Source attachment screen does NOT update its attached status with paperclip after attachment is made

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: I attempted to attach a source that I created and put in my source box.

It shows the link to "Attach" it, but after I click that, and give a reason to attach it, the modal box disappears, and I'm left with the "My Source Box" screen with "Attach" still seen,

In the past, after attaching a source, the "Attach" verbiage would be replaced with a paperclip, denoting that the source had been attached.

This is no longer seen, until I FORCIBLY refresh the screen with the press of a Refresh button or by hitting CTRL-R

LegacyUser

Brett said: Justin

FYI

You are not alone.

Here is another post on the matter from just a few Hours ago.

Please restore attached (clip) icon in Source Box
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

'Yes', like yourself, Sue, and, many who use the "Source Box", I too noticed this some time ago; but, considering all the other problems/issues in "Family Tree"; and, the fact that there has been NO implementation of the many suggested enhancements to the "Source Box", that have been requested over the Years, I could NOT be bothered to raise the matter.

It certainly is disconcerting when you are adding Four (x4) of more "Sources", in a row, relating to a "Marriage" Event; and, you are not certain if they were in fact attached; or, you actually did miss attaching one of those "Sources" - I like to add certain "Sources" in a particular order.

Now, because of this newly occurring fault/flaw, after I add (or, at least, think I have added) the Four (x4) of more "Sources", like 'Juli'; 'Sue'; and you are aware, I "Refresh" the "Source Box" to ensure that the "Paper Clip" appears [but, it can take time to reload; as, I have 21,456 "Sources" (I would love to know how many pages/screen that is - like in this Forum) in my "Source Box"].

It certainly would be nice is just SOME of the many suggested enhancements (eg. prime example, one of the most requested, a "Search" facility/function/feature in the "Source Box") were implemented in the "Source Box".

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Justin Masters said: Thanks Brett!

I don't know what is going on, but it's my perception that there is an increase in the number of improperly designed UI components, suggesting that there's a lack of adequate testing before release.

I do hope there's an incentive to correct that trend, and make it a more excellent product that is useful for enhancing the mission for which the software is designed.

I fear this forum has become a after-after-the-release user testing forum, and that's really a poor way to manage it. I've recently reported a couple of items that further contribute to dirtying the data and taking a few steps back in the effort to "standardize" the data.

Ideas that myself and others have floated for improving the speed and quality of the work seems to fall on deaf ears, and I'm not saying that we MUST have these ideas implemented, but it would be nice to hear that there is some review of the ideas going on, or a positive response regarding fixing the items that have been identified. (For instance, I recently reported on the 1940 census issue with 1935 updates undoing the 1940 info. And that was corrected quietly, but introduced, or enhanced a different problem I also reported, which similarly injects bad data into areas where there should be better standardized options available than being forced to accept "Same house" as the form input.)

We've seen corrected errors reappear time after time, and that speaks to poor code management/versioning.

I hope this year is better.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Justin

Seriously ... don't get me started ...

Since, the ability of the Programmers to (1) Design; (2) Develop; (3) Test; and, (4) Release 'In-Line', it has been a absolute nightmare.

Such should have never been allowed.

Admittedly, things get implemented faster without the, input in Design; and, proper (User Acceptance) Testing, by World wide, cross-sectional, "Focus" User Groups.

But, ... at what cost ..., the number of times that things have gone wrong (been faulty/flawed) and need to be patched-up ...

World wide, cross-sectional, "Focus" User Groups utilised for, input in Design; and, proper (User Acceptance) Testing, SHOULD be reinstated.

At least, then, things would be back to being User/Patron DRIVEN.

The ability for Programmers to, (1) Design; (2) Develop; (3) Test; and, (4) Release 'In-Line', should be STOPPED "Immediately".

I would rather wait, for something to be pretty well right (or, at least, almost), than what we see now.

Once actioned by the World wide, cross-sectional, "Focus" User Groups; then, the things can be released in the "Beta" ("Test") Environment; and, us advised.

We can then 'attack' (ie. Test) those things, to our 'hearts content'; and, give 'Feedback'.

Then; and, only then, after 'Feedback'; further 'Tweaking'; and, Testing, if necessary, released in the Weekly 'up-date'/'release'.

It may take longer; but, certainly less problematic than we have now.

Just my thoughts.

Brett

ps: As I said ... don't get me started.

.