Reason statement font should revert to that used in previous version
Reference https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/487917#Comment_487917. One place the difficulty with fonts on the new page is particularly noticeable is that applied to reason statement fields. As stated in the other thread, this is more noticeable when viewing the new / old new versions in Family Tree, rather than looking at the examples pasted here. But here are the new / old examples, to provide some idea of the problem, especially for those of us with less than perfect vision:
New:
Old:
But, to repeat, to see this problem more clearly - whereby the reason statement in the new version is less easy to notice / read (grey and smaller sized font) - please check this from within Family Tree itself.
Comments
-
I wish they'd also tighten things up by reducing the seemingly pointless extra space around entries. I wonder if the circle with the initial in it next to the name is part of the problem.
0 -
I find that the extra space around entries makes them much easier to read and I would prefer that they keep the new spacing.
4 -
I also like the extra spacing in the new. Personally, I don't have a problem with the font size, but I have the benefit of working on a 34-inch monitor
1 -
@Gordon Collett, interesting. I find it distracting and I think it contributes to the cluttered or busy feel that I think the new look has. I'm going to experiment with StyleBot to change font sizes, etc to see if I can adjust it for my view.
0 -
It is kind of funny that one person's clutter is another person's wide open space and one person's busy feel is another's calm appearance. Being a designer must be a worse job than I ever imagined.
4 -
Yes, I have posted screenshots that I feel illustrate beyond doubt the better appearance of the old page (both overall and in specific sections), yet other users see the opposite! As Gordon has stated before, it does show the dilemma for the developers in trying to meet the needs of "all" Family Tree users.
Not being particularly "computer savvy" I probably wouldn't understand if the reason was explained, but still must query why the two versions can't continue to be supported. There has been no problem in having them side by side for many months now - will everything suddenly implode if this continues any longer?
0 -
Good morning @Paul W
I have read, from the developers, that the old version uses elements that are no longer supported by the manufacturer/supplier. It's possible to construct workarounds to keep the old version working for a while, but it's not supportable for the long term.
2 -
Also, the new interface adds several features (source tagging of the Other box, Other Relationships, alert notes, replacing the computer-generated biography with the user-entered one, chronological sorting of Memories, user re-arrangement of the details page -- am I forgetting anything?), so keeping the old, less-capable interface really doesn't make sense in the long run. They'd have to somehow add those features to it, despite its use of old tools that are going obsolete. So really, what they'd have to end up with is the new page, but styled like the old one.
I'm not sure why they decided to change the style, since it's really what people notice (and complain about), while being technically not really an issue: the new tools might not be able to replicate the appearance of the old page down to the millimeter, but I'm sure they could come pretty close. I wonder: were there intellectual-property considerations with the old design?
2 -
Why a changing page style? Why does anything change style? From cars to houses to clothes? But I have to say that the overall style change does actually, in my opinion, improve readability. My wife was working on a presentation about the new pages and some of her screen shots kind of shocked me. Here is a equal resolution comparison of the basic structure of the old and new pages:
I've been working on the new page for so long now, I'd forgotten how hard the old page was to read.
2 -
@Gordon Collett, I find the larger, bolder font tiring. I've tried reducing zoom level but because the new version has greater differences in font size, reducing zoom makes the small print even smaller so it's not a solution. I'm assuming at this point that they won't be making any more style changes so I'm getting ready to change things up via StyleBot to allow me to work as long as I wish without eye strain. I wish they were able to offer 2 versions, one that looked like the old version for those of us who find it far easier to read, and the current new version for those who prefer it. One size does not fit all. = )
1 -
Unfortunately, one size never fits anyone! Since I can have my eyes completely relaxed and still easily read the bold headers, I find them less tiring. You would probably find my screen brightness terrible. I keep it at 100% so I can read the screen without strain and find dark mode to be basically invisible. My daughter finds it exceeding painful if she glances at my screen. She always turns the brightness down to about 20% when she uses my computer.
2 -
A quick note about fonts.
I had no idea how complicated font usage law and implementation can be, especially when you add other languages that don't use Latin characters. The law and usage rights are different between web use and application reports and documents. There is an underlying effort to standardize fonts for all languages, web, and printed reports. The font we currently have is a stepping stone to a final goal.
1 -
I always thought font meant style (serif, sans serif, etc) but that it did not mean a specific size as well. Do you mean the former or the latter? Or both?
0 -
My comments were specifically about font type. Everything in the new products are currently using Verdana and a few other fallback fonts for other languages not supported by Verdana.
2 -
Thanks! That's helpful to know. I'm good with the font choice. It's size and boldness that I have issues with but I can adjust that as needed so that the site is easier, less tiring for my eyes.
0
