Help! I hate new format!

LegacyUser

Donnita Johnson said: Hello, I agree with others that the sources and collaborative information should be put back where it was. Also, the page is now difficult to read. The fonts are too similar and are causing me some eye strain. Thank you.

LegacyUser

TManning said: I like the new format. It took me about an hour to get used to it.

LegacyUser

m said: Exactly what Peggy Arnot said. Can't say it better. Will create errors.

LegacyUser

m said: Major problem to have to "refresh" a page to get it to load.

LegacyUser

m said: What Jeff said...and I'm sure the result will be people making errors.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Scott Hill,

all printing - all working now.

Donnita

You should have seen what it was before - super tiny font for place names. Now same size as names and dates as was in previous version.

LegacyUser

m said: Pages have fewer things on them but they load more slowly.

LegacyUser

Scott Hill said: Just logged it and tested the 3 previous issues - not working.

LegacyUser

Scott Hill said: Need to put the personal layout customization options back.

LegacyUser

Robert Lee Isbell said: It's there.

LegacyUser

Scott Hill said: SOURCES

So let's be clear - now that it is on a separate window/tab you either have to have TWO monitors to compare to the FAMILY for accuracy OR have to TAB back and forth between windows - you call that user interface friendly?

All this has done is double the level of effort to link and attribute correctly.

LegacyUser

Robert Lee Isbell said: Don't think you're being clear.

LegacyUser

James Feeney said: Does anyone know who Joe Martel is and what he does as "Official Rep"? So far FS Support has "stonewalled" on my request to know who the Project Manager is for this "new" page design. I suppose it is possible that there is no one managing the project, but I doubt that, such a major change.

While I understand that many people know nothing other than the abject disregard of proprietary software companies, I don't live in that world. In my world, a world of Open Source Software, almost all the software is available from actual, real, humans, not corporations. In that world, whether the people are generous, courteous, and professional, or even if they are arrogant, juvenile, and dismissive, at least they take personal responsibility for their work. They have names and faces, and they communicate with their users. Like family, for better or worse, there is a relationship, in a realm completely unlike the world of anonymous corporations and "customer support" phone lines.

Ironically for me, because FS provides a "free" and otherwise symbiotic relationship, I tend to associate them with the world of Open Source Software. But, alas, that is not the way it works. I'm disappointed that we - the people doing the genealogy and impacted by these changes - cannot have a rational conversation with whomever is making these changes to the website. Instead, it's kind of like having a conversation with my television set - it just does not seem to hear me.

LegacyUser

Scott Hill said: It is quite obvious that they are missing a QA group, version control, and customer awareness. They forget that it's the USERS (volunteers) that connect and validate the DATA that substantiates the TREES.

Their first attempt - Ancestry was sold off due to the bad design - MANY to MANY relationships. The second attempt - FamilySearch corrected the initial mistake and went to a 1 to 1 relationship with MANY. Of course they had some missteps with the first version of the FSID number format (6 digit vs 7 digit (currently)...BUT this misstep is "amature" coding and release practice.

They are going to lose the DATA validation from the users if we have to "bounce" around windows or tabs just to verify.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: My background is software engineering, architecture and consulting. Been programming since the 70's. Now I focus on user experience and background in skills like Contextual Design. I used to have "user advocate" in my title but got push back from this community.

I have no authority to say what product changes should be done or when.  I have no formal role related to product rollouts. I simply listen to user feedback from GetSat and other avenues and try to make sense of that and then design solutions that meet the goals of the work and satisfy user intent that aligns with the model I believe represents the best way of doing family history and the user having a wonderful experience. Yes my interpretation of that model may differ from others. Such is life. 

I enjoy working with users and seeing their experience, good and bad. I love hearing constructive ideas and informative feedback to help the members of the community.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: Joe has monitored this get satisfaction site for several years. I believe he has some responsibility with regard to usability of the site etc. There is a large group of developers who work on different aspects of the system. My experience is they do not discuss things in a public forum such as this although from time to time they will make comments.

Personally, I have talked with many of the developers and managers at Roots Tech. They tend to make themselves available and I have engaged many of them in private conversations (off the record so to speak). I have found them to be quite informative and reasonable to talk with and they are willing to discuss issues. However, they have many competing requirements and time constraints that influence the changes and upgrades to the system. Discussions where they agreed changes should be made have not been implemented in over two years because of other priorities that sometimes we the users do not see or appreciate. I just believe the situation is such that they are not going to get into a discussion about the suitability of the changes that have been made. There are too many competing opinions that all cannot be satisfied. If you have legitimate situations where there are "bugs" or something does not function then if you clearly create a thread, these issues are being acknowledged and many have be quite rapidly resolved. But do not expect any discussion of Is this approach better or would another approach be more useful. I would not expect that to occur.

LegacyUser

Peggy Arnot said: Dear Joe Martel, real person who wants to "satisfy user intent."

It appears most people are most concerned that sources have been removed from the Details page. Is there any chance they will be returned?

respectfully,
Real patron of many years genealogy experience who wants to gently and politely request help

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Joe,

The main thing is that you are a voice within FS. You have the ability to convert textual discussions on this forum into verbal presentations there. Regardless of what limitations you deal with there, that is something that very few others here can do for us. I consider that alone to be a significant contribution you make with your time.

And when there are status updates and planning intents in FS that you are authorized to share here, it is always nice to have the information made available, regardless of whether it be good or bad. The affirmation that things are actually being seen, and perhaps considered to some extent is always encouraging.

I speak for myself, but I suspect that are others that may agree with me.

Lastly, I was programming in the 70's as well. How old is that picture we have of you?!? You don't look that old!

Maybe you should grow a beard to look more like an old software guru.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: And what Peggy said. Do you think that they could return sources and notes/etc. to the discussion pages without losing any of the download speed benefits that they have been working on?

LegacyUser

B.F. Randall said: What Peggy said. If the true object of the recent platform change was to improve speed, then explain Maps and Timeline additions. My little brain is not connecting the dots. It appears that most people would gladly sacrifice Maps and Timeline to have the source notes re-connected to the detail page. That little change has caused significant problems as to how we use the platform.

LegacyUser

Scott Hill said: This is starting to remind me of how Lotus 1-2-3 version 4 was released...not a great experience either.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: You know what they say about history: "Those who don't pay attention to it are destined to relive it" (or something like that)

I suspect that a lot of the developers at FS may not have even been around when Lotus 4 was released

LegacyUser

Margaret Wicker Taylor said: Okay, I give up. Where did the add child (unknown second parent) function go?

LegacyUser

B.F. Randall said: Sorry. They had to make it faster for people in Africa. And make sure they get Maps and Timeline.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Margaret Taylor,

The feature is still there.

Just follow this step - click the arrow


then click the black box - add plus


Any other route - not recommended - they create split families.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Discovered a little feature had been added for right column. Now I can deflate each section with ease without having to scroll down.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Scott - what 3 previous issues. You are not specific enough.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Joe Martel and Gasmodels,

you might want to get your whipping belts out and go after that developer for STRIPPING OUT VITALS from this.....

Previous versions always show exact which spouse, which children, etc.

Fenton Fretz Spiese L1LP-KTG

Now? BLANKITY, BLANKITY, BLANKITY and I shudder to find hundreds more like this.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: This guy has three wives! So who is this couple being referred to?

LegacyUser

Scott Hill said: Still not printing -

Print: Pedigree
Print: Family
Print: Family with Sources