Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
rotkapchen said: Jeff: Huge different between market studies and basic UI principles and testing that should be done outside of 'preferences' and 'nice to haves'. To not do the basics is outright laughable.0
-
B.F. Randall said: one of the best comments I've read on this topic0
-
rotkapchen said: Add to the list of "Stuff that doesn't work" - Messages
I'm on a record and trying to send a message to the contributor who 'killed off' as an infant a woman who had a spouse. Instead of auto-populating the message with the information for the woman, it's pulling the information for her FATHER.
Add another few hours to work slated for tonight.0 -
rotkapchen said: And the silly thing is that not being able to edit my own discussions is something I was doing all day yesterday and this morning. It only changed today.0
-
B.F. Randall said: It would be appreciated if FS could provide an explanation of the new user interface and the plans to address comments. So far all I e seen is a promise to patch the bold name issue.0
-
Kerry Palm said: Is there a way to re-order the Sources in the new version?0
-
B.F. Randall said: It's not going to happen0
-
B.F. Randall said: So far this is what I have heard generalities along these lines:
1. Change is hard.
2. FS is not going back.
3. People who don't like these changes are hyperventilating drama kings and queens
4. Crossing the plains was hard
5. Get used to it
6. We are sorry you're frustrated
7. We are listening.
8. But everybody else seems to be happy with the new interface.
9. We don't have time to think about answering hard questions right now, especially about basic design and interface issues.
10. We are focused on bug reports.0 -
gasmodels said: drag and drop just like you could before. The only thing not there is the old arrows that moved 1 position at a time. Drag and drop will work - click on a source title and drag to where you want it.0
-
Kerry Palm said: Thanks for that0
-
m said: I mainly just do Discussions, so if I cannot edit my own Discussions, there's no reason to visit Familytree.0
-
Ben Strubl said: It's a real improvement over the arrows less time consuming.0
-
Linda Sparks said: WOW! I have never posted here before but I am TOTALLY FRUSTRATED also. I have been using FamilySearch from day one and this is the WORST upgrade we've had so far. It has always been frustrating that it is being changed CONSTANTLY but this even out does that! PLEASE help us. I too feel I might just give up!0
-
Chas Howell said: Not really an improvement, as gasmodels says, drag and drop was part of the system before the upgrade along with the arrows.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Strange things do happen.
Just use edit feature for the name and you will pull up sources and they can be opened same time without spinning. I found out by accident.0 -
James Feeney said: I would like to point out to everyone for whom it is not apparent that the web user interface styles we are critiquing - the "old page design" and the "new page design" - do not represent an "either/or", "this or that", choice.
We are discussing the design of a web page, a somewhat complex web page with Style Sheets and external Javascript, but merely a web page which simply provides a User Interface to an underlying Database System, displaying the content of a record in the database, and providing an interface which allows changing and updating a record in the database. This underlying Database System has not changed. Only the web page providing this User Interface has been changed.
The point here is that *both* the "old page design" and the "new page design" provide exactly the same functions, displaying a record and updating a record. There is no reason that either page design or both page designs cannot be used to interface with the underlying Database System. And the only thing that prevents you, the user, from using one style of web page or the other is the type of page which can be accessed from the FS web server, which is an entirely separate and distinct thing from the back-end Database System.
So, that the FS web server only serves-up the "new page design", and does not provide a link to the "old page design", is a purely "political" act by some anonymous - and I might suggest "cowardly", because no one has taken responsibility - person at FS, and has nothing to do with the technical aspects of how either web page style functions.
There is no reason that both, or many, page styles could not be provided to the user by the FS web design staff to interface with the underlying Database System which would then allow users to simply pick and choose the User Interface style that best supports their work-flow and experience.
And then, this implies that there exists some anonymous and covert person at FS whose ego is so fragile that they believe they must *impose* a single page style choice upon the web design staff, and upon all the FS users around the world, and "destroy" any competing page styles or points-of-view which disagree with their narrow vision.
