Old Person Page availability and feedback
The option to use the old person page will continue until the end of the first quarter. The ability will end sometime after rootsTech. This will give more users time to adjust to the New Person Page and FamilySearch more time to make some of the smaller adjustments based on the feedback we receive.
This community group has been so valuable to this release. A big thank you to all of you that have taken the time to document problems and ideas.
We are still considering ideas for improvements and there is still a small list of issues we are working on. If you have an issue or idea that is important to you, please speak up in this group. I will try and give you a status update or let you know if a decision has been made.
Thank you again for all your efforts and influence in the community.
コメント
-
I am using the new person page. I like the Edit and Sources links being on opposite sides of the page - it was tricky to hit the right one on the old person page. I kept opening the sources when I wanted to edit and vice versa.
However I often have to go back to the old person page to amend places. When I try to amend a place on the new person page, it keeps reverting back to what it said before and I can't make the amended place stick.
2 -
@acroteria I'd love more detail on the place-picking flow that makes you go back to the old page.
0 -
I love the new page also. I only go to the old page to delete a "Note". That option is not available on the new page.
0 -
@David Slatter To delete a Note in the new pages just go to the box for editing the note and click delete:
2 -
I'm sorry, your right. It is under Discussion when it is a "Legacy Disputes"
There is no way to edit or delete it.
Most are so old the dispute has been resolved.
OLD
NEW
1 -
Will go down to my very last breath using the old layout. I do not like the new. At all.
Wish there was a way one could set which version to use as their default....something like the option one can have to setting dark mode/light mode. Yes, it's probably an impossible wish, but a wish nonetheless.
I'm hearing a voice in my head...."You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time".
11 -
@Pollytrick We've had six months to comment on the new pages, state specifically what was not working well, and give suggestions for improvement. The developers have been very responsive. The look of the new pages last March when it first appeared on the Beta site was much different than it is now.
But it still may not be too late!
If you want to be heard, post specific concerns and suggestions, one per discussion, as new comments here in this New Person Page group.
5 -
Thank you Gordon for your reply.
I think the issue for me, and one I will have to learn to contend with (with the new layout), is that I find the page layout messy and jumbled if you will.
As I've gotten older, I have come to realize that I show signs of wanting things organized in an orderly and symmetrical fashion - not full blown Symmetry OCD behaviour - but I am relaxed when I see things the way they should be.
In the old layout, information was presented in single columns, which seemed airy and orderly, while the new with its double columns of an individual's information coupled with another column of research help, search records, notes, etc is a bit overwhelming to me. Each section has too much crammed into too small a space. It's like the person's page had to adhere to only an 8 1/2 x11" size sheet of paper for all the information or would be penalized if it had to flow onto another sheet. And I realize "this" is the way of the world now - making things easy for people to do stuff on their 6" cell phone screen while sitting in the doctor's office waiting to be seen. Information has to fit without too much finger swiping.
So, I realize I will have to succumb, though it will likely take me a bit to adjust and settle in to the new layout. There is no need for me to pursue this any further. But, I do thank you though for allowing me to say something. It won't do any good, but it has made me feel like I have at least given my thoughts.
Good luck in your research!
Yours truly,
A Greenhorn, Pat
5 -
1
-
Hi, Pollytrick I have to agree, it is difficult to get used to the new set up. But I am glad you mentioned the phone/swiping thing because now I see where they are going.
Hi, lyleblunttoronto1, THANK YOU so much for the last comment. While busy holding out to the last day like Pollytrick, I had no idea you could have single column vs double column. I can live with the section order, I think but hey, that single column thing is a big help!!! Thanks again!
0 -
I’ve read dozens and dozens of comments in the various groups related to the individual profile design changes, so please forgive me if the following question has already been answered in this group. Regarding the new Person Page, the vast majority of comments I’ve seen were submitted by researchers and contributors with years of experience using FamilySearch on a near-daily basis, and—at least in the many, many comments I have read—most of the feedback expressed a strong preference for the “old” person page. Those contributors cited a variety of very specific issues with the design of the “new” person page in explaining that preference, as have I on several occasions. My question is this:
Is there a specific reason FamilySearch will not allow users to choose between setting the “old” person page and the “new” person page as their personal default view? Even if the design changes were in alignment with FamilySearch’s officially stated purposes and posted objectives in adopting the new format, in light of the large number of experienced, engaged users who have provided thoughtful, detailed feedback explaining the many legitimate concerns and problems posed by design choices for the “new” person page, why does providing that option appear to be out of the question?
I would greatly appreciate any information you might have in answer to my question.
Thank you,
Candice
6 -
@grace316shockley The brief answer as to why the old pages can't be kept as on option, we have been told, is that the code underlying them is so old and obsolete that they can't be maintained.
For an in depth discussion of why and a presentation of some of the great new features the new pages provide, see:
------- https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/whats-new-at-familysearch-in-2023
and/or
The presentations cover a lot of the same material but I think it was the second one, that has information about church related sections of Family Tree, that went into more detail about the underlying need to rewrite the pages.
