Font on new merge tool does not match other places on Familysearch
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
David Roderick McLean said: The new merge tool will improve the accuracy of familysearch. Yes, it will take some getting used to but is an improvement.
One of the issues that makes us unconsciously feel uncomfortable is the font choices. Since they do not match fonts on other places on the user interface, it seems like "something does not fit". Perhaps the new choice is better, but they should all match.
The font on the "not a match" reason statement also follows the same "new font" formatting:
One of the issues that makes us unconsciously feel uncomfortable is the font choices. Since they do not match fonts on other places on the user interface, it seems like "something does not fit". Perhaps the new choice is better, but they should all match.
The font on the "not a match" reason statement also follows the same "new font" formatting:
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Brett said: David
Although I have not yet experienced the NEW "Merge"/"Combine" process, which I might add that I am NOT looking forward to, the thing that is evident in images in all the recent posts in this Forum, is that NEW "Merge"/"Combine" process DOES NOT Match the rest of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch"; and, not just the 'Font".
In fact, I would suggest that that NEW "Merge"/"Combine" process more closely resembles a "Mobile" Application, rather than the ORIGINAL existing "Web" version.
And, I am NOT specifically just referring to the "Mobile" Application of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
'Perish the thought' ... I would hazard a guess that ... 'little by little' ... the ORIGINAL existing "Web" version of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" will become more and more like the actual "Mobile" Application ... I suggest, it is inevitable.
Such the desire for PARTICIPATION, regardless; and, as the possibility of latter generations being more comfortable with a "Mobile" feel, rather than the original "Web" feel.
Brett
.0 -
Gordon Collett said: It's pretty clear we are seeing the next iteration of the overall style of Family Tree. You can see more of the upcoming change on the popup summary card.
If I go to the detail page of a person with a possible duplicate and open the summary card I see the current style:
Enter the merge routine and open the summary card there by clicking on her name and I see the new style:
Overall I think the readability is improved. The name is smaller, but you can read more of it. Dates and places are larger and clearer. Getting rid of the black bar gives a lighter feel and lets your eyes focus first on the data instead of the bar. Making the card taller and narrower will let it stay fully visible longer as a browser window is narrowed. So I would say this is a positive change with some good reasoning behind it.
The only thing that really throws me is the new female icon. I can't figure out why she is wearing a nurse's cap.0 -
Christine said: And on my computer the font, reason statement moves soooo slowly!!! Either that or I just type too quickly!0
-
Chas Howell said: I've experienced the same thing, I think maybe the text is being transmitted live as you type rather than at the end with a save???0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Yep. That virus is even affecting our icons now!
:-)
On the serious side, yeah! Even though FS may not have ever developed a style guide to use, how is it that we can't even get the same person icons the same here?
Unless Ingeborg really WAS a nurse!
Where did the requirement come from where that icon had to change? It certainly can't be to help seniors with failing eyesight.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: And the window panels are square instead of rounded. This may be petty, but going to the merge tool feels like you have transferred to a different website or something.0
-
Gordon Collett said: I wonder what the time line is for the rest of Family Tree to switch over to this new style?0
-
Gordon Collett said: All you really need to see is whether the icon is pink or blue, unless you are color blind and can't see the difference. Then you have to rely on the males being bald and females having hair.0
-
Jocelyn Thomas said: See, I would argue that the new style is *not* as good as the old. Everything is close in size and in font, making it harder to distinguish at first glance. There's less visual divide.0
-
David Roderick McLean said: I agree. It appears that accuracy is a much lower goal to participation by the masses.
Your comment regarding the interface matching mobile application standards is very good. That is why it is so strange to me as an "old" guy.
0 -
Brett said: Never I hope ...
But, unfortunately, inevitable ...
Despite what many Users/Patrons WANT; DESIRE; or, need ...0 -
Brett said: Yep ...
Me too ...
But, unfortunately, inevitable ...
