You have removed the birthplace on attached census sources

Janet Noble Smith

There are changes, some good and some not so great. There are many colors, which are distracting. Then, some of the boxes open up very big and distract. I purposely avoided this view, but now I have no choice. Previously I checked out these new changes in the beta version. There was a reason I didn't choose the new version. Perhaps there could still be a choice in Family Tree versions. This new version also requires extra steps and clicks. Here are a few items which have been changed, or are cumbersome.

1. On the person's details page, if there is a suggested record hint, formerly, clicking on the record hint, opened the record in a separate screen. Now, the screen opens up, involves more colors and takes up part of the person's details page.
2. When the record is an attached census, formerly, it showed the person's birth place and each of their parents' birth places, starting with 1880 census. Now, the attached census doesn't even show the birth place for the person being referenced. Further down the census attachment, it shows the other members of the family, with their birth places. Perhaps the census attachment for that person (child) doesn't even belong to the parents or the parents listed. If a person was not aware of the history, they have to open every census attached in the sources. to check birth places. I can see that your "improvements" were an idea, but some improvements completely removed valuable helps.
3. In the memories, why require the researcher to open a box to choose which kind of memory to attach. Previously, the box was already open and didn't require extra steps.
4. When editing the name, more than one language box opens up, which is again, confusing.