🎇New Person Page is Here to Stay🎇
Comments
-
The new person page is terrible. I have made just under 30,000 "contributions" in the past 3+ years. That would have never happened with the new page person. It is cumbersome and not efficient. I spent more than 20 minutes today just trying to un-link a source that was incorrectly attached. If it is that difficult to corrent errors, then errors will not be corrected. Please bring back the old person page view. I agree with the many others that have commented that the new version is hard on the eyes. The About page is worthless - more of a gimmick, than anything of value. Make this software efficient and usable - like it was--- just last week.
2 -
I will have to admit that I am not fond of the new format. It is not as user friendly from my perspective. I am over 75 years of age and probably not dealing with change like younger people on this site.
I just attempted to add an obit. for someone who died in 1954. You can only imagine how much time I spent trying to figure out how to do this. The new system is not encouraging me to add further data here.
4 -
Please go back to the old version, the new page is not working as well as it used to. made it hard to work, and took a significant amount of time. do not have easy accessibility like they used to. made it very hard to work on so tricky.
I hope you consider this.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
NanDJ
0 -
I have been doing geneology for many years and have gone with the flow with changes in the past.But this new version of the sight is not user friendly! I am so discouraged about using this new format. One has to click to many buttons to get the same result. Not easy on finding or looking at the names or families. It is like the family members don't belong together like the other sight was so organized so you could see things fast. Words that are important are to little. It wasn't broken with the old sight. Why change. This didn't improve anything in my opinion. Who ever created the old sight was a wonderful gift to geneologist. I see you gave us a few options to pick from in settings, but I wish one option was to still be able to use the old formate!!! It is hard enough to get people in the wards to do this work now so many I have talk to are so discouraged. My sincere wish is we could have the old sight back! Please!!!!
2 -
I agree to those who find this format not as good working as the old version!! Please for the sake of ease, go back to the old version with better frames/colors/organization and many more to say. It just had a better flow! Please! Please! Please!!!
0 -
You are going to have alot of screwed up records since there is no way to delete duplicates.
You also are going to lose alot of volunteers who are unable to adjust to this new version which is complicated to use.
2 -
The new format is dreadful. Why not allow us to switch back to old if we desire. The new is far too busy. I cannot see everything without scrolling which wastes my precious time doing research. The "relationship" is either too small to see or too large (if I enlarge it to see it all at one time as before). I cannot even see the relationship when I look at the relationship. My eyes have to go to a different spot at the top (in another spot) to see the relationship I am viewing. Family Search may think this is a pretty page when we open info on a person. It is so busy, it is a terrible design. I came from one of the top five U.S. corporations. It isn't better, it is worse. My company's motto was if if "ain't broken, don't fix it!" I cannot imagine what this looks like to people who do not have a computer but use their cell phone for everything. I find everything about it abhorrent. I tried it before you took the old way, but I simply could not use it as efficiently as the older version where I could open everything. Have you considered that you have many older people who do most of the real research? These changes are likely to have them give up and quit doing what you need to have done--real research--not dumping a bad family tree from Ancestry that has been copied a hundred times from someone else's flawed and errored tree. I am referring to real record research and adding new names to Family Tree that have never been added before. When the old Family Tree was deleted, I saw on Ancestry the really honest researchers give up and they removed all their trees that were great. Well, we cannot do that on Family Search but people will stop using it. Some names I print that are French Catholic and long, I cannot even see to read the cards I print--print is too small. I'd have to carry my magnifier glass to read the card and where would I put that large magnifier glass. And you know what, I don't have a vision problem and I still cannot see to read that tiny print on long, long names. What you have done is broken a good system. Changing one thing but everything and moving everything is really poor thinking. People who infrequently use the system to add names will not complain. The people who are complaining are frequent, even daily users of your system. The new Family Search page is simply awful, not easy to use, not easy to see all the data at one time and you have placed important information on a life story at the very bottom. We scroll and scroll to see all. The new is less utility oriented.
2 -
If you mean profiles, it is just as easy to merge duplicate profiles in the new version. The new person page does not impact records.
0 -
I am DEVASTATED by the new format. Some of the new features may be useful, but why did the person(s) who redesigned the whole thing have to change fonts, font sizes, colors, as well as the positioning of key information on the page, for worse. Visually, the previous page looked perfect! The new format is not an improvement and I cannot use it. It's harder on my eyes, more difficult to use. PLEASE give us the old look back.
