New icon colors

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Yes, in other threads I have stated that we are working to change this and make the two blue colors more distinct. Thank you all for your feedback.

LegacyUser

Earl Garrett Morris said: To Jim Greene,
I assume from reading the many posts recently on FS icon color changes that you are the one to whom we should make observations and send suggestions.

In the many posts you have received on the unpopular move (s) made to change the appearance and function of FS icons you have never shared a definitive reason as to why the changes were made. If it was just to jazz up FS it did not work. But that would have been an easy thing to confess to and that did not come back as a response. Are the Brethren unhappy that so many of us are sharing names with the Temple system? Or are they even privy to what is going on?

Of the the names I share with the Temple system I receive messages almost every day that ordinances have been completed somewhere in the world from my submissions. Of course that is not true in this pandemic time.

To say that the "Temple" system has sufficient names and the Church does not need any more names submitted is a response that should come from the Brethren. I would assume that as long as the world lasts, and millions need to be "found" and have their ordinances performed, and we still populate the earth with Temples, we would never be told to "cease and desist".

As an avid, daily, researcher in the Descendancy mode, I have never been told to "cease and desist". If this is where things are in the Church then just a very simple response from someone in authority (the Brethren) would suffice for me to cease what I am doing. We all have our places in our lives, and some of us are looking for constructive things to do and this has become my focus and passion.

It is just not right to make these strange and unnecessary changes, which, essentially, stops us in our tracks, and then leaves us in the dark.

Please, this time do not just remove my post from the "message list" but give us the courtesy of sharing what is really going on which is an answer so many of us are seeking.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Also, if we could get a clarification as to who Tom Huber is and his connection/association with you. Why is he chiming in on so many posts with such an authoritative tone?

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Tom is just like any other user who posts on here. He is not an employee. He usually states that.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Although some FS employees do monitor this forum and read all the postings, they frequently don't have the time to be constantly responding to everyone, especially if the same question gets asked by 10 different people over a period of time. The advantage here in the forum is that many of the non-employees such as Tom have monitored a lot of problems that have been reported and discussed here, and have a lot of knowledge about questions that are repeatedly asked here. Many bugs tend to be found and reported by the non-employee members on the forum.

So when folks come on and ask questions, it might be 2-5 days before an employee could respond, and if they have already responded in another topic discussion on the same subject, they likely don't have the time to repeat themselves saying the same thing to 10 different threads.

So many of the non-employees that have participated in these discussions will volunteer responses to questions asked. That way the person can get a response very quickly. Also, if there is a bug interfering with the tool working right for them, the non-employee may also have gleaned or developed "work-arounds" that can be used until the bug is fixed (IF it is fixed).

One last item, this is a "feedback" forum. So there are a lot of requests and suggestions that come in. These suggestions will typically be discussed between the person submitting the suggestion and forum members here. New ideas can come out of those discussions. Frequently, after getting some informed feedback here, the person making the suggestion may withdraw their request, change it, or want to discuss with the forum members what other possibilities might be available if there are issues with their original idea. FS employees monitoring may just record these "refined" ideas to submit to the engineering groups and not even respond at all on the forum.

If the non-employees that work to assist others in understanding issues with the tool were not responding to these discussions on the forum, a LOT of people could be walking away in confusion with no answers or responses at all.

LegacyUser

FamilySearch Moderator said: Tom is a community member, just like everyone else. He is not an employee, but takes the time to make himself aware of the issues and answer appropriately. We rely heavily on Tom and many other community members to lighten the load that would be placed if employees were required to do this.  Thank you Tom and all you others, keep it up and don't get discouraged. This is what community support is all about! As moderators we will work to support you so that this is a friendly, kind and welcoming place.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Jim: HELP!!!!!
You mentioned that you were asking the engineers to look at going back to two cclors, one for names that can be requested and are unreserved, and the other being one for names that are shared w temple but can be requested.

I was disappointed to see that the "new update" shows a dark green/aquamarine color for names to share w temple, but they have reverted back to making it so that no one else can request them. Why did they do this? All names that are shared w temple should be able to be "picked off" and claimed by anyone else.

Have I missed something here, because that is what it looks like to me. so a step backward in my mind. Can we get that fixed? You dont want to go back to the old system of having to send an email to someone asking them to release the name to yourself. HELP
PS I came back to this forum because I am concerned about this "update."

