Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
James Cyr said: Help, Give us back the old format! Have you seen what happens when one puts FS to half screen? FS goes from 5 tabs to 9 tabs. This is totally backwards. Just put the 9 tabs on the full screen view and give us back our sources below the family section. The timeline doesn't show up in half screen, just the map.
Why can't you give Senior contributors and desk top users what they want and have had since 2012. Who put the junior programmers in charge? If they can't take the heat, send them out of the programming kitchen. Give tabs for the tab users and scroll down for the scroll users, both at the same time.
As a long time FamilySearch contributor (2012), using a desktop computer with a mouse, until now I have always use scrolling down to view the person pages. All contributors need to be forced to look at the attached sources before making any changes. Many of us are spending too many hours fixing errors made by others who attach sources to the wrong person. Most records list family members that need to be looked at first to verify that we have the correct person. As a senior I need to see the sources by scrolling down easily without tabs. Just put the sources back where they were. Show us how quickly you can give all the contributors what they want.0 -
Brett said: James.
Spot on.
Please ... why don't you re-post your "Reply" in this post as a NEW separate post.
That way "FamilySearch" can see the individual numbers of those NOT happy with what has happened.
And, unlike some in this Forum, I say, within reason and with courtesy, be emotive.
Like many; and, I have BEGGED, "FamilySearch", as soon as possible, to "ROLL BACK"/"REVERT" 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.
OR, in the least, provide an option (being an additional feature) for a User/Patron to utilise, ether, (1) the "Classic"; and/or, (2) the "New", look 'User Interface', with regard to the release and implementation the new look format of the "Person/Details" page/screen (and associated changes) in "Production" ("Live") Environment of 5/6 August 2018?
Brett0 -
B.F. Randall said: A lot of people agree with you.0
-
iLoveMyLife02 said: It's small font with too much wasted blank space between pieces of information -- this leads to more scrolling.0
-
iLoveMyLife02 said: I agree -- the new format is effectively HIDING sources. Sources are really essential to this work. They need to be a part of the Person page, without requiring one to click on a tab to see them.0
-
iLoveMyLife02 said: Dual systems are not feasible. One person asks a question and describes a function and attaches a screenshot, and the others here say, "That's not how my screen looks", etc., etc., etc.0
-
iLoveMyLife02 said: I don't like the way that "Parents and Siblings" are BELOW "Spouses and Children", instead of being side-by-side in the previous interface. It's hard to tell 'where you are' on a person's page, especially when there are 14 children and the parents names have been scrolled up off the screen. (I ask myself, "Is this her children or her siblings?") I predict many, many errors due to this change, which was probably made to help out the tablet users. This program should be optimized for desktops and laptops, not tablets.0
-
Brett said: iLoveMyLife02
'Yes', as I have already indicated, in another post, the provision an option (being an additional feature) for a User/Patron to utilise, ether, (1) the "Classic"; and/or, (2) the "New", look 'User Interface', with regard to the release and implementation the new look format of the "Person/Details" page/screen (and associated changes) in "Production" ("Live") Environment of 5/6 September 2018, would be the subject of much extra work with regard to the upkeep of two 'User Interfaces' (not to mention more work of us in our 'Feedback'); but, at least, for a period of 6 to 12 Months, until the worst of the "Bugs" are worked out.
But ... much better than we have at present.
Brett0 -
Kim Lott said: I'm not a huge fan of the the changes either. In addition to the more major issues others have already stated, I don't like the layout of the new "vitals" box. All the information is crammed on the left side of the screen leaving a big empty white space in the middle. It would look better to have the information spread out horizontally across the screen more.
0 -
Juli said: It "stacks" the family when the screen is too narrow for the side-by-side view. See Gordon Collett's reply (with screenshots) on this thread: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Kim Lott
are you saying this burial place MUST BE wrapped around because it is so long?
Shenkel United Church of Christ Cemetery, North Coventry Township, Chester, Pennsylvania, United States0 -
Chas Howell said: One of the reasons the screen does not have the room to put Parents and Siblings side by side with Spouses and Children is because so much space is dedicated to the Gray area on the right side. Far wider than it needs to be.
In order to get the two side by side you can zoom down your display to less that 100%, of course the downside is that that makes everything so small.0 -
Tom Huber said: Long place names do wrap with the new design..
I do agree that separating the # Sources and Edit links to the right side makes sense. But would change the word Edit to Open (even if it opens the edit screen), and place it and the # Sources information at the right end of the title line rather that put it on its own line.
There is a lot of work still to be done to make the details page truly intuitive, easy to read, and clean.0 -
Juli said: Any separation of text on the same line must be accompanied by the addition of a horizontal guide of some sort (such as a box or a line). I had serious trouble with the old arrow method of rearranging sources, for example, because I could never tell for sure which source a particular arrow went with.
(My eyes are not aligned with each other. This means that I can't see in 3D and cannot track across a blank horizontal expanse. My friend who is blind in one eye has similar problems.)0 -
Alex Sellers said: Scott Hill - "Their first attempt - Ancestry"
Ancestry was never owned by FamilySearch or the Church. It has always been a separate company that partners with FamilySearch0 -
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: Jeff, thank you for pointing me to that article about adding unknown spouses! That was very helpful. I've added the wife and estimated marriage year and place. What an excellent idea to add a source for the information about the destroyed marriage records!0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Let's discuss this further at other thread specific to the font size.