1 -
@MariettaMatulka You probably mean person profiles/records - but If you mean the new 'edit every field' indexer/transcriber app for historical records - you are possibly right. It is a more powerful indexer and people are going to have to move slowly at first to comprehend what they are doing. But over time I think the additional power can result in better records - not worse. IF people will ask questions and there are enough people to help them understand how to use the interface it can be more successful (that is where I see the bottleneck being at this point). Those with time and resources to put screenshares/demonstrations should definitely produce that because many people may need some examples to help them initially. From the bit of exploration I have done - my recommendations:
- If there is Computer Indexed Data - look at the fields used to become familiar with records before attempting to edit them.
- Do highlights immediately after indexing primary/family names. Highlights on the records are behaving a little erratic from my experience so it is best to get them done as soon as possible.
- Do Couple relationships before children. It seems to work better. Be careful with the relationships added. Consider the person you are editing as the primary person you are adding the relationship to.
There's probably more to it - but that's my recommendations at this point.
1 -
I am DEVASTATED by the new format. Some of the new functions may be useful, but why was it necessary to change - for worse - things like fonts, font sizes, positioning of key information on the data entry page, and introduce loud colors (in the "head" circles) that only distract.
Visually, the previous page where you entered data was perfect! The new format is not an improvement and I cannot use it. I have been entering thousands of departed souls every year in recent years - but the new format is harder on my eyes, more difficult to use. I won't be able to be productive if you do not give us the old look back.
2 -
My main issue is that we want accuracy and reason statements show why the information is correct. This field is so hidden now and people will not click on 'more' to see the information.
0 -
I'm deeply saddened because of the new format. It's so bright now with only a white background that it hurts my eyes. No color anymore.
I tried using the feature that changes it to grayscale, but it didn't help at all. In fact, after 20 minutes of use, I had to quit.
I am someone who does a daily average of 4-8 hours of research.
Now, I'm unable to do anything at all because it's so very hard on my eyes.
Won't you please give us back the option of using the previous version?
If not, I will have to quit my research and this is breaking my heart.
I have put many, many families together over the last nine years. Now I'm being forced to quit.
I also will have to quit working at the Family History Center as a consultant because I won't be able to look at the screen very long.
Also, this new format has way too much spacing between information. It takes much longer to scroll down--it gets confusing. The previous version was much more concise.
There are so many of us that have disliked the new version and we all had chosen to use the previous version while it was available. I'm sure there will be others that will have to quit researching because of this difficult format you've changed to.
Please let us have the old version option back
8 -
I second everything you wrote. I am one of the older people (66 yrs old) who has been entering new souls on FamilySearch based on old church books from Europe. I have entered over 10,000 people with all available details - it's been hard work that took a lot of time. I WILL NOT BE ABLE to continue doing this work with the new format. This is a true disaster. It looks like the page was designed by a novice who doesn't understand how to make the design user-friendly. Too much scrolling, and not an efficient use of space on the page. You have to stare to find key info. Just horrible!
6 -
Let's go back to the old format. I can't find my way through all the messiness of the new format. I have put in data but obviously not in the right place. I think that a less busy and less colourful detail page may help.
0 -
What data are you trying to add? What data do you feel you messed up?
0 -
When FS users/volunteers are asking for the old format to be retained, we are not opposed to any of the needed improvements - we are simply asking for the new page to look like the old page as much as possible - because the latter was more elegant, had a clean look, the space was used more efficiently, and it was easier to use.
Here are several changes that were made to the New Person Page:
1) There was nothing wrong with having the "LIFE SKETCH" section where it was at the top. Now, it's been moved to the very bottom where most people may not notice its content.
2) Why were "VIEW TREE", "VIEW RELATIONSHIP" and "FOLLOWING" moved to the left side, and put right under the name of the person - when those things could have stayed on the right side where they used to be by themselves, easy to see and reach with a cursor? By keeping them where they were, the space in the upper section of the page could be used more efficiently.
3) Why was it necessary to organize into two columns and change the appearance of the "VITALS" section? In the new format, the names, dates and places are listed so close to their headings, and in such small letters, that it's difficult for middle-aged and older contributors to read them.
4) In the new format, the "OTHER INFORMATION" section is huge, and you have to scroll through it to get to the "FAMILY MEMBERS" section, which displays spouses and children - the latter, very important information that should be higher up on the page, right after the "VITALS" section (or just kept like it was in the old format). The only thing that could be improved would be to insert a line for listing alternate names directly under the person's name in the VITALS section - so one could see all names that the person was known by in one place.
5) In the "FAMILY MEMBERS" section, the name of the person used to be in black and bolded, while their relatives' names were in bright blue. It worked very well - it made the names stand out from their dates listed directly below. In the new format those names are in black thin letters, just like the dates below -- it's not an improvement at all.
6) It was great to have the date and place of marriage shown in the space between the husband and wife - it was making it very clear that those were the parents - two people who joined in matrimony on that day. But in the new format, the marriage information has been moved below the names of the couple - why would that be? Moving such information to a different place on the page was not necessary. Again, that's not an improvement.
