Source Tab - the proposed NEW method is a Researchers nightmare
The critical SOURCES tab information in the OLD way of displaying information is so much better than the NEW option being suggested, especially for those who RESEARCH.
1) The concise manner of the OLD method is more direct and simplified than the NEW. Research is time consuming and having the more simplified method of displaying the indexed portion, currently available in the OLD method, is much preferred. The NEW method opens up with so much information for the individual whose person page is being reviewed that it is overwhelming. Reviewing the original document is always an option for more in-depth review, so an overload of information at the beginning is not necessary.
2) Also, the OLD method of displaying a census record, so that it is available for copy and past onto a word document (in order to compare many "duplicate year" census records attached, or even a "ten-year progression" to compare the family composition through the decades) is much preferred over the NEW display option.
I do not believe the NEW method of displaying SOURCES information should be changed. Maybe an option for both OLD and NEW views, if it is for some reason a necessity going forward?
Comments
-
I totally agree. Way too much information and scrolling through.
8 -
Whilst strictly speaking this post is in the wrong place (i.e. it's not connected to the new Person page), I very much agree with the thoughts expressed here.
I have been amazed there have not been a huge amount of complaints over the Sources / Record page. This is definitely a case of style (blends in with the other new pages very well) over substance. The links illustrate the situation very well - I could provide even better screenshots produced by using "View Record", but I would have to reduce magnification considerably to get all the detail in one screen view.
I find some records (especially census ones of large families) almost impossible to follow. FamilySearch engineers have made my research so much more difficult that I try to use alternative websites (where possible) so I can clearly understand the make-up of a family, where no image is directly available.
The sad thing about all these changes in page appearance / layout is there is no "going back", as has been the case with other websites. It seems the old way of presenting things has become obsolete (according to comments from the engineers) and we just have to get used to large headers, lots of white space and having to scroll, scroll, scroll.
As suggested, all very difficult for the serious researcher, who wants details to be presented in the same clear, concise manner as previously. (See link "1" -above - compared to what is now presented). See example at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27B-L5M4
To get all the detail on one screen I've had to decrease magnification to produce text that is barely readable:
It's not until I add the record as a source that I can have an acceptable view, by only slightly reducing magnification on my 21" monitor:
8 -
I hope this illustrates how many users view all the recent changes in page appearance (whether the new Search, Record or Person pages) as a really backward step: especially for the serious researcher, compared to those users who prefer a more "attractive" presentation.
11 -
(As Paul said, this is entirely in the wrong place, but perhaps the same employees have input on both sections?)
Even without the error in all of the recently-published indexes that I'm dealing with (whereby every principal is either male or unknown, regardless of how clearly the record actually states the correct sex), the new format makes it very difficult to figure out who is who, especially in marriage records. I no longer even bother to try to scroll through and interpret the index page. I just go and look at the image.
6 -
@lyleblunttoronto1 I'm wondering if the reason for the move toward a more graphic-based interface has to do with the extensive use of FamilySearch on tablets/phones and possible reduced usage by desktop users?
Also, it was mentioned by @CESchultz that "The old/current Person page is outdated and will be replaced by the new person page." Does "outdated" mean that the technology is no longer supported, or does it have reference to the need for a change because the current user interface may be considered boring to some and usage is dropping?
Just trying to understand the need for change, especially where ease of research appears to be diminished and critical tools (indexes for sources) are complicated by the new interface as the current system "need[s] to be fixed before the old page is turned off."
7 -
I absolutely agree -- this is an example of exchanging key existing functions in source information, comparing sources and ease of access to view the image of a record -- exchanging this for the 'benefit' of a 'New Look', without taking into account the lost of functionality and significant increase of the DIFFICULTLY of use by overloading data and extending scrolling!
9 -
I almost don't want to come back to this group and read these kinds of comments. As everyone has pointed out, this change will not help researchers, it makes the job of researchers more difficult. Thus, it makes me wonder what instructions were given to the group who came up with the new design? Were they told to ignore functionality and focus on visual parameters, such as more white space and less text? Are they trying to make the details page, and all functions within, more compatible with mobile devices regardless of how that compromises the computer version? IF so, that is not good!