Despite what many Users/Patrons WANT; DESIRE; or, need ...0 -
J. Matthew Saunders said: Is this a common thing? Despite what many Users/Patrons WANT, DESIRE or need?0
-
Gordon Collett said: I have no idea how the programmers at FamilySearch plan, develop, and test design changes, but do keep in mind that last year 3,500,000 users worked in Family Tree ( https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/... ) and only a few complaints ever show up here. So apparently the vast majority of users aren't all that bothered be the updates.0
-
J. Matthew Saunders said: Or most just don't say anything or express their opinion and just go along with it....I see that the people that really raise their eyebrows at the problems are people that are heavily involved and do major things. They aren't just complaining, they really are speaking out and true listeners would actually reach out with more acknowledgement of what is going on....0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Gordon, your point is well taken, although I don't think I can agree with the conclusion.
I know a couple of people that get on the site when they can but that tends to be infrequently. Because of constant changes on the site, it seems that overtime they get on, things have been rearranged or something. Although they get very confused and frustrated about this inconsistency of the UI at FS, they don't get onto the forums to complain because of the very fact that it IS a large organization and they have no confidence in their complaints having any affect.
I try to encourage them to engage by using the forums ( I know that in these cases the Help Desk will not be of any benefit to them), but their solution is to just drop everything and leave the site completely when they get so ticked off. Sometimes they're gone for months. One person close to me who was already constantly upset because of unsourced GEDCOM imports totally destroying her ancestor's data again and again and again (she has copies of many vital documents), was pushed over the brink by the major re-arrangment of things on the details page over 19 months ago. She is now only occasionally returning to the site now.
So assuming that "the vast majority of users aren't all that bothered by the updates" based on the fact that "only a few complaints ever show up here" does not seem to be a really valid conclusion--at least not in my experience.0 -
J. Matthew Saunders said: And again why is there no acknowledgement from FS. If they really are listening then they would acknowledge it. I believe so many people do not stop and listen....0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: J. Matthew Saunders,
One thing that has constantly been a theme that I have seen (here and elsewhere) regarding what patrons want and desire, is to have a site that is NOT continually changing with sections being reinvented again and again.
I understand that the methods used in the development of this site are evolutionary, and to a certain degree that is necessary. I don't have a problem with that. But many of these folks only have the time to get onto the site occasionally, and due to the rapid evolution of the site, they inevitably run into undocumented changes in the UI that they have to figure out.
Around 1989 I began using PAF to record my genealogical data. I am still using it's current variation (i.e., Ancestral Quest). Although parts of the interface have been added onto, and features enhanced with additional data, the basic look, feel, and navigation of the tool hasn't really changed in over 30 years. In fact, I get the impression that with AQ now being a FS certified tool, they spend a LOT of their time having to adjust their tool to the constantly changing interface they must use to access the FSFT.
So it IS possible to design and maintain a very stable tool, but it is based on having a thorough understanding of the natural structure of the problems that the tool must help to resolve. I suspect that some of FS's challenges come from the fact that they DO have many developers, and a solid design can be quickly diluted by the opinions and desires of many (both experiences and otherwise).0 -
joe martel said: The new UI version of Merge is based on a new component library that will be rolling out to the various features over time. It's kind of the like the style change that the church just adopted and is slowly being rolled out across the pages on that site. Even Merge uses some components that may lag behind.
I'm not sure if the font discrepancy is a result of the unsynchronized rollout, or if its a bug. The team over Merge can check it out.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Thanks for the added info Joe! So it sounds like there is a global "makeover" in process. That indicates (to me at least) that differences in the "look and feel" of the feature is intended and will expand to other areas.0
-
Brett said: 'Yes', ... we (the Users/Patrons) get what we get ... whether we like it or not ...0
-
J. Matthew Saunders said: I didn't realize this until I joined just days ago.0
-
J. Matthew Saunders said: Joe, since you are listening or maybe we have your ear....maybe you could ask the team over at Merge to start listening before this becomes a bigger mess....the roll-out seemed very bad in my opinion, esp. when something is supposed to be better and improved. (maybe even more robust and clearer)
It felt cheaper, more unclear, visually messy and so on....many have commented on it. Things didn't even line up, which is very odd when trying to compare information. And I can tell that people were upset and ready to throw tomatoes...not really violent, but just very upset....