7) In the "FAMILY MEMBERS" section, the "head circles" that have no photographs are now colored loud magenta/pink or blue to indicate gender. Those intense colors visually fill the space inside the circles, and it makes the section look very busy -- lots of very colorful circles next to some black-and-white older photographs of other relatives. It is not necessary to fill those circles with intense color because each person already has a blue or pink bar next to their name. In the old format, those circles had grey male or female head silhouettes, which was sufficient, and it allowed adjacent real photographs to be more noticeable.
When taken all together, those changes are unsettling and upsetting to those of us who are spending a lot of time entering thousands of people on FS and would like to use a page that is pleasing to the eye and easy to navigate. We are hard-working volunteers and our preferences and ease of use should be accommodated.
I trust that it is not too late to improve the graphic design of the New Person Page, so those of us who are unhappy with the current design can continue to contribute enthusiastically to FamilySearch.
8 -
Absolute Rubbish the new page. I’m now stopping researching my family on this website … can’t get used to the new design. In fact you have gone back to the design of some years ago that made contributions more or less impossible to add. So it’s goodnight from me . Moving back to Ancestry … although that website is a disaster as well … but easier to add and remove.
3 -
@Ewa_Telazek I can understand your opinions about graphical differences - people's eyes may have difficulty with the new pages. That was one of the first things I noticed when using them as well. However, FamilySearch has introduced a High Contrast Mode which changes the white background to gray - and that may help a bit:
I would suggest you join the New Person Pages Group and give your feedback so that hopefully future changes will help users with similar issues.
1 -
@Lester Ludwig No, it's not just older people. Many of us feel that the new format is not user-friendly.
I totally agree with you @Ewa_Telazek !
4 -
I for one appreciate all the hard work the older generations have done to get Family Tree to where it is today. I don't want to lose their input on the way Family Tree is implemented. I believe your input can be just as good as any other group. I would dislike for current features to cause the older generation to quit - y'all are not quitters - you are some of the toughest people I have seen in my life (i'm a bit younger but not too far behind). I really would recommend that you join the New Person Page Group and give your feedback to represent your demographic - y'all are as important as any of us. If y'all leave it just gives the more youthful crowd more work to do...
3 -
@Lester Ludwig were you adding the obit from a website or from a scan of a newspaper? If you found the obit on FamilySearch the Attach process takes you to SourceLinker just as the old page did. If you download the image to your Source Box and create the Source there you can also attach it as before. Do you need further help or now that you have gone through the entire process is that repeatable for the next record you want to attach?
@ElvaSpencer56 There are some changes being made to collections. A new 'edit every field' indexing/transcription app appears in the right-hand column headed with Computer Indexed Data. So the way indexes are displayed and editing could have been what you saw was different. If you need help with searching ask away here in Community - there are many that can help (maybe not this late at night...).
@Ewa_Telazek Please give this feedback at:
They really need to hear from you if improvements are to be made.
0 -
I feel exactly the same way. Improving some functions did not necessitate changing the beautiful, clean, and efficient page design they had before. That was the reason I have been using FS and some other sites. Now It's been ruined.
2 -
Sorry y'all are feeling discouraged. Please give your feedback on New Person Pages Group (where those that can direct it to decision makers can hear it):
@CherylMillerBlack The new programming environment may have defaults for spacing of text/page elements different than the prior technology that was used in the old version - I don't know. I tend to agree with you that the spacing and font size/weight could be made to look more like the previous version (if that was easier for the eyes) - but I don't know all the reasoning behind the decisions for these graphic elements that were made. I know the new person page group did discuss these issues (you can read through the feedback given in the group). I also would expect that these gui issues can be addressed if it is determined large groups would like to see them change (I don't know for sure but would suspect graphical elements could be changed somewhat). Continued feedback is needed to drive future changes so please give your feedback in the group.
1 -
Like many of the "user improvements" I saw during my employment in IT, this new interface seems more focused on showing what the programmer thinks looks good than providing actual user benefits. This change is very reminiscent of Ancestry's improved interface. I am still trying to figure out what their new look gave me other than a font I hate and some very annoying pop up frames. Functionality often seems to take a backseat to "the look".
My old eyes have trouble with the new format. I find separating out records that are crammed together difficult and this layout leaves me with an overall feeling of page clutter. When the new format was first offered I gave it a try, then went back to the old format just because it was just easier to read. Maybe the idea of squeezing the same information into a smaller frame through the use of newspaper style columns was intended on reducing scrolling, if so, it fails.
