Temple Ordinance Color Codes need to be rectified
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Cherie Ailene Morgan said: I will continue to post this until there is a resolution:
Your Engineers need to understand how the end-users use the software. There are MANY of us who do the online work and do NOT do the temple ordinance work ourselves. This change is only geared for people who are doing the temple work themselves, and not for those who are doing the research and submitting the names for others to do the work. When those of us who are researchers go through the family trees and see green, that indicates that the work has not been done and we see it as an opportunity to submit it the temple. But now when we click on the ordinance tab, sometimes we find that someone else has already submitted it. But we have no way to know unless we click on that name EACH AND EVERY TIME WE COME ACROSS IT, if the work has already been submitted. There needs to be a better resolution for what you're trying to accomplish. Making it easier for some shouldn't make it harder for others. All you need to do to resolve this is make some sort of icon where a user can select a record that has already been submitted to the temple. Because right now, you have a color that means TWO things and that defeats the purpose of color coding.
And while we're at it, that doesn't explain why the work that I have requested (which used to be yellow) and the work that I have sent to the Temple, or sent to a friend or family member (which used to be red) is now the same color. Why does BLUE also mean two things? Now I can't easily tell if I've completed both steps. What if I requested the work, but forgot to submit it to the temple? Under this new change, I now have to go to the Temple tab on a regular basis and double check if I have names that are reserved but haven't been shared. Once again, this is creating more work, instead of streamlining our work.
When changes like this are considered, the Engineers need to consider ALL users, and not just a select group. There has to be a resolution that works for everyone.
Please feel free to contact me, I'm more than happy to provide more feedback and suggestions. It's all about getting to the root cause of a problem and solving it to the best outcome for all.
Your Engineers need to understand how the end-users use the software. There are MANY of us who do the online work and do NOT do the temple ordinance work ourselves. This change is only geared for people who are doing the temple work themselves, and not for those who are doing the research and submitting the names for others to do the work. When those of us who are researchers go through the family trees and see green, that indicates that the work has not been done and we see it as an opportunity to submit it the temple. But now when we click on the ordinance tab, sometimes we find that someone else has already submitted it. But we have no way to know unless we click on that name EACH AND EVERY TIME WE COME ACROSS IT, if the work has already been submitted. There needs to be a better resolution for what you're trying to accomplish. Making it easier for some shouldn't make it harder for others. All you need to do to resolve this is make some sort of icon where a user can select a record that has already been submitted to the temple. Because right now, you have a color that means TWO things and that defeats the purpose of color coding.
And while we're at it, that doesn't explain why the work that I have requested (which used to be yellow) and the work that I have sent to the Temple, or sent to a friend or family member (which used to be red) is now the same color. Why does BLUE also mean two things? Now I can't easily tell if I've completed both steps. What if I requested the work, but forgot to submit it to the temple? Under this new change, I now have to go to the Temple tab on a regular basis and double check if I have names that are reserved but haven't been shared. Once again, this is creating more work, instead of streamlining our work.
When changes like this are considered, the Engineers need to consider ALL users, and not just a select group. There has to be a resolution that works for everyone.
Please feel free to contact me, I'm more than happy to provide more feedback and suggestions. It's all about getting to the root cause of a problem and solving it to the best outcome for all.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Joseph Vernon Leavitt said: This is an urgent issue. With the current color coding, I am wasting way too much of the available time to see where work has not already been shared with the temple.
In cases where I am adding new people to the tree, I can share these if I do it right away, and not called away -- to then myself looking for it later.0 -
D. Llewelyn said: Another concern with the green icon, is that people may see green, grab the name and go. Often times even though a person is "green", their potential duplicates don't show up until further research is done and spouses/parents, specific dates, etc. are added, which then triggers the program to identify new, possible duplicates. Many confirmed duplicates already have had their work completed. To avoid work being duplicated by those who may not have the time, inclination or ability to really delve into someone's past and records, Green needs to be split into two distinct colors:
1. Person has been researched and their work has been shared with the temple. These should be the grab and go people.
2. This person's work has not been reserved or shared and possibly more research is needed.0 -
Jordi Kloosterboer said: I don't think the engineers made the change. I think it came from higher up. The engineers just implemented it.0
-
Tom Huber said: I will repeat what I wrote in another thread.
FamilySearch, once a major change is released, such as this one, has not in the past every rolled back the change.
No matter how many times I complained along with many others. the change to the Help Center was not rolled back from the new Help Center to the old. It had, as I posted many time, become the HelpLESS center where a user had to guess at the right keyword to find what they wanted. The Help Center had become truly useless to almost everyone. Today, it is better, but far from what it was five years ago. Today, only if you are searching with a keyword an not selected a category, the chances remain that you may not find what you are looking for. But for the most part, the Help Center is not nearly as useless as it was for several years.0 -
Cherie Ailene Morgan said: Tom - And I will repeat what I said in response to you on another thread - please show me where I ever said the system needs to be rolled back to how it was.0
-
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Like this:
Instead of this:
0 -
Tom Huber said: You cannot rectify the situation that you see without rolling back the update. There is no other way around it. The only solution is to produce new code that will support what you want and that will take time, not to mention approval of the First Presidency.
See Jim Greene's reply in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... thread.0 -
Cherie Ailene Morgan said: Of course changes and modifications can be made without going to back to the old system. You just contradicted yourself in the next statement that new code has to be written. That's exactly what we're asking for.0
-
Tom Huber said: But what do you want? What change are you proposing?
Saying something needs to be modified is not enough. The proposal is precise and simple enough, it may be implemented fairly quickly, but if not and if there is only the suggestion to modify (what?) without details, then the thing will be kicked up the ladder to those who are involved with the decision making process.
I found a solution to one of the problems and that is the two functions of the green icon. But the solution involves the descendancy chart, since that was brought up as a problem (and a valid one). It took some thinking to see where a change would work without impacting the temple ordinance and reservation system -- that is not under the control of FamilySearch. The descendancy chart is.0 -
Tom Huber said: You mentioned you have suggestions. Make them, but don't make all the suggestions in one post. Just like reporting more than one problem on a case, only one problem will be addressed by support. It works the same way here. Make a separate discussion thread for each suggestion and the more precise you can be, then the easier it will be for us (and FamilySearch) to understand what you want.0
-
Cherie Ailene Morgan said: I have made them. I don't need to repeat them to you. The moderators and Engineers are capable of reading what has been posted on other threads.0
-
Robert Gary Hyde said: Right on0
-
Evelyn Morin said: Yes, I total agree!!!0
-
Grant Lyon said: I agree that the color codes could use some adjustment. Especially now that temples are closed to any proxy ordinances, I am looking to find and work on the profiles of people who have not yet been worked on and get them temple-ready. If I see Green, I assume that no one has worked on that person yet. But right now there are plenty of people marked as Green who already have completed profiles.
I admit that I didn't like the reds and browns of the old color scheme, but they had their uses. I think that FamilySearch could benefit from better color-coding to show what is going on with different profiles.0 -
Jordi Kloosterboer said: Don't look for where to do family history research based on temple ordinances. They are two different topics. Look for hints, or better yet, go through your tree methodoligcally.0
This discussion has been closed.