How to confuse a genealogist
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Helen said: We would be very pleased if the programmers re-think these upgrades. It is very clumsy to get in to FS and I think people will lose patience trying to figure out how to get to the actual search screen.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Brett said: Helen
Firstly, "Welcome" to this "FamilySearch" ( "GetStaisfaction" ) 'Feedback' Forum.
Secondly, "Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives", do monitor; and, sometimes, participate in, this Forum.
Thirdly, I am just another User/Patron, just like yourself (and, happen to be a Member of the Church).
Many Users/Patrons who regularly participate in this Forum who have a great deal of knowledge and experience with "FamilySearch", like to assist/help other Users/Patrons like yourself.
Finally, totally agree ...
It would be great if "Family Tree" (and, the other Parts) of "FamilySearch" was DRIVEN "Solely" by the Users/Patrons, rather than the 'whims' of the Engineers/Programmers; especially, with new developments in coding that become available (eg. "Modal" Windows).
"Change" for the sake of change is NOT necessary ...
The old adage ... If it ain't broke don't fix it ...
Certainly, keep-up with the changing 'times' and developments; but, try NOT to significantly "Change" things, just to 'mimic' new developments (and, their 'suggested' design).
What "FamilySearch" really NEEDS to do is to reinstate the, World Wide, User/Patron, "Focus" Groups.
And, STOP the ALL inclusive, Design; Development; Testing; and, 'In-Line' Release, by the Engineers/Programmers.
Those who are part of the World Wide, User/Patron, "Focus" Groups, NEED to be part of the "Design"; "Development; and, Testing, processes in a BIG way.
There should be NO 'In-Line' Releases UNLESS "Signed-Off" by, the World Wide, User/Patron, "Focus" Groups.
It certainly might slow things down; but, would save a lot of the angst by Users/Patrons and much of the remedial work that is required to address/fix problems/issues of, the expectation of the Users/Patrons; and, the faults/flaws.
Oh; and, as just starting to happen now in this Forum (after repeated requests, I might add), be advised WELL in advance when NEW facilities or functions or changes or fixes, are made available in the "Beta" ("Test") Environment; so that, we (the Users/Patrons) can do some real "Testing" and provide 'Feedback' - PLUS, listen to; and, consider, our 'Feedback.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Let me put the opposite point of view. There's a lot that should never have been done with this release of the user interface - it should never, for instance, have been sprung on people. But...
Having menus that work as menus and not partly as menus and partly as links (if you know the secret handshake) is going to be less confusing to the new-comer.
For instance, getting to the actual search screen - you now click search and then choose which "stuff" you want to search. There are several different search screens, after all - there is, and was, no single, actual search screen. Yes, one came up but that was the Search / Records screen, not a single search everything screen.
Menus that work as menus is not something new - it's the way the vast majority of software has worked always. Doing the change was the right thing to do. Not warning people about the change, that wasn't clever.0 -
Gordon Collett said: Helen, I assume you are referring to the use of the Menu icon in browswer windows that are too narrow to show the full opening page or home page of FamilySearch or have browser settings that make the program think your window is too narrow when it is not. When the window is wide enough, the Search and Sign In buttons are right there where they have always been. Quite a few people have commented on this. We'll have to wait and see what the next design iteration brings us. In the mean time, with each new update, be sure to take the time to carefully exam every inch of the screen and test out any new icons or features. There are very few random marks on the screen. Almost everything there has a function.
As far as the design of the site, I have never read or heard anything about the design process. All I know is that if something gets mentioned on this site and does eventually get instituted as a design changes, it seems to takes six months to two years. So clearly this is a careful process.
Also, as far as changes to the site and our personal opinions about them, we do need to keep some perspective. The FamilySearch Infographic for 2019 says there are over 30,000,000 users of FamilySearch who have added 262,000,000 sources to FamilyTree last year. This GetSatisfaction site says 21,490 people have ever signed into this feedback board. There have to be less than 30 people who have complained about the update here. It seems like the process FamilySearch has in place is working just fine.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: That's a good point, Gordon. If the "hamburger" menu is the point at issue for anyone, then they are right to feel aggrieved about how it was sprung on them. It isn't remotely self evident - but neither is it particularly difficult to understand, I would suggest, *once* you understand what's going on. Yet again, the needle is stuck on my record of saying that people need to be warned about these things beforehand, through mass communication. (Needle stuck on a record?! Does anyone even understand that reference? Grin)0
-
Paul said: I guess I'm just an old stick-in-the-mud, but have to admit it is taking me a while to adapt to the initial left-click (on the item in the header) then to right-click against the item in the drop-down menu!