6 -
I don't use a phone or tablet, so I don't know this for sure, but isn't increased whitespace exactly the opposite of "mobile-friendly"?
2 -
Julia Szent-Györgyi I'm assuming more white space on the computer gives a mobile interpretation room to smoosh it together and keep the same text in view both places. Perhaps I'm backwards, but it you start with tight text, it can't be reduced too easily. Perhaps someone knowledgeable will correct me.
1 -
I completely agree, all these so called "improvements" make working on the tree less efficient by increasing page load times and scrolling.
4 -
Strongly agree. Sometimes users complain simply because things change. This time, it is not the case. This change hits both performance and user productivity, so why was it done? We had a solution that worked well. If it ain't broke....
On my tablet, I used to be able to see the relevant information that I needed, often without scrolling. That is no longer the case.
Many years ago, I worked in a software development environment, and we expected occasionally to get WAFTed by management. WAFT = Who Asked for This?
6 -
I often look at sources and then back to the main page before looking at another source. However when you go back to the source page, they are all closed again. It was very helpful in the old version to be able to return to the source page and see what you had previously opened and looked at. When everything is closed it takes more time. We need to be able to access source information more efficiently.
6 -
I believe I read in one of the posts that more than half of users are now accessing FamilySearch on mobile devices. That kind of documented evidence cannot be ignored, but it begs the question of what are they doing, and how long are they active? (Bruce Compton like you, I worked in software maintenance and support.) Hopefully there is a breakdown of tasks by mobile device vs traditional desktop or laptop with large screen. If you take the task of attaching sources, I'm betting that the majority of devices used for that are traditional not mobile. If you are talking about searching, maybe mobile will be more even. If you are talking about accessing a person page without editing, perhaps mobile will win. In order to keep users operating smoothly in all environments, you need to understand what they are doing in each environment. Hopefully FS engineers are tracking that???
5 -
We are working on putting this feature in. (Saving the user state of the sources tab)
2 -
@Sam Sulser and team members............
The CURRENT method of displaying Sources, especially the Census Record, is much preferred by me than the NEW method proposed for the NEW Person Page, i.e. for displaying the summary household information:
CURRENT (OLD) -- Displaying the summary Household/Role/Sex/Age/Birthplace information as shown in the attachment is beneficial to researchers, because the entire family is shown, and includes bold black text for the household member who's person page is currently opened. It also works well for copy/past into a text document for review.
PROPOSED (NEW) -- The display is similar, but there is no concise summary of the entire family, but rather the household member who's person page is being viewed is open (drop down default), along with the head or spouse below, while other household members (if any) are closed with summary information (sex/age/birth place) displayed.
SUGGESTIONS -- It appears a couple or three options for amending the Sources Census Record display for the NEW Person Page would be helpful, depending upon the programmability of the option(s) available. I'd like to suggest, 1) displaying the summary information as proposed, upon opening a Census source, and having an OPEN option for ANY individual [not currently available on the primary Person], as well as ALL household members; and if possible, 2) replace the "Other People on This Record" heading with the heading data fields currently being used (Household/Role/Sex/Age/Birthplace).
BONUS SUGGESTIIONS -- 3) when ALL household member fields are closed and display the summary information, provide the ability to copy/past this summary information as unformatted text into a document for analysis, without having to perform significant manipulation of the pasted data -- it appears the OPEN ALL (v) feature for "Other People on This Record" creates the issue?
Attached is copy of the PROPOSED (NEW) household display for a Census Record, along with some of the changes SUGGESTED above for your review and consideration. Thanks for your review and consideration.
5 -
@lyleblunttoronto1 I have a couple SOURCE display option questions, if you could help.
1) In the above quote, you mentioned the ability for "saving the user state of the sources tab" was being restored, is this still in process, or no longer considered a need. It would be very helpful, if still an option.
2) Is there any consideration being given to having the ability to collapse ALL persons displayed in a census record under the Sources tab, so as to enable a screen print for comparison/research purposes? (I'd show a screen print, but don't have the Garden.Uploads.Add permission to do that, whatever that is - new?)
