Design Request: New Change Log

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: It may be just me or my nearsightedness or the fact that my eyes are not as young as they were yesterday, but I find the grey background shading on opened merge information to be a bit too subtle. It is really hard to notice when the merge information stops and the next change log entry starts even when my screen is at full brightness. Could it be a little darker?



Watching for the difference between Vital Deleted, which is part of the merge, and Source Attached, which is not, causes a lot of eye strain. Or maybe some type of divider could be added to make it really obvious? Like this?



I just noticed in reviewing my post that the label for the information brought in from the merge is indented about five character spaces. Once again, this is very elegant and subtle. Too subtle. I think very few people are going to notice this or use it to determine the end of the merge entry. Maybe twenty spaces would be better. Trimming the dividing line between items could help, also:

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Also...

FamilySearch needs to stay away from any text that is gray. It needs to always use a black font. Any other font tends to be difficult to see. This has been an issue for several years now and while many instances were resolved by moving to a black only font, there are still remaining places where a gray font is used.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: Exactly why they should have never messed with the old style that actually had blue links, and green bordering for merges! Now does anyone understand why i said its like going in there and i have a migrane with the new visual, and even trying to figure out where to begin in there. Now it has to be done the HARD WAY.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: FamilySearch is an incredibly complex site. In order to take care of missing features as well as fix others that have cropped up, some changes impact other areas of the site. The change log has lacked in a couple of areas, but mostly related to tagging events with sources, and so on. It is entirely possible that the new User Interface is needed to support coming features.

As Gordon pointed out in another discussion dealing with the change:

Changes like these are important because the minor cosmetic updates that might temporarily throw us off are just the icing on top of potentially massive improvements in performance and allow additional new features such as the easily accessible filters to be added to the user interface

That really says it all.

There is nothing hard about the new change log. It takes getting adjusted to it, and I was able, even at 75 years old, to quickly adjust to it. I noted a couple of issues and have reported them, and others have also seen some other concerns. Those will be addressed, but one thing is certain, FamilySearch will not go back to the previous user interface.

Besides still being under development, FamilySearch is also replacing older code that has created problems. Some of it was "borrowed" from the previous system and had internal problems that the users did not see. Other issues including loading time and scaling to handle ever increasing use and ever increasing data and things the older code could not always handle and certain limits may have rendered the site useless once those limits were reached.

I can understand frustration. I quite using Microsoft Office way back at version four or so because every time the updated the operating system, everything suddenly moved around and many features were renamed. FamilySearch has done some renaming and one of them seem to deal with unmerge vs restore. The basic operation is still the same, but until I encounter the need to merge duplicates together, I don't know if unmerge has been replaced by restore or not.

If it has, then I will certainly raise a flag and ask that the unmerge term be returned to use -- it is certainly more descriptive of the unmerge process than restore and this has been pointed out by some of the other regulars in the forum. But until I actually perform a merge and then look at the new change log, I don't know if the missing "unmerge" was replaced or missing because of changes that were made after the duplicate profiles were merged.