Can't have both way without realizing there's bigger monitors coming down the pike on the market now.
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0 -
Chas Howell said: Scott Hill - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestr...0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Drag the icon on left side, the line is bold when you move it. Been doing this lately and glad it is better than previous version which was a bit harder to see where it is moved. Never like the arrows on right side (good riddance).0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Alex - clarification. "it has always been a separate FOR PROFIT company..."
Scott - not sure what was meant by the relationship types. If the essential structure of the problem has an associative entity that is many to many, any solution MUST support that structure or the solution is incomplete. However, the quality of implementations of the essential model can range from "excellent" to "pitiful"! The implementation model may not appear to have the same relationship types as the essential model, but every permutation of a relationship in the Problem domain MUST be mapped into some relationship, or set of relationships, in the implementation.
Most really good design engineers understand that the best implementation structures ALWAYS directly mimic the inherent structures in the problem domain. The problem has always been finding good competent system engineers that can provide thorough and accurate structural analyses of the problems to be solved by the system.
For example, the absolute FIRST criteria (i.e., top priority requirement) that a web page must meet is it's ability to COMMUNICATE some kind of information to the user. If it cannot do this, nothing else matters. For example, if the problem domain spans multiple languages, then one of the first essential requirements will be that the page shall be available in multiple languages.
However, the layout of data, types of fonts, relative sizes of text, and use of white space also must all must contribute to the first, or top priority criteria. For example, if the entire page used script fonts that were all less than 8 points in size, and every other letter was uppercase bold alternating with lowercase italic, the page would not even approach meeting its top priority requirement.
That's the whole issue here on the Vitals page. It used to meet the top priority requirement. Now it does not. That is why so many people are up in arms.
So why was the change made?
1) if it was made to help web pages download faster (i.e., a lower priority requirement), then the download speed has now been prioritized to be more important than the ability of the page to communicate information to the user.
2) if it was done to make the page communicate BETTER to the user, then the person making the choice had no concept of the years of psychological studies and tests that have evolved into the many, many standards we have today for publishing and user interfaces. Many universities have classes specifically for training students how to understand and deal with these issues.
3) if it was done to make the interface more compatible in look and feel with the mobile apps, then they have place the requirements for the effectiveness of the mobil apps over that of the desktops. A very questionable choice.
So why was the effectiveness of the vitals pages significantly reduced when it should have been the top priority for this web pages? I can't think of any higher priority requirements for such a basic function that could exist outside of some political reasoning, so I continue to be totally baffled by these odd priorities that are driving these changes. Son I still have no clue.0 -
B.F. Randall said: I move that FS hire Jeff Wiseman as a consultant0
-
Juli said: Oh, I don't miss the arrows; I was just using their placement as an example of the sort of thing I have trouble with. (There are people with dexterity or tremor issues who doubtless would like to have something like them back.)0
-
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: Yep. LOVE that!0
-
Chas Howell said: Why hire him? He does it for free.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Also, check back afterwards. I have discovered on many occasions that from the estimates I put in, the search engines were able to produce hints on sources I couldn't find with my own searchs. I could then attach those sources and update my dates and locations based on the new sources0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: They don't appear to be paying much attention to me anyway :-)
There absolutely HAS to be a bunch of information that is just not available to us that might show good rationalization for these directions being taken. Just because It doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean there are not good reasons for the direction taken.0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: After giving this new change a chance, I am starting to like it. I just didn't like it when they threw it out the field without fixing the known issues.
I am going to quit following this thread, but I do want to say a few things before I go.
FS is never going back to the old look. The new look is here to stay, and they will fix the problems as they go. They are trying to balance the web and app programs for all users across the board.
I am seeing a lot of neat features on the Person page. Did you know you can drag and order the Sources a lot easier now? INstead of hitting the up and down arrow one at a time, you can now move a line from the bottom to the top in one move.
WIth the changes that has taken place, it doesn't make it faster, but it does give more respect to the dead, by taking the time to really look at their history and try to reduce making errors. The only way that the submitting names to the temple faster is to get more people involved.
I'm signing out, and I'm hopeful for the new changes.0 -
Roger Moritz said: Sliding sources around is not the issue, where they are located is what leads to errors. Also, 'suggested people' being unclickable is making me not check on various leads. I work 3-7 hrs a day and this is all cutting my productivity in half.
And frankly, cosmetically, it was better before.0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: Roger...you weren't paying attention.
Where they are located aren't leading to errors. I don't understand how that is even possible.
As for suggested people being unclickable....I can click on them without a problem.
I'm just reading a lot of people's comment and I don't agree with half of them, because they are just working just fine.0 -
Roger Moritz said: If I have, on average 20-30 browser tabs open and I have to hunt around for a 2nd tab per person, JUST TO READ SOURCES.... That is a problem.
2nd, you do not understand what I mean by suggested people. The names that show up on pre-creation of a person. THEY ARE UNrightCLICKABLE. If I want to examine 5-10 of these names, I have to now, copy the idea, bring it to the search function, right click open that, go back to the other page among my 30 tabs, get the next ID an so on and so on. No good.0
This discussion has been closed.