3) Is the programmatic assignment of relationship for individuals, depending on persons page, going to be reverted to old methods, or has it been decided to continue displaying what has not been indexed?
You mentioned in a previous post it is critical we get the New Person Page right, and I believe this area is definitely in need of attention before the previous version goes away. I do appreciate many things that have been addressed thus far and appreciate all the work being done. Thanks for your review and response!
2 -
I agree. Not only that, but in today's world, apps and web pages are supposed to detect the user's screen size and adjust the presentation accordingly. (Early on this was called "responsive design," but now it's basically just "design" :) ) It's expected as a best practice.
So the display should work well on any size screen. I don't think the Sources display is there yet :)
Also, sorry if this is a repeat because I only skimmed the comments, but it's confusing to have the principal displayed at the top but NOT included as part of the family list below. Ancestry.com has it right. When trying to make sense of a census record, I need to see the person in both contexts--I want to see their detail at the top, AND I want to see them in their proper place in the family group at the bottom. @lyleblunttoronto1 , would it be possible to make that change?
3 -
@Ottley BQ I'll try and answer your questions and follow up after I get more information
1) "saving the user state of the sources tab" This ended up being a deeper issue to solve and is taking several teams to make the change happen. I'll follow up on its status and make sure it didn't stall out somewhere.
2) One of the most surprising things that have come from the feedback is how many users print different pages. The first question before we fix the print display is "Why are they printing it?" "What do they do with it?" and "Is there something we can do so they don't feel like they need to print the page." I would love to understand the need to print the sources page and what activities are done with this printout. We should be able to make something that is much more serviceable than a webpage screenshot. I would love to see a new POST with details.
3) Showing person context relationships on sources (specifically census records) This one is outside of my scope of influence. A previous post was referenced to the records team, but I don't have any insight to share.
3 -
@lyleblunttoronto1 thanks for the information!
1) Look forward to any follow-up on this one.
2) The need to print boils down one word - research - which requires a user to complete "analysis reports" that are not part of any family history system that I am aware of to-date. We pretty much all agree that the users of FamilySearch in this generation are considered the cleanup generation.
I print occasionally, but my greatest need is to copy, paste and compare on a spreadsheet key information I find in the Source tab of an individual in FamilySearch. Hints are considered low lying fruit to be picked off the "tree", but if not analyzed properly they can become poison apples - erroneous fruit that attracts other bad apples (hints). I often need to do what I call a Source Review, which in many cases includes copy, paste and comparison of multiple birth, marriage, census and/or death records. These I will highlight and review to determine patterns, consistencies and anomalies in the source documentation that should prove the individuality and relationships of the person whose page I am analyzing.
I would attach an example, but continue to receive a Permission Problem error, "You need the Garden.Uploads.Add permission to do that", so have painted the best picture I can at the moment to describe the issue....
A separate post would be a good idea, but that would be an extensive undertaking to describe all the situations a researcher would need to analyze in order to do the critical job that contributes much to the accuracy of Family Tree. I'll see what I can come up with, but it may take some time - any other users who attempt research could contribute their ideas also. I have found that most users have a problem keeping up with the changes on FamilySearch and research is the last thing they want to tackle.
I've often said that "in the attachment of 2 or 3 correct sources, every individual and their relationship must be established", to paraphrase a well known scripture - the law of witnesses is what FamilySearch is all about, right? Therefore, we must copy, past and compare in an attempt to determine what stays and what goes.
3) Showing the "person context relationships" is of interest to many, so it would be great to have the responsible team member or leader give any insight on this issue. As @kathryngz mentions above, "it's confusing to have the principal displayed at the top but NOT included as part of the family list below. Ancestry.com has it right. When trying to make sense of a census record, I need to see the person in both contexts--I want to see their detail at the top, AND I want to see them in their proper place in the family group at the bottom." These sentiments have also been expressed by me and others in multiple posts.
Thanks again for your response and consideration. We'll all keep plugging away!
4