Sad, that. Just saying...0 -
Alex Sellers said: Saying it is political is stupid. They merely wanted to provide a new experience that would attract people who are used to the app (IE Youth). However, they alienated a huge chunk of their userbase by doing this. Also from what I've seen, there are a fair amount of bugs that should have been caught/fixed during the beta phase. Considering how long this has been in production and in beta I'm surprised that they weren't caught. From what another user said, this seems like an update thats very engineer (and in my 2 cents, phone and tablet) friendly but not desktop user friendly.0
-
Don M Thomas said: I have asked that we have Both - Classic Production and New Production.
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0 -
Brett said: James
You are so right.
You may want to think about posting your "Reply" from here, as a separate Post, so that it gets, better exposure; and, the attention, of the ( Senior ) Management of "FamilySearch" [ plus, Priesthood Leadership of the Church ].
As has been requested by 'Don' and others, I think that most Users/Patrons in "Family Tree" would accept the availability of, both, a "Classic"; and, a "New", version, to be able to choose between and work with.
Definitely a workable and better solution than "Rolling Back"/"Reverting" the whole "System" of "Family Tree" back to the previous format of 5/6 August 2018; before, the new look format of the "Person/Details" page/screen (and associated changes) in "Production" ("Live") Environment, took effect.
I could certainly live with that.
I am certain that many other Users / Patrons could also live with that.
At least, we would have much more time to transition from the "Classic" to the "New"; plus, it would give the "Engineers" the time they need to work though the previously known and newly found problems/issues in the "New".
Great "Reply".
Brett0 -
Howard Norman Camp said: I have no problem with having the default open in the "new and improved" version and allowing a person to click on a link to open the "old" classic page. That might get rid of a lot of the vehement design complaints.0
-
Scott Hill said: Well at least you guys weren't "schooled" by an employee for pointing out the "kettle/pot" to them yesterday instead of discussing/fixing the problems we have pointed out.0
-
m said: When a page is a combination of 2 people, instead of just looking down the page at the Source and Discussion section, I now have to open up 2 ADDITIONAL pages (the Source page and Discussion page) to determine who the page is for!0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: I know! I accidentally discovered it many weeks back After HOURS of up-arrowing and down-arrowing to sort things. Why is it that the better methods to do things in FS tend to be only discovered by accident? :-)0
-
JEB said: And, it grows if the person might have a duplicate and you need to see their page, their Sources and their Discussion section! More open tabs.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: There actually is a real reason that this might not be feasible as now both versions would have to be maintained with bug fixes, AND the capabilities of one (as far as database access goes) would also have to be reflected in the other.
Maintenance work for web pages would double.0 -
Tom Huber said: In another discussion, or perhaps earlier in this one, a FS person said that the new design is here to stay. Yes, there are problems, but that has always been the case. Backing out the new user interface is no more an option than restoring the old Help Center with one that has proven time and again to be more of a HelpLESS center of guess the right keyword to reach what you want.
The new interface has been out there in beta for several months. It has been mentioned a number of times in this forum while it was still at that stage.
The old user interface had problems that have been partially resolved by the new, such as improved load speeds for remote locations, but that is still being worked on.
I am like the rest of you -- it is taking time to get used to the new layout, and some of the changes lost the intuitive nature of the old interface. Those will need to be worked on, as well as the problems that are being pointed out. But at least they are being addressed.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Exactly. When you have multiple people open each with their sources, and Discussions tabs open, which source tab for which person?
Yes, I've had many many times that I've had to have all of the "Person data" located on the same page to efficiently do comparisons. This flipping back and forth between tabs is aggravating. And opening the second tab as a new window in my browser can help, but now my screen is overcrowded (and I have a 27 inch screen)0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: I am starting to see the bugs are being fixed, which is good, but they will need to address the fact that it's very slow.
I am getting used to it, just wish they didn't just released it knowing they had problems.0 -
m said: Load times are slower. In 2 browsers. Wired connection.
Often the page will not load and I have to REFRESH just to get the page to load!
(But at least I know it is the Familysearch website and not my computer.)0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: Agreed.0
This discussion has been closed.