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Greg, I am not seeing what you are seeing. The dark green/aquamarine color is the new shade of blue, in progress, to differentiate it from the light blue of hints. Can you check your legend and verify this? While the discussions are happening I am not aware of a decision, let alone any action being taken on having two greens.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Jim
I only noticed this after the new update to the iphone fam tree app.
for example look at lavinia hassell LC3C-ZGK
she needs sealing to spouse wm colbert. it has an dark green color and says reserved 2009 but also shared w temple. the "reserve" button does not show up: you cannot reserve that name even tho it says it is reserved w temple.
so have we gone backwards?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: RIght next to where I says "Shared with Temple" It says "Printed" That means that a temple somewhere has printed it and it is in their on-hand inventory, so it is no longer able to be reserved. Thus, the blue color for "In Progress".

LegacyUser

Christine said: Jim, ALL of my shared with temple are now blue. Even those not printed. See Ida Mosby LK1W-L87. Iniatory is blue, shared with temple, printed. Endowment is blue, shared with temple, not printed. William Tomlin LCT8-C9N, blue, shared with temple, not printed. I am not sure what has happened. I am hoping this is a bug and that as soon as proxy work starts again someone will be able to do any of my relatives (50) I have shared. I have some I shared 5 years ago!

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Jim, there was an inconsistency mentioned in the past (which was true), but as of right now, my Shared list shows all persons in the list as "In Process". The profile ordinance page shows the same "in Process" icon and the print option is grayed out.

Others will see the green icon, but not me, for the persons in my own temple list.

I've opened a new discussion thread to get this addressed (https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...)

LegacyUser

Christine said: Ahh, so for me they are blue but for you they are green? So you could reserve and print mine?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Yes, that is the design. See my other response to you, and the blog article: https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/updates-to-temple-ordinance-reservations/
Once you share them with the temple they are not yours anymore, they are the temples, unless you unshare them.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: But, you are also forced to unshare the shared names before you can take them to the temple. And until one can share/unshare individual ordinances, there are related problems that should not exist, but do.

The problem is that once we share a name and the related ordinances, they are blue to indicate in process, but in reality, they are not in process, but just sitting in a very long list. Until the ordinances are actually pulled by the temple or another user reserves and prints an ordinance card, they are not in process.

I do not believe that this was thoroughly thought through because it creates an unusual situation for the user who initial reserved and shared the ordinances with the temple. Because we cannot, at the present time, share/unshare individual ordinances, if we want to perform a set of initiatory ordinances for our relatives, we must wait until we have completed the ordinances and then we can share the rest with the temple. At that point, we just sent the rest to the bottom of the temple list. They do not revert to their original place in the list.

LegacyUser

brentsweeny said: having read through all of this discussion so far, I don't think I've seen my concern with the new color scheme addressed. Probably like many users here, I want to see the ordinances completed for these individuals, but once they're in the temple queue I don't feel like I have to personally do them--I have (many) hundreds of my closer family members to complete, and am content to make sure that much more distant relations for whom I've cleaned up the families and added documentation are in the queue. So when I see a green icon, I have to follow up every one of them to make sure those ordinances are actually submitted rather than 'request'able. And that's the distinction that concerns me: If it's in the queue, I'm satisfied. If it's not, then I want to be able to get it into the queue. But I have to go to the ordinance page for every one of those to check it. Previously, the red icon communicated to me that they were in the queue, but the green only confuses the status for me, because it now means two different things (yes, I understand that to you it means that someone can grab it and do it, but to some extent the red icon meant that too, though the 'grab' was more complicated, and for simplifying that part I'm grateful.) I think that my concern could be satisfied either by going back to different colors for the different status of 'available', OR (maybe more simply) by adding to the popup text when hovering over the ordinance that it's been requested AND is available. Is that distinction worthwhile? It certainly would be to me. Thanks for listening to us, and for continually making it better!

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Brent
You have the SAME CONCERN I have tried to express w variable success. I agree completely w what you are saying and what we want done regarding temple icon colors for persons needing temple work who are Unreserved to be DIFFERENT from persons who need work done but are ALREADY SHARED w the temple.

LegacyUser

Denise Marie Sorensen said: Absolutely agree with you.