many times all it seems to generate is total frustration. I, for one, have never understood that.
By the way I am a long time FamilySearch user and a member of the LDS faith and someone who has been deeply involved in the field of Information Tehchnology for over 40 years. Someone who has always focused on how FS can be used for good in the world and to accomplish the goals that our leaders inspire us to accomplish. One example being the miraculous project of the Family Bible Preservation Project.FamilySeach has some incredible - almost mind boggling potential - - if only we could tap even a small portion of that potential.
0 -
@Dennis J Yancey and @Chris Schmink
Thank you for sharing these valid concerns.
Yes, the Memories Viewer has gone through lots of changes recently. Yes, this is not ideal.
I'll make sure to share these concerns. Sorry again for your struggles; we are hearing and making notes of these challenges.
0 -
Thank you @AmberML1 . When you pass these comments up the line, please make sure they understand that the comments are not narrowly focused on Memories Viewer. The changes are across the board throughout the website, and even non-website issues. As noted in my original comment, my "title" has changed multiple times over the past several years. What was wrong with "director?" When we're asked to speak to an audience, particularly a non-LDS audience, the word "director" is almost universally understood. Even "coordinator" is a bit puzzling in terms of what its title holder actually does. Almost nothing in FamilySearch doesn't change - even the name of the facility for which I'm now the "coordinator" (formerly "director," formerly "stake temple and familysearch consultant — familysearch center," and others (try introducing yourself to an audience using that last example, complete with the double-dashes in the middle!).
I'm very hesitant to use the word "absurd," as it seems very harsh. But I used it knowingly and intentionally in my original post - not to be offensive, but to accurately characterize the nature of the problem and its resulting examples. I would have thought that the experience of a little over a decade ago would have pointed out the need to adequately assess what the outcome of changes would be. Instead, "New FamilySearch" had to abandon that new title as the whole website needed major overhauling (still resulting yet today in many changes within our lineages as dated around 2012 and originating with FamilySearch with no other explanation).
Thanks,
Chris
0
