Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
Roger Moritz said: And cosmetically, its worse. I can't even see the changes done hidden in the gray. Why would you hide the side bars in the gray, it basically mutes those systems.0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: I do understand very clearly....I can click on them without a problem.
I think the sources located and the ease of access to sources are a huge improvement. I didn't think they were at first, but when I started using it, it made things a lot easier.
Sounds like you're just making it harder on yourself.0 -
joe martel said: But I can't click on the Person in the list either. Mac, Chrome.
I see the PID and on click it brings up CopyID.0 -
Roger Moritz said: You cannot click the suggested people in the pop up box.
"making it harder"
No, I just work comprehensively and pride my self on getting as many sources as possible or are available. I also create localized sources of the scans in the gallery and parallel all sources this way. That takes work and efficiency...0 -
B.F. Randall said: I wish I could "like" replies. Like. Maybe FS should create a Technical Advisory Board so Jeff and similarly-knowledgeable and qualified people could contribute in a more meaningful way.0
-
rotkapchen said: Gasmodels: Your response only solidifies Scott Hill's statement. The interaction he speaks of is NOT the responsibility of developers (it's an ENTIRELY different mindset). Developers are NOT the people who should or should not be deciding what needs to be done and what the priorities should be, or even how to implement them (except for technically).
Joe Martel suggests that he had/has a role that supposedly 'fits' the category of which is being spoken of, but the question is, is he involved in full-cycle requirements/QA? Is that happening at all? And what methods are being used to both specify and prioritize requirements? [I say this tongue-in-cheek because for EVERY environment I've ever been in -- and some have been very large -- there were NO methods, and for the formal methods that 'had' been out there, they were all flawed in some major way or another -- in that they NEVER really knew how to appropriately assign values to what is most relevant and how to prioritize it. There was ALWAYS a political agenda (whether dictated by the Project Manager or someone/something above them) to determine what had resources (time/people) dedicated to it.
This HAS to stop. The work needs to move forward and we need to get the hindrances out of the way.0 -
rotkapchen said: Well if you're going to go there, then you might as well suggest CPM or Visicalc (oddly, they contacted me for an interview and I never responded).0
-
Scott Hill said: Haha...we're too old for this type of stuff now. Seems people still can't learn from mistakes of the past.0
-
m said: Clicking on a Source still FREEZES the page---unable to open source, close the source, or scroll up or down---have to reload the page to unfreeze the page.
(Still not fixed.)0 -
rotkapchen said: Joe: Can you share with us how requirements are determined/managed/prioritized in the FS world? Are they tested against various 'key personas'? Do you have any screen videos that you work with that details the level of effort (day in the life) of 'regular' (more than 1x/week) users -- detailing all the repetitive actions and efforts required to accomplish their regular tasks? [Such would be needed in order to do ANY impact analysis of changes.]0
-
Mary said: I like the new layout for person pages, although I have noticed it has been buggy lately, namely I have been trying to edit sources and getting really slow load times. Give it a while to work out the kinks (and keep reporting bugs on this forum, of course!).
I think the new layout makes it very clear how to edit an event, compared to the old interface. It also makes it clear what sources are "tagged" to each event, how many, and how many users are watching AND how many have edited the person. I love these features and I think they will help improve accuracy in the tree.
I do think there could have been better notification about the new features. I was very surprised when I first saw it. However, the new layout is very similar to the layout on the mobile app, so it isn't 100% new.0 -
joe martel said: I can share my approach to design, which doesn't mean where it's been adopted:
1. I work with users, both advanced, and newcomers. If you are family with Contextual Design methodology (Holtzblatt and Beyer), that is my primary method. I capture their workflow in their environment (home, office, lab...). This last week I watched at least a dozen users, and fielded dozens of inquiries.
2. I interpret their work, build models to model data lifetime, user journey and sequences of action. I have rolls of workflows and video and other models that I lean on to understand the users' world and work practice.
3. Redesign - I look at ways to make it better, overcome breakdowns., and incorporate business goals and what user joy might mean.
4. I craft a logical model that hangs together for the users mind, and for data lifetime (data can be clean or sparse or dirty (i.e. birth after death). I have to anticipate technology and cultural practice and new user demographics for now and future. I am a follower of Donald Norman including books like "Dealing with complexity"
5a. I bounce those off ideas and models of other team members, UX, Product Managers, bosses, aybody who'll listen to me.
5b. I test in paper prototype first to make sure the the workflow works, that the proper focus areas (screens) hang together in sequence, and within themselves. Testing is with users, preferably outside the Mountain West, (but I don't get the opportunity to go out much here). The goal is to break and disprove what I have. Then fix it and iterate it.
6. I don't worry about fonts, colors, copy. I'm lousy at that, though I know good when I see it.
Somewhere in all this I have to convince my boss, my employer that we should fund the production of my efforts. I have had success, and failure. So I just have to keep bouncing back and use the User's world as my world.0 -
rotkapchen said: Thanks for that insight -- familiar with all of it, and with the uphill battle of bringing it to bear. I just wish there were a way to help those who make decisions REALLY feel our pain.0
-
Scott Hill said: It was called QA in the past...now days it's just called Beta and hurry up put it in production. Very disappointed in this push out...Too much CYOA and shifting the responsibility to the users for not accepting the changes.0
-
Ron Tanner said: I understand that such a stark change can be jaring. And I know we have some bugs to fix, but the team is being very responsive and trying to solve the issues and problems with the look based on the problems you are mentioning.
