why do icons keep changing and why aren't they consistent across pages?
I logged in today to look at my 'following' list. The male/female icons next to names have been changed. Now they are different from the icons on the temple page, and different from the icons on the 'person/details' pages.
Why are there 3 different sets of icons?
It is well documented that changes such as these decrease the usability of pages and force the brain to focus on these differences, creating distracting and wasting cognitive cycles. Please just pick one set and stick with it on all pages. It is especially difficult for older users to have to process these differences and deal with unfamiliarity when we should be focusing on making contributions and not trying to re-orient ourselves with different views all of the time.
Comments
-
Jeff
.
I totally agree ...
.
Following
.
.
Pedigree (Landscape)
.
.
.
Individuals (Person/Details page/screen)
.
.
Consistency has always been a problem/issue ...
.
"Change", just for the sake of "Change", is so UNNECESSARY ...
.
Brett
..
0 -
Jeff
.
Even WORSE in 'Mozilla' "FireFox" ...
[ Take a look at the "Female" one ... ]
.
Following
.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Thank you Brett, you made my point about Firefox before I had even decided whether it needed making or not.
(I seriously cannot even work out how that Firefox icon can be corrupted like that.... Is the icon made up dynamically, but with incorrect calculations? If so, why?)
0 -
@Adrian, Firefox, Chrome and other web browsers all have slightly different ways to interpret code. This is an example of that that the programmers need to consider. As for the different sets of icons, FamilySearch is in the process of updating their whole site a bit by bit. Looks like they changed the newer icons to look different again with the person looking forward. On some pages, a more colored in version is more suitable than a grayed out version. I assume all pages in the future will be like the new ones, either fully colored in or grayed out, or partially colored.
0 -
A number of us have complained about inconsistent use in FamilySearch for icons, terms, links, action buttons, and so on. It became apparent to me a long time ago (years) that FamilySearch either does not have, or if they do, does not follow a style guide that dictates how various features are to be used.
The inconsistent use has resulted in a lot of complaints over those years that sometimes resulted in fixes.
The issue is still ongoing, and is especially troubling considering that the web version often uses mobile icons which may or may not be familiar to web users of the site.
We can keep complaining, but I'm not sure what, if anything, will be done. Over time, what was common among developers changes and that has also impacted how various elements used on the site are set up.
0 -
My Firefox icon is now fine, by the way... Maybe someone does read these pages!
0 -
Jordi is correct. FamilySearch is working toward addressing problems of inconsistencies using a systematic method. Site developers will now create new FamilySearch pages using almost exclusively a set of components that is shared across the site. This will enforce consistency. Think of it as when a developer goes to create a new page they have the same lego pieces to put something to something together as the rest of the site has. When everyone is using the same lego pieces, we can enforce that consistency consistency.
The problem we are seeing here is that the older pages that already exist are not built using are new lego set. Bit by bit, page by page, all of FamilySearch will convert to the new lego set, but over the next year or so you will notice a mix of old (and inconsistent design) and new. FYI the pink and blue icons with more detail, hair, etc. are the new icons, and you will see them be used more consistently as time passes. Please be patient with FamilySearch as we go through this period of transition. We think the experience will be a lot better when all is said and done.
0 -
Casey
.
Firstly ...
.
You appear to be from 'FamilySearch' ...
IF, so; THEN, 'Thank You' for joining in on this post.
.
Secondly
.
What you have said, "Sounds" good; and, makes sense ...
.
But ...
That said ...
.
Both of these apply ...
.
(1) the "KISS" principle ... keep it simple, stupid ... SIMPLICITY.
and.
(2) the old adage ... if it ain't broke, don't fix it ...
.
There seems to be too many NEW Young Programmers/Designers/Developers ...
.
There are too many NEW progamming techniques/ideas (ie. "Codes") ...
[ For some inexplicable and unknown reason, they ALL have to be, tried; &, applied. ]
.
'Yes' ... "Change" is inevitable ...
.
BUT ...
That said ...
.
"Change" for the SAKE of change, is NOT required.
.
And ...
.
Unfortunately, it seems that there is a 'feeling'/'push' that the (Old/Original) "Web" (Computer) version of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' MUST "Mirror" the (NEW) "Mobile" (ie. Smart Phones and Tablets) Application version of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
Far from the latter is the truth ...
.
In fact, just the opposite is the case ...
.
'YES', the (Old/Original) "Web" (Computer) version of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; and, (NEW) "Mobile" (ie. Smart Phones and Tablets) Application version of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', CAN have the SAME functionality.
.
BUT, the (Old/Original) "Web" (Computer) version of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; and, (NEW) "Mobile" (ie. Smart Phones and Tablets) Application version of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', CAN (and, SHOULD) have the DIFFERENT design and development - WITHOUT compromising functionality.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
ps: Each to their own ...
.
0
.