BTW - have there been any other changes relating to this? From SEARCH I just chose IMAGES, then entered "Durham, England, United Kingdom" and clicked on "Search Image Groups" and was rather overwhelmed to be presented with the below:
I was rather expecting something like this to appear (an extract from the page at https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...).
Has this "search option" for Images always been in place? Regardless, I think I'd rather find such results via the 3 URLs shown immediately above (and found on the England Research page under Image-only Historical Records) - or from any other Durham image collections that might appear in the Catalog.
Scroll through 16,780 results / links instead? No thanks!0 -
Gordon Collett said: Understand "Needle stuck on a record"? Unfortunately, yes!0
-
Paul said: Further to my last paragraph (above), it seems I HAVE been looking at a new feature. I just received an email from FamilySearch, titled "FamilySearch New Tool Unlocks Data in Digital Record Images" and the link provided (https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/c...) goes to the page in question. (i.e. the same URL reached by going to "Search" then "Images" in the drop-down menu.
It appears this will prove very useful, providing you narrow your search down to a specific place name. So by inputting "Monkwearmouth, Durham, England" I got a far more manageable (than example in previous post) 16 results - although additional searches are required on each of the standard place names applicable to this location (e.g. Monkwearmouth Tyne and Wear, Monkwermouth St Peter, etc).
Sorry to go slightly "off-topic", but this does show that advice from FamilySearch about new features really is necessary. Having said that, the email still only provides a direct link - it does not explain how go get there whilst in the main program - i.e. via the Search / Image route - using the new header / drop-down feature that is under discussion in this and other topic(s).
Returning to the topic title - "How to confuse a genealogist": how NOT to confuse them is by notifying new features and explaining exactly how they work!0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Actually, isn't vinyl supposed to have made a comeback? :-)0
-
Paul said: Taking your remark rather too seriously, Adrian, I recently visited a (major name) record shop in Chelmsford, Essex and could hardly believe the amount of vinyl (new stuff and re-releases) they had in stock! Not cheap, though! Think I'll stick to downloads and the occasional CD. (Better still, drop alternative rock and stick to genealogy!)0
-
Adrian Bruce said: "have to admit it is taking me a while to adapt to the initial left-click (on the item in the header) then to right-click against the item in the drop-down menu! "
Well, left-click to me is just "click". That's not meant to be a criticism of anybody, least of all Paul, I'm just trying to convey that for people who've had a life outside FamilySearch, the left-click is the default.
You only need to right click on the dropped down menu if you want to bring up the option in a new tab or new window - which, to be honest, is what I normally would do (except my mouse has a "wheel click" that auto brings up the target in a new tab. Just adding another option to muddy the waters!)0 -
Paul said: Adrain
You say: "Menus that work as menus is not something new - it's the way the vast majority of software has worked always."
I thought I'd try out a number of websites - both genealogy-related and general. You might find it surprising that I found (in a random check) that whilst roughly half do work in that way, the other half (including my local council website) do not. They still operate as FamilySearch did before the recent change - i.e. instead of a drop-down beneath the heading, clicking on the menu title (as in FamilySearch's Family Tree, Search, Memories, etc.) takes you straight to that page. It is from there that you choose the specific subject that relates to your enquiry.
Maybe the random examples I found did not reflect the overall position regarding most websites, but there still seem to be plenty sites around when a menu does act as a link rather than - a menu.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: I would say (and clearly I can't guess which sites you chose) that the sites that take you to a page with further links are perfectly normal because the links across the top of the front page are just a series of links. I reckon that's the original style of web page.
The front page of FamilySearch (so far as I remember) didn't just have the series of links (original style) but, if you hovered over the link long enough (rather than clicking it in some fashion) then the menu dropped down. So it was a combination of drop down and links.
Yes, you're right to remind me that web sites often just have a single level menu that is just a string of links. (Nice bit of analysis!). When I said "the vast majority of software" I was thinking of ordinary software that runs inside Windows, such as Notepad, etc.
So - typical software running inside Windows - drop down menu (please don't mention MS Office and its ribbon!)
Original websites - single level of menu, each item on the top line menu acting as a link. No drop down.
More modern websites - drop-down menus - no links on the top line.
FamilySearch - combination of the latter two - drop down menus but also with links on the top line that (usually?) went to the first item in the drop-down.0 -
Paul said: Thanks for expanding on this, Adrian. Has helped me understand the position a little better.0
-
Ron Tanner said: I apologize that the menu collapsing to a "hamburger" symbol (three lines) has been showing up more than we expected. The team is revisiting this and determining how they can make the menu more visible.0
This discussion has been closed.