I will try to respond to those items as they are mentioned in this post.
Sources: Yes they are on a tab on their own. This is not to diminish their value. Indeed we are trying to surface them more so when looking at a conclusions and the associated sources. We wanted to make it more efficient for users to compare with the data on the vitals. It is very cumbersome to scroll down and then back up. The intent is to open the sources and then click back to the vitals then click back to sources. This is much better than scrolling down and back. I acknowledge that the sources tab needs updating (and the team is working to do so) so that it will not scroll back to the top, but keep the view that it was when you last clicked.
Hints: Hints are still there but they are not in a forced box. This allows users to close sections they do not wish to have open and see the others they do. Hints are under Research Suggestions. When you open it we remember and then keep it open for you going forward.
Size of Font on Vitals: We did not make it any smaller than before. The conclusions are actually larger but he surrounding text can make it cluttered. We have tried bolding the labels to see if that helps. Also the values used to be blue (so they stood out) but now they are not links. You click on edit. Why? Because most people who came to the screen did not know to click on the value to edit.
Gear to re-arrange: We are reviewing the need and where we may want to place these.
API: They seem to be working properly but we had some issues. We are working with partners that reported any issues.
Pop-Up: We are using this because it is a more common approach. We will continue to examine how to improve. We are reviewing how sources work in these pop-ups and are evaluating opening the sources to the right in an inline fashion as they are in the sources tab. This will prevent the sources from showing over the conclusion you are editing.
History: The history is there but it is now called "Show All Changes" when you are editing a conclusion. Clicking on that will filter the change log with the list of changes for that conclusion.
Standards: The standards have not changed in behavior from before. Errors reported are being examined by the standards team.
LDS Ordinances showing for Non-LDS users: This was fixed within 60 minutes of release.
Notes: These have been used for various reasons. We are discussing if they should remain on Collaborate. Some use it that way others for other data.
Top of the Page moves: This is to allow more room for the data. We are going to change this back to a static header which will allow us to keep the positioning of the page when you scroll and tab back.
Search from Person Page: We are seeing some issues as well and are working to discover. We believe it is a combination of person page and changes in search. We are working to resolve.
Different Person with SourceLInker: I believe this has been fixed. There was a URL issue involved.
The person page and other parts of Family Tree interfaces are undergoing changes because of a required technology upgrade. It is requiring a re-write of much of the code. The goal is to be faster and more efficient in bringing only the data needed down to the browser. With these updates we download 2.5 MB less data to provide the page. This is a significant increase in speed. Then we only bring down more data if needed for other tabs. If you don't click it, it will not bring the data down.
Please continue to make suggestions and report issues so … [truncated]0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Ron,
Thanks for the status update. It's like a breath of fresh air!0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Ron has confirmed a suspicion I had for why all the edit buttons were added on the vitals page (see his post above for details)
I understand that apparently lots of questions have come from people first coming to the screen and not knowing that you click on the value to edit it. I would hope that the following idea might be added to the list of things to consider:
Everyone needs SOME training/learning to use this system. I see all the edit buttons as being like training wheels on a bike. They are really handy the first few times you get on, but after that they just tend to get in the way and can make things worst.
If the beginner level prompting is important, another way to support it might be to remove all the edit buttons and add a single text message at the top of the screen that say's s something like "Click on the information that you want to edit". The standard link coloring would do the rest as a reminder. For operations as extremely common as modifying Vitals, Beginners aren't going to remain beginners very long.0 -
W David Samuelsen said: Ron, thank you for updating us what is going on.
There's very new glitch bug - and I already opened thread on this issue of source rearrangement. Somehow one of developers erred on this.
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...?0 -
Sarah Jackson said: Suggestion regarding training videos: provide a transcript. I prefer reading to listening to someone speak. There are great speakers and not so great. The not so great are difficult to follow, speak in a monotone....
The value of a transcript is that one can quickly refer back to the needed information. Also, some of us just learn better from written material than a video with some great exceptions- the Bible videos, General Conference.
Please give us a transcript. Yes, I could take notes,but don’t you want to help us?0 -
Chas Howell said: Reply to Ron Tanner, My opinion
Sources:
a. Moving Sources off the detail page does diminish their perceived value for less conscientious users and makes the detail page less useful.
b. Before I could EASILY see the Family Relationships and the Sources at the same time. Same for the vitals and the sources. Now I have to deal with separate windows to accomplish that.
Size of Font:
a. Seriously for whatever reason the text does display smaller than before. How is it so many users noted that if there was not some truth to it.
