Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
Brian Craig McKibben said: It doesn't look like a bug that Sources were moved to a separate tab. That looks like a decision.
It's a personal preference of mine to order some sources based on the birth-order of children (i.e., sources that document a parent-child relationship such as birth, marriage, and death records). It looks like that will now require flipping between two different tabs in order to do that.0 -
Carolyn Wheeler said: It is beyond annoying! Something that was so helpful before is GONE!! This just adds time and difficulty. I thought updates were supposed to to make the work easier. Not so!! What a mess.0
-
Herbert C. Robertson said: The look and feel of the new Person Details Page is absolutely terrible. Having all the information and details on one page was far more important than the few additions (such as the timeline) that were made. There are so many valuable suggestions that users are making and you people ignore them and spend your time on this? Absolutely absurd!!!!! Listen to your users not your managers!!! Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Why not create a board of users and run changes past them before coming up with horrible changes such as this? Return the system to the way it was.1
-
J. Thompson said: Oh I agree. I was talking about the inability rotkapchen mentioned to "open" two sources simultaneously to view their details, since that was working for me in some cases but not in others. Moving sources to their own tab is not a bug, and it's not a change I agree with.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Agreed! Not just a huge step backwards, it's backward all the way to dinosaur age!
I HATE THE NEW FORMAT!
FOR SEVERAL REASONS!
1. No gear to restore to the layout I prefer to work in.
2. Sources on different page - and not even automatic open to new tab! (and from comments I received - they do not like it! Most of people I trained do NOT know how to use "right click" - or left handed - how to use left-click.)
3. Latest changes is buried OUT OF SIGHT even on BIG monitor. (too far down the column.)
4. Possible Duplicates too far scroll down. I usually have it at the TOP of right column.
Meaning constant scrolling down each and every time!
5.You BROKE the API for Findarecord.com ! Internal Server Error
6. You BROKE the API for Ancestral Quest to use. Internal Server Error
7. You BROKE the API for Ancestry.com to use. I had to reconnect each individual all over again - and that is just within 5 generations of direct ancestors - not to mention hundreds of cousins.
8. You broke the API for MyHeritage to use. Internal Server Error
9. I wonder how many of other apps' APIs as listed in "Solutions Gallery" are broke, too if this is anything like that.
R O L L B A C K - NOOOOOOWWWW!0 -
rotkapchen said: I found a workaround. If you click on the name and get the individual 'bubble' to appear, you can copy the PID in the bubble. Thank God for small miracles. That's a LOT of wasted time otherwise (and between writing fast and typing wrong the time to read/write/and type the PID takes even longer due to errors that are avoided with a cut/paste).0
-
rotkapchen said: I'm also having to keep an inventory of names that will NOT display the existing discussions: a red error appears.0
-
rotkapchen said: In the record I'm in right now, I clicked on several sources and they just spin. I was able to get one legacy one open. This is not consistent across records.0
-
Howard Norman Camp said: After 20 years of computer programming, I'm used to getting these negative reactions to any progress. Some people just don't like change. A lot of good suggestions come out of constructive criticism and the developers can work on making the experience better, but going back is not progress - it's giving up.0
-
J. Thompson said: If your ship has sprung a leak and you're still close enough to port to turn back and fix it before continuing onwards, that is absolutely not giving up. That's just being smart.0
-
gasmodels said: Actually History is still there it is now called filtered change. Go to the change log and click on item title in all blue such as "name changed" or "birth changed" or "Death changed" - it will filter the changes to only those associated with that title. So you can see the History of the Birth date changes, etc. Not as convenient as the old history tab but it does work.0
-
JEB said: OK - some things are progress and some are not. I've been working with computers for 50 years! (Yes, we had them that long ago, just bigger.) This isn't all bad but there are many major issues for "users." It looks like it was designed by the "engineers" for the engineers and not "users."0
-
JEB said: When I'm on a person's page and click "FamilySearch" under the "search records" option the "heading" on the search results shows completely different name not the person I'm search records for.
0 -
JEB said: It gets worse. When I try to attach a source it trys to link it to a completely different person!
0 -
rotkapchen said: Now there's a new behavior. If you click once on a clickable PID there is now a Copy ID function -- VERY helpful.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Something is very wrong with FamilySearch - Search.
When I decided to test Benjamin Schwein MTDD-9JK, knowing there are 2 sources with exact spelling as seen here.
and er what? - none???
Refresh didn't help.
Turn off his birthdate/place and refresh, the results showed up.
This never happened in previous version. (I am using latest Chrome browser).0 -
W David Samuelsen said: which browser are you using? I am not seeing such problem in Chrome0
-
Kert Monroe said: This is my first time commenting on any FS release. I have been doing Family History research long before FS was ever coded. In the past I have always given
FS a couple weeks to fix their issues and you generally do fix the bugs that come with each new release. Bugs will always come with new releases, but this release is not an improvement.
A side from the functional bugs which are easy to identify. Two changes in the look and feel would be greatly helpful for us older users.
