current new page
today while working on things, i came back to refresh one of the pages, and the large colored name banner has been replaced with a much thinner gender indicative line
THANK YOU so much for this one change - it is so much easier (for me) to look at and see what i need to see
thank you thank you thank you to all
Comments
-
SO much better!!!
3 -
Oh, wow, now that is a vast improvement!
Thank you, FS!
4 -
They asked for feedback on the new page here are my thoughts. I will preface them by saying I am not even an "older person," I have kids at home, a job, and not a lot of time to do family history so I need to do it quickly. The new site creates significant friction for me.
- The research icons for suggested sources, duplicates, etc. are much harder to distinguish and cut my production time down by about 30-40% trying to sort between sources, suggested duplicates, etc.
- The go back to person function pops up a summary of the person on the right when I click the name. This is useless when I want to see the full record of the person.
- The two column format is not effective for reading. Think of it like a newspaper or magazine article, you read in short distances left and right but scroll up and down. Here you are trying to read back and forth which is much slower. The sequential order goes top to bottom--for instance start with name, birth, christening, death, burial is a linear process. On the new page, you have to jump back and forth and guess where on the screen this information will be found
- Side logos for Google, Filae, etc. are now small with a bunch of white space on the right. White space is not required, icons are easier to hit with mouse faster. Same with latest notes, etc.
- The family member's data is lighter in color sort of fuzzed out. The contrast of going from bright icons to small, harder to read names, and dates are annoying to adjust to as the user cross references data between family members. This is especially problematic when looking for duplicate children in the same family list.
- The add a spouse below makes the relationship to the family members more confusing in regards to whom to add it to or what the relationship is.
- Brief life history is better at the top for several reasons. First, users can place a warning here for merging. This has been very helpful for users since we don't then end up making a prior mistake which happens a lot. Also, the life sketch first helps draw interest in the person before reviewing the data which gives context to the person's life and family. This help create a better feeling of family with some people. I would suggest putting it back at the top and giving it a bit more space.
- The temple icon is easier to identify something to be done rather than a small green dot. The temple and other icons on the old version are much easier to use to target efforts on a specific record.
- Other relationships at the bottom is fine. Will likely be a feature I will not use.
Overall, my production will drop by 30+% if the new version is a forced option. It is neither user friendly, nor demonstrates any added value over the prior version. If a reason for making the visual bigger is for older eyes, all one needs to do is scroll with the mouse wheel to get a better size. I see no immediate value in the new layout and quite actually hate it. I'm not even an old person and really don't like this.
1 -
I wish I had been taking and keeping a full screen shot of the new Detail page from when it first appeared in Beta and through each update. It has certainly changed a lot. Staring at it with the newest version of the banner, I noticed that at some point the often posted concern about the increased length of the Family Members section has been addressed and it appears to have been tightened up somewhat because it takes just a little more room now than the old pages:
All fourteen children in the right hand column show now on both pages. I find the black font on the new page easier to read and find it interesting that being black makes it look larger even though the font on the old and new page is actually the same size.
4 -
Thank you so much - bye bye large in the face colored banner! However, after exclusively using the new version since the beginning of August, I have gotten used to the name and its info being centered. Not sure I care for it being moved back to its original old version placement.
1 -
@R.G. Bennett, regarding your number 7, have you even looked at the new layout in the last few weeks? Please do so. Using the biography for alerts is not only officially discouraged, but also completely pointless, now that we have the option of marking a note as an alert.
@YColeman, the centered name banner took me a week or two to get used to. I expect going back to left-aligned will be similar: by December, I'll hardly even remember about the centered version. I do think left-aligned makes better logical sense, in general. After all, we read left to right first, then top to bottom.
0 -
Regarding:
4) Side logos for Google, Filae, etc. are now small with a bunch of white space on the right. White space is not required, icons are easier to hit with mouse faster...
For ease of use, the target area for clicking is quite huge in the Search Records area as they are in many areas of Family Tree. There is no need to aim for the icons. As soon as you get into the clickable area, it turns grey and you can click. For example:
To jump to Findmypast, you can click anywhere in the highlighted area in the image.
The white space is just an unavoidable side effect of keeping the font and box size the same as the rest of the column.
2 -
Regarding:
5) The family member's data is lighter in color sort of fuzzed out. The contrast of going from bright icons to small, harder to read names, and dates are annoying to adjust to as the user cross references data between family members. This is especially problematic when looking for duplicate children in the same family list.
I'm not sure I follow this one. The list of the family under Family Members? It's hard to get an image here the size as on the actual web page so the image here is a bit larger, but here is a comparison of the old (on top) and the new (below):
The font is exactly the same size. I checked. The boxes are a little taller. I find the darker black text crisper and easier to read than the lighter blue color. Where are you seeing data that is lighter and fuzzy?
2 -
@Gordon Collett I do find the black text on grey background harder to read.
As I was reviewing your comments here, I saw the pictures you posted on the discussion thread.
https://community.familysearch.org/es/discussion/134025/jumping-thru-loops#latest
And based on the difference between those two pictures, what I noticed was the difference in colors in the second line.
In the first picture you have two lines instead of three.
Which I think it's better but what I realized it's that because of the contrast, the black text/grey background one was much harder to read than the white on blue from the first picture.
0 -
By the way, just to remind the people working on the banner, the newest version still cuts the top off some letters:
iMac, Apple M1, Retina Display 24-inch (4480 × 2520), MacOS Monterey 12.6.1, Safari 16.1
2 -
New banner, yes! Woo woo!!
0 -
I would still like to see the menu items that are in the Banner, moved to the current menu bar or if not enough room there, moved to a second menu bar on top of the current one that stays visible when you scroll down.
0 -
Great to see the results of listening to the users. The new more slender banner at the top is an improvement - allowing us to see more information without scrolling. I have heard a lot of complaints about the new design eating up too much space (particularly vertical space). I agree that there is still a little too much space being consumed by white space vertically. Here are some of my suggestions:
- Reduce the vertical white space between data items just a little bit. It doesn't take much of a reduction to make a pretty big difference where there is quite a bit of information on a page.
- If the "Headers" of the sections took a little less vertical white space that would move information up on the page.
- The amount of vertical white space in the Vitals area alone is responsible for moving information down the page for most users - even in the default (not Detail) view. There is also a ton of vertical white space in the "Other Relationships" and "Other Information" sections. And, as already mentioned by others in the "Search Records" panel.
Here is an example of how much vertical space might be gained in the "Vitals" section alone.
If the vertical white space could be reduced just a bit, we could see a lot more without having to scroll as much.
3 -
@Gordon Collett, they could fix that issue if they reduced the size of the font. I'd rather see that than the banner's size increased to fit the text. As I wrote on another thread, greater changes in fonts used on the same page are problematic for those of us with presbyopia (old eyes). We have to move closer or father from the screen, or tilt our heads to focus through the right part of our glasses to read the words clearly, which can give rise to headaches, neck strain and back ache. I'm not saying that all text should be the same size, but I prefer the font sizes used in the previous versions for the above reasons. I don't have the same issues reading info as I do in the new version.
I love the new, cleaner banner, too! Thanks for that change!
0