Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
Jeff Wiseman said: I will NOT "get used to the new layout in time". When you move from a relatively efficient layout to a less efficient layout, it doesn't matter how long you use it, it will always be less efficient.1
-
B.F. Randall said: Agreed. The interface was really well-designed before. It worked. Why "fix" something that's not broken? This is awful.1
-
James Feeney said: Howard - where do you get off on telling *me* what is "better" for me? What pompous arrogance!0
-
B.F. Randall said: Howard, I don't see these comments as resisting change. Change is usually good. But the changes here made the functionality of the program worse than before. I hope that the program managers consider the merits of the comments rather than just writing these off as being closed-minded people resisting change. That's not the case. The actual functionality is worse.0
-
RealMac said: Has there ever been evidence of effective change management at FamilySearch? If so, where is it?0
-
rotkapchen said: Robert: I find the greater problem is in merging and Discussions don't show in a merge so anything that is CRITICAL, I put as a note in the "Other Information" secion and tag it as a 'Custom Fact' (bottom of the dropdown). This information WILL show up in a merge.0
-
rotkapchen said: Jeb: Other than Legacy Disputes, getting old discussions removed is still a current battle I am fighting with no resolution. It should be that if I can prove I have sent both an email and a 'message' to the contributor, they should be able to delete it.
In most collaboration environments it is made clear that if you start a Discussion you are the host. If you become a 'no show', then the discussion can be deleted.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: That IS very helpful. I just looked again. The first time I looked (and I can't remember where it was, both the Name and the PID linked to the person page. I had to do weird drags across the PID to avoid it opening a window on the person. I'll have to see if I can find that place again.0
-
rotkapchen said: Even the following day, I have records that will NOT display Discussions at all:
Sorry, the discussions feature is currently unavailable. Please try again later (samples, LCD7-C1M, 94V8-PN2).0 -
RealMac said: FamilySearch needs a goal to catch bugs and fix them BEFORE the code is moved into production. Genealogy is not an urgent matter, although fixing bugs in existing code is. There is no need to rush implementation of "upgrades" and "enhancements", and no reason not to take whatever time is required to test them thoroughly. Even bug fixes need to be tested carefully, to be sure they really fix the problem and don't cause other problems.0
-
rotkapchen said: Howard: After 30 years in technology releases I can verify that for a system as large as this (as in number of users and volume of data), no one would put out a release like this with so many test scenarios that fail.0
-
JEB said: Using Chrome browser.0
-
B.F. Randall said: I will not get used to the new format - agree with Jeff - it's far less efficient.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: But you cannot go DIRECTLY there. If I wan to see all of the changes for a particular vital, that hasn't been changed for a while, I have to open the entire list and scroll through the entire thing in order to find an instances of the vital change!
Way slower and less efficient. It *IS* more difficult trying to find out all of the ways others have screwed up records now.0 -
rotkapchen said: This is especially critical in the many scenarios I'm still correcting where I have to completely audit the list of sources because bad merges brought across the data of the wrong person (and of course, an unmerge does NOT remove the wrongly added sources -- this much be done manually -- yet another real ISSUE that has not be addressed, while things that were working fine were all changed).0
-
JEB said: Actually, I could regularly delete "Legacy Disputes" if they where from an "unknown." In those cases there was no "owner." Now, they all say "FamilySearch" so can't do anything! Guess I have to notify "Support" and create a case for each one to be deleted.0
-
Howard Norman Camp said: The easiest way to accomplish what B.F.Randall is trying to do is to right-click on the TAB at the top of your browser while in the DETAILS of the person page and select DUPLICATE from the drop-down menu to open a second tab that can then have the SOURCES opened in that second tab. With the window in RESTORE mode (Center double square in upper right hand corner of window) drag one tab over to the far left side of the screen and drag the other tab over to the far right side. The result is you have BOTH windows now open side by side and you can easily compare both DETAILS and SOURCES at the same time.
0 -
JEB said: Yep, looks just like they wanted the App.0
-
Carol Yocom said: Font is dreadful. Said it elsewhere. I'll say it here. I'm seeing things I hadn't found on my own. Please, this was a very bad move. Undo it.0
-
m said: Unable to create a custom fact in 2 browsers.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: With respect, I very well understand issue of new adaptation, but in this case I firmly believe that "going back" is the fastest way forward. There are way too many issues, many of which were identified long ago in the beta site and when reported were ignored. This is the kind of backlash you get0
-
rotkapchen said: "Legacy Disputes" was the 'answer' to transition all prior 'issues' added to a record (in the days when we could not make ANY changes to a record -- and it took an act of Congress to get support to 'fix' anything). But there were no instructions or standards for what to add to that field so there was all sorts of stuff dumped there AND much of it was to point out changes that needed to be made that we make daily now. ALL "Legacy Disputes" could be deleted, prior to yesterday.0
-
JEB said: Since it hasn't been mentioned, that I can see, putting notes under "Collaboration" doesn't help collaboration! I use notes to explain history, differences or other pieces of information that may explain date. For example, differences in birth places from different sources (yes, same person), name changes (yes, some people do change their names), how step-children keep surname of step-father (or don't but are listed with step-fathers surname in some records) or other family history information. Now, it is under a separate "tab" under Collaborations - which doesn't get seen when you are looking at the persons information. Already enough problems with people not reading sources and notes before making changes. This will just increase it. I guess it all goes under "Life Sketch" now.0
-
rotkapchen said: The ability to add these comments were shut off when the Discussions field was added to the 'old' system. I started using the Discussions field on EVERY record for the same thing I use it for today -- to add a reference that helps me identify who the record really belongs to (for troubleshooting when records are merged incorrectly or hijacked).0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: In Safari, it doesn't even show any information about the person you vectored from in family search when going to the search page! It's all blank now0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: I don’t think the changes makes it “faster.” I was doing so well before the change as it was very easy to navigate and so forth. In fact, I was working on it and it changed right before my eyes. Everytime I opened a new source to attach, in the past, it would create a new tab, which makes it easy for me to shut it down once I am done and focus on the main person. But now I have to tell the button to put in a new tab when I click on the new source.
I know it will take time to get used to the change, but I do not think it actually speeds it up. When a window is open within a window, you’ll have to fight with the scrolling, which is frustrating.
I really liked seeing the sources up front without having to go to another tab...why can’t you guys use the “Other information” as a new tab instead of sources? Other information aren’t valuable with my time while working on this.
Fonts are hard to read....
To further add my thoughts after working on it....it has a lot of bugs!
1) When I make an update and close the window, I have to refresh the page to see the changes.
2) When I make a change on a person and move on to the next person, it carries info from the previous person to the new person I’m working on. You have to refresh the page 2 times to clear it up.
3) It is very slow processing the data!0 -
m said: Clicking on a Source FREEZES the page---unable to open source, close the source, or scroll up or down---have to reload the page to unfreeze the page.
(Why would I visit FamilyTree if I cannot open sources?)0 -
Robert Edwin Cardwell said: Agreed. Where to start. There is no visual focus to quickly scan person details. Heck, the selected person's is not even bold or anyway to quickly know who you are even working on.0
-
Robert Edwin Cardwell said: Has there ever been evidence of effective *usability testing* at FamilySearch? If so, where is it?
Genius design changes for changes sake, not for measurable improvement.0 -
Robert Edwin Cardwell said: They didn't do any usability testing with any real users, this is obvious.
This release is called "Genius Design" changes for changes sake, not for measurable improvement.0
This discussion has been closed.