Other:
The Stacking of the “Parents and Siblings” and “Spouses and Children” in the Family Section was not an issue for me before with either of my two monitors (20” and 19” both 4:3 ratio) But now they stack on my 19” monitor. I need to zoom down from 100% to 80% on the 19” monitor to get “Parents and Siblings” and “Spouses and Children to unstack and show side by side. Maybe it is because the Gray Research/Search/Latest/Tools/Print Area on the right side is a lot wider than it needs to be. But there should be no reason why I should not be able to keep them unstacked while using a full size desktop monitor.
Ron, thank you for all you do!0 -
m said: I added a Source and then mentioned the Source in a Discussion. This meant that I had to have 3 pages open (the Main page, the Source page, and the Discussion page) for the same 1 person.
It is extremely difficult to work this way, since you have to toggle between 3 pages.
Then I added the Source to the parent with the same name. So I don't get the pages confused in the New Format, I made sure to close the other 3 pages and open just the 2 pages on the parent with the same name to attach the Source and mention the Source in the Discussion.
I thought I maybe I forgot to Tag the new Source for the son with the same name. So I had to close the 3 pages for the father with the same name, then open the 2 pages for the son of the same name (Main page and Source page) to make sure that I had tagged the new Source.
Point 1: A great deal of extra work is needed to open up 3 pages per person. (6 pages for 2 people).
Point 2: A great deal of extra time is spent to open up 3 pages per person (6 pages for 2 people).
Point 3: There is a greater chance of making errors because of having to open up 3 separate pages per 1 person.
Point 4: I find more focus and concentration is required to deal with having to open up 3 separate pages per 1 person.
(Feeling sleepy or loud noises etc., which would not have been an issue when we only had to open up 1 page per person are going to increase the errors in the New Format where you have to open up 3 pages per person. )
Point 5: Small things, like forgetting to Tag, mean a lot of extra work and extra time spent closing 3 pages for 1 person and re-opening up 2 pages for another person in the New Format.
Point 6: How is someone going to notice they made an error in the New Format when you have to open 3 pages to view 1 person?
Point 7: Error-checking is going to be more time-consuming and require more work since you have to open up 3 pages to view 1 person.0 -
Mary said: Notes: Yes, they are tricky. Some users use them as an alternative for discussions, others use them as an alternative to attaching sources, others use them as custom events or life sketches. I feel like notes are something people can use when they just don't know where or how to attach the information. Perhaps as people become more aware of the discussion feature it can replace the notes altogether?
I think it makes sense to put notes in the "collaborate" tab because then people see the word collaborate and are forced to realize that yes, other people can see their notes.
Then again, I could see having notes under "other information." before the new layout, plenty of people were using "custom event" to create what was essentially a note, so that the information was visible at the top of the page instead of hiding out at the bottom.0 -
Don M Thomas said: Excellent "Feedback" reply "m," - won't matter though, they are NOT listening.0
-
B.F. Randall said: Agreed. These comments have been “overruled” without further explanation.0
-
B.F. Randall said: They’re listening. They’ve decided to overrule the comments for unstated reasons.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: I have seen a new quirk with this in the recent update. For some reason when sizing up a window, even when you get past the point that the stacking occurred when sizing it down, it no longer unstacks until you do a manual refresh.
Don't know what is going on but you might want to try that.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: m,
I also don't like this, but FS has done something that does help here a bit. When you have a person page open and you toggle to the sources or collaboration view, the position you were at in that view (i.e., you had a source open looking at it) When you toggle back and forth, it remembers the last view you had in those screens.
It's still not as good as the original way in my own opinion, but the view "memory" does mitigate things a bit.
Oh, and the view "memory" for the main person page had a bug that would always end you back to the top of the page when returning there. I believe that has been recorded as a bug and is being corrected.
I've not experimented with this at all yet, so I have no idea of how long this "view memory" is retained, and if there are any logical inconsistencies with other places on the interface. I currently am exploring the approach of using separate tabs or windows just for different persons in order to maintain the "view memory" for each person I'm working with.
I have always used the approach that I open the source linker is a separate window so I can work with the linker and the source images separately from the vitals. Now I still do it that way but I have the extra steps of accessing the sources through a separate view.0 -
m said: The norm for websites is that they want to keep users and they do not want users to leave and go to competitor websites.
So in this case, Familysearch Familytree:
1) received negative feedback on this change and knows that this change is a step backwards and may cause some users to leave and go to competitor websites, and
2) decided to keep this change despite negative user feedback and despite a possible decrease in users leaving to go to competitor websites.
Current competitor websites to Familytree include:
1) Werelate
2) Wikitree
3) Geni
But due to the widespread use of DNA and constant drumbeat of DNA commercials on TV for genealogy purposes, I am sure more competitor websites to Familytree will exist in the future, not less.
It doesn't make sense as a business model for Familysearch Familytree to decrease it's user base.0 -
Scott Hill said: I agree with M - but the choices are slim to none. Wikitree is a good idea, but the GUI is poorly designed and implemented. WeRelate is another good idea, however if you have the ask the common user to learn how to use the website - you've lost them before you started.
Another 1 step forward, but then 2 steps back again.0 -
m said: But are Werelate, Wikitree, Geni actively ignoring negative feedback from users, which is a poor business model because it causes a loss of users to competitor websites and decreases their user base? (The point of my comment.)0
This discussion has been closed.