1) Multiple font sizes and too small of font sizes. Please pick a font size and stick with it. Example - On the Person / Detail / Vitals screen - increase the font size of the Location field content to equal the font size of the Date field content. Eye strain is now an issue.
2) Eliminate excessive white space. Example - On the Ordinance screen - When the ordinances are "Completed" there is a single line of white space separating each ordinance. Howerver, when ordinances are "Reserved" there are two lines of white space separating each ordinance. This causes too much scrolling up and down to review the information.
For those of us who spend a lot of time each day on FS these little issues cause fatigue.0 -
JEB said: I'm using Chrome. Never had this issue before either.0
-
Ben Strubl said: I 2nd Kert's input0
-
m said: I logged in expecting to see the old format since the new format is a big step backward, but the new format is still there.0
-
m said: It appears that there are so many big problems with the new format. Such as
1) decreased functionality
2) decreased ergonomics
3) decreased ability to collaborate
(I could go on.)0 -
William Stiver said: Oh, a giant step backwards! It was so informative and easy to use before, please reconsider this change.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: rotkapchen - re-reading - you mentioned the ownership of specific discussion, I went to look at one of my discussions - and I find it very UN-acceptable of the change from mine to FamilySearch, since I wrote it personally. Now I can't delete! I needed to move the statement to Lifestory.
Kindly restore the original writers to their discussions.
Here the proof
0 -
Pioneer42 said: The only thing that needs to be done is make coloring different on vitals, re-add the history button, make a easier way to enter dates on the new pop up window. Make the pages load faster! Such a slow Program! Why did we go back to 90's look? Bland and boring now. Vitals area the most important of all AREAS. This has happened because people refuse to use proofs and instead settle for SOCIAL PEDIGREE NONSENSE FROM GENI.com or ANCESTRY\My heritage. WAKE UP PEOPLE! We are being punished for our sins because of how we use this program! We dont deserve it! Engineers you guys can flush your college degrees down the toilet, USELESS DEGREES, you know nothing about genealogy work! You need to hire people that have actually done work and used this program for years, LIKE ME. Nobody listens. DEAF EARS0
-
B.F. Randall said: The new format is an unmitigated disaster and I refuse to use it. So much for my previously rewarding family history hobby. Comparing and attaching sources is now buried to a separate page totally unconnected to the person's core vitals . . . What was so wrong with the previous interface? What problems was this designed to solve?0
-
B.F. Randall said: This format change is a significant downgrade. My number 1 complaint is hiding the SOURCES feature on another page. Seriously? Visually the new format is a serious downgrade. The key information for the record is now de-emphasized. My eyes have to hunt hard to figure out what the record is saying.
What was wrong with the old interface? What problems was this designed to solve? I honestly cannot find more than two new features that are an improvement over the old interface. I don't like being negative and I am all for change if it improves things. But this is a downgrade:
1. Hiding key information (like sources and suggested records) is not an improvement. It makes navigation far more cumbersome and far less efficient. It takes a huge amount of time to find and attach all sources to a record. By adding new clicks, the process just became 5x more cumbersome. I have attached tens of thousands of sources to records and this new format is far worse.
2. Making key information (like names, dates, locations) and basic function buttons (like "Attach") so TINY that the information cannot be read strains my eyes and makes my head hurt. Visually this is a serious downgrade. I am not a senior but I can only imagine how much harder it is visually for an older person to take a look at the page and identify key information.
It's pretty discouraging to me because I was enjoying this hobby--evidence-based family history research with sources. It was really great having them at the bottom of each person's record, like footnotes. Now the sources are on a totally different page, hidden away like they hardly matter. FS just hid the very best feature of its platform: the Sources.... I am not happy about this.0 -
B.F. Randall said: Source Expansion Menu functionality:
One of the very best features of the old interface was the fact that the sources at the bottom of the record would expand to show key data without leaving the person's page. This allowed the user to single-click a source, get the expansion and compare multiple attached sources with the person's record AT THE SAME TIME. This allowed me as an evidence-based researcher to determine which sources were correct and which ones were perhaps improperly attached to the record.
Now the sources are moved to a totally different page. I cannot do this any more. This change is a serious blow to my ability to fix bad records, surgically remove improperly-attached sources, etc. That's a time-consuming and cumbersome process and I am not inclined to try to do this any more. It's very discouraging for FS to make the interface so much more cumbersome to use.
At this point, I am not inclined to continue to contribute to FS. It's visually painful and functionally cumbersome--far more so than before.0 -
Amanda Knudsen said: I'm experiencing the same issue. Now there's a pop up on the lower right that tells me to choose who to connect the source to. Frustrating! I want the person I was searching about! Why the change? It worked nicely before!0
-
B.F. Randall said: Agreed 100%. Plus the old interface let the user "expand" the note so all the information was on the same page and the user could research the sources, compare details with the personal information, and make judgments about the sources attached. Can't do that any more! It's already hard enough to try to restore a record - detach improper sources, etc. That process just became almost impossible. I won't even try.0
This discussion has been closed.