My work experience leads me to conclude that it is better to display data in a spreadsheet style layout. By doing so the record descriptions are consistently positioned to the left with related data to the right. Image the issues created if every second line of a spreadsheet was appended to the line above it. No matter how much white space separated the two data records, it would not be a conducive layout to work on. It doesn't get better creating the same visual effect through the use of newspaper style columns. This is the biggest issue with the new layout; it does not flow or read in a logical manner especially as in the Events section.
The light grey lines and background may be great for the younger eyes but for those of us whose eyesight has waned after years of use, the contrast is not enough. Darken up the lines and background.
Do not use light blue or pink to indicate gender then also use it for action items such as Add, Detail View, and Set Preferred. There are other standard web colours available that would be more distinct and easier to relate to an action, such as Green #008000 for add, Red #FF0000 for delete, maybe Golden Yellow #ffdf00 for editing.
The main improvement I would like to see is database related. It would be nice if the "Description" field include in many of "Other Item" events (like residence) was available on some of the Vital items. For example, a birth source might include a house address and having a description field to hold this information would avoid non standard location entries or the need to create a residence entry duplicating the birth date and location.
It seems that the list of "Other Item" Events that can be selected is smaller than before. This list needs to be expanded so that some of the more common custom events have consistent templates for user entry. This allows a better understanding of what needs to be entered and helps any future migration of a custom event to a standard event. A good example of this is baptism records. While they often have a matching christening source, they can exist alone. Their potential relationship to a person's birth and christening justifies the need for a consistent template.
There were some actual layout changes that would have been nice. Baptisms are related to christening and relocating them into "Vitals" with the christening data seems reasonable. Both christening and baptism information should also be display during source attachments.
Similarly alternate names should be displayed in "Vitals" with the name data. They are related and a common location would avoid redundant alternate name entries
I too would love to continue using the old interface. It had issues but at least the information was listed in an orderly fashion.
8 -
Is it possible to return to old format?
I am not interested in the new improved one thanks.
0 -
I'm a regular user of FamilySearch. I use it daily, updating and sourcing each individual as well as writing Life Sketches so I spend hours in the website.
I unravel incorrect merges and fix errors, unpick incorrect families, research the people I've pulled out and find their correct families and add them to those. Some of it takes days of work.
The new page format slows me down and could lessen my likelihood of continuing the amount of work I do.
FamilySearch.org I know is trying to make things better for us and I was ready to give things a go so when the new page format was introduced in 2022 I tried it, but found myself frequently returning to the previous page format because the new page doesn't have the clarity of the former page format.
I find the new page format very cluttered, difficult to navigate, difficult to easily find the information I need to see.
Secondly - I have methods which don't work as well using the new page format. e.g. I have particular steps that I take before attaching a Record Hint - I run my eyes over the vital information of the person to see if it matches, I check the person's parents, the sources that attest to those two pieces of information, their spouse and marriage date. I find evidence that backs up the Record Hint and when I'm sure I attach it. The new page makes all of this more difficult.
Thirdly - Record Hints are appearing in a different way. Not so clear. I am familiar with the format in use because I used "SEARCH RECORDS Family Search" as my first port of call, however reluctantly, and I used it because it had to be done BUT is a difficult space to use to find and attach record in.
Fourthly - "Duplicates " don't lend themself to my former method of scrutiny. I used to click on the duplicate, then click on the name of the duplicate, a new tab would open and I would explore all information, sources, parents and spouse etc in that separate tab to make comparisons, then when I knew it was the same person or not the same person I could deal with it correctly. NOW when I click on "the name of the person" in the duplicate, it replaces the person in the tab I was already in, with the name and record of the duplicate person. Thus, I can't use my safe method of scrutiny.
Please sort this out or give us the option of using the former format.
The new format could do with some uncluttering. Sincerely, Gail Hellings
7 -
Why? Just, why? After using site for years, this new layout is confusing, complicated and hard to use for an experieneced user! Not user friendly, not easy to read page and layout of sections are confusing. Please go back, this was a horrible idea for whomever was in charge.
1 -
Thanks for putting in some specific concerns that can be addressed. I've been working strictly in the new pages for more than six months now and have found that required adjustments in workflow have made working in Family Tree even easier than before. This certainly true with hints. Our ability to evaluate hints before attaching them is much better than before once you get used to the new improvements.
To show that you can still treat hints as you have been but potentially more efficiently, please see the following short video. I'll also make some comments about clutter.
• https://youtu.be/Mkm3OPm3UYU
Regarding duplicates and opening possible duplicates in new tabs, please review this even shorter video for a demonstration of how to use standard browser controls to do this.
3 -
@genthusiast @Ewa_Telazek The high contrast helps a tiny bit. But the whole layout hurts my eyes and makes it hard to focus on anything. There is too much input coming all at once. My old eyes can't handle the flashy overload.
4