If you have ability to pass it on and ask them to start listening and acknowledge that we are here, that would be great!0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: J. Matthew Saunders,
In spite of sarcasm that can frequently appear in this forum (from myself included I must admit), I do believe that all things posted here are at least read by FS employees. I believe that they do consider these things. Although they might not respond, it doesn't mean that your suggestions are being ignored. It MIGHT mean that they've chosen to silently ignore it for whatever priority reasons that they have.
But in general, the "Feedback" gets to them, so it's always good to post feedback for the developers, even though they frequently don't have the time (or authority) to respond to each one.0 -
J. Matthew Saunders said: Thank you for taking time to talk about this, since I see that feedback is important and we should express ourselves on here. I see many valid points are made and some changes are taking place. When this merge change took place, which I saw as major, I guess I expected that someone would be ready for the "uproar" that was coming and have answers and express heartfelt understanding....0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Again, while trying not to be sarcastic again :-) I've seen behavior that appears similar to this in other companies I've worked at where some of the attitudes taken were along the lines of "There is always going to be lots of people that hate the changes simply because they are just always resistant to change". As a result, they will just blow off many complaints, which is unfortunate.
Since they don't want to say anything as rude as "your suggestion just isn't important enough for us at this time", they will either courteously deflect the issue, or they will just plain not respond at all.
I'm not saying that FS takes this approach, but as they say, "If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." then it is really hard to be convinced that you are dealing with an ostrich!
That is why it is always so great when we do get employee feedback here, as it helps us to understand what is really going on. And from that, we as forum members can help answer similar inquires from others so that the FS employees don't have to spend as much time doing it.
But I do admit that without formal responses, it is hard to believe that anyone within the FS organization is championing your cause.0 -
J. Matthew Saunders said: I actually believe people are open to change if it is done correctly. I guess I don't understand if you are over an area and a change is taking place you don't speak. A leader or head must SPEAK...or maybe I'm wrong....talking to people and interacting with people is how you learn and understand them and truly know what is going on.
One more thing on this change, that I really don't understand, is that immediately changes were being made to the tool once it came online, which makes we wonder did they really do their homework and test it out? I wouldn't imagine that so much would change in just hours really when things have been tested and tried and many have been able to give their opinion?
I believe real discussion should be going on and not just among us....0 -
Brett said: 'Yes' ...
There is a definite NEED for 'Worldwide' User/Patron "Focus" 'Groups' for, both, "Testing"; and, "Sign Off", BEFORE, (important) things are implemented in the "Production" ("Live") Environment.0 -
J. Matthew Saunders said: And I admit I'm a very detail person, so things that require a lot of detail 'checking' must be easy to read and have very clear detail. Also, as mentioned in other places about the merging, this should not be an easy point and click. People should have a screen that they can see all of the detail and cross check everything before it is merged. Some mobile devices are too small to do that and sometimes it may be all they have, but certain pieces are very critical and you really need to see everything you are doing.....0
-
joe martel said: Thank you for these comments. Every post is read by an employee, though there should be no expectation that the post will be implemented or responded to.
Personally, I like to hear what's working, but the power is hearing in what isn't working - because that's where we can make the most improvement in the feature and in user satisfaction. There are compromises but I do like your thought-out constructive comments and I have been following these since we started rolling out FS FT features. However, I have no authority to make anything happen.
As for advance testing. Merge and most new UI changes are designed by Product Managers and User Experience people. There are different level of expertise, and different business objectives for the various features. Merge was tested throughout its development with users. And you could have played with it while it was in development on the beta system. Someday I hope we could announce "hey go try this out".
Now testing is a fine art and every major change, no matter how much testing, is going to miss a test case, miss that user, and ship problems. Hopefully in due time the end result is such that users don't want to go back to the old way. Can we wait until the new code is perfect before we ship? Probably not, in the time frame that most users want and within a limited budget. Now some systems require more rigorous vetting (think medical and pharmaceutical products), and along with that long development times and huge investments in $ and time. Most web software is more nimble, and more fragile. We've all run into web sites that freeze, error out... It is a compromise. And in the end management decides when something flips to production.
But in summary, I love to hear your problems and constructive ideas.0
This discussion has been closed.