1 -
I am not persuaded by this argument: "the old pages can't be kept as on option, we have been told, [because] the code underlying them is so old and obsolete that they can't be maintained".
When FS users/volunteers are asking for the old format to be retained, they are not opposed to any of the needed improvements or the newer "code" - they are simply asking for the "new" page to look like the "old" page as much as possible - because the latter was more elegant, had a clean look, the space was used more efficiently, and it was easier to use.
Why would the designer(s) of the new format feel compelled to change the fonts, font sizes, coloring, and positioning of various elements on the page? Was it just to make a personal mark on it, even though visually the old page was close to perfect? (That clean, well orgnized look was the main reason I and others became "addicted" to entering data on FS, and not on MyHeritage or some other platforms - and that's being taken away from us.)
Here are several changes that were made but are not helpful (and I doubt they were necessitated by the new code).
1) There was nothing wrong with having the LIFE SKETCH section where it was at the top. Now, it's been moved to the very bottom where most people may not notice its content.
2) Why were "VIEW TREE", "VIEW RELATIONSHIP" and "FOLLOWING" moved to the left side, and put right under the name of the person - when those things could have stayed on the right side where they used to be by themselves, easy to see and reach with a cursor? By keeping them where they were, the space in the upper section of the page would be used more efficiently.
3) Why was it necessary to reorganize and change the appearance of the VITALS section? In the new format, the names, dates and places are listed so close to their headings, and in such small letters, that it's difficult for middle-aged and older contributors to read them.
4) In the new format, the "OTHER INFORMATION" section is huge, and you have to scroll through it to get to the "FAMILY MEMBERS" section, which displays spouses and children - very important information that should be higher on the page, right after the "VITALS" section. Or just keep exactly like the way it was. (The only thing that could be improved would be to insert a line for alternate names directly under the name in the VITALS section - so one could see all names that the person was known by in one place.)
5) In the "FAMILY MEMBERS" section, the name of the person was in black and bolded, while their relatives' names were in blue. It worked very well - it made the names stand out from the dates below the names. In the new format those names are in black thin letters, just like the dates below -- it's not an improvement at all.
6) It was great to have the date and place of marriage placed between the husband and wife - it was making it very clear that those were the parents - two people who joined in matrimony on that day. But in the new format, the marriage information has been moved below the couple - why would that be? Moving such information to a different place on the page was not necessary, was it? Again, that's not an improvement.
7) In the "FAMILY MEMBERS" section, the "head circles" that have no photographs are now colored loud magenta/pink or blue to indicate gender. Those intense colors visually fill the space inside the circles, and it makes the section look very busy -- too colorful next to some black-and-white older photographs of other relatives. It is not necessary to fill those circles with intense color because each person already has a blue or pink bar next to their name. In the old format, those circles had grey male or female head silhouettes, and it allowed adjacent real photographs to be more noticeable.
Taken all together, those changes are unsettling and upsetting to those of us who are spending a lot of time entering thousands of people on FS and would like to use a page that is pleasing to the eye and easy to navigate. We are hard-working volunteers and our preferences and ease of use should be accomodated, or many of us we will just drop out.
I trust that it is not too late to improve the graphic design of the new format, so those of us who are unhappy with the current design can continue to contribute enthusiastically to FamilySearch.
13 -
I’d advise you to look through the discussions in this group. You will find many reasonable explanations for the design choices made. Please remember we are designing the page for a world audience with different languages, cultures, devices, and workflows.
Here are some quick answers to your remarks
1) Life sketch was moved because of its misuse of putting notes and warnings inside the field. This was renamed and linked to the Brief Life History on the About page to give it more prominence. Simply choose the publish check box to override the computer-generated text. Also, see the Alert Notes options.
2) Moving the view button makes them more consistent with different screen sizes.
3) The truth is the Font is a little bigger than the old page. We kept the data close together because we had many users tell us to display as much info as we can.
4) I’d advise you to move the sections to your liking. Using the My Layout Settings under tools. We’ve considered other changes, but we didn’t want to move too many things all at once. Users don’t like that.
5) Yes, the blue links went away. We are looking into more improvements to help with this in the High Contrast Mode under the My Layout Settings. We are still touching things up for users with older eyes.
6) Having the date between the couple limits the ability to show more information about the relationship. For example, We may want to show the marriage and divorce conclusions on the details page.
7) This is a very culturally bound opinion. Many people from other cultures believe the page does not have enough color.
0 -
@lyleblunttoronto1, I totally agree with @Ewa_Telazek's #7. For me the former Gray is preferable. Could the ability to turn off the head silhouette pink & blue color be a future option in Tools/My Layout Settings?
9 -
I also agree with @Ewa_Telazek's #7. Reducing color is preferable, as it was on the old page. The colored silhouettes are distractions from actual photographs and other information on the page.
I also hope that the font sizing can be addressed to be more consistent with the previous version. This would help with scrolling and white space.
Perhaps a graphic designer could develop a theme that resembles the old layout and offer that in the settings, or at the very least, offer a theme that pays more homage to the old layout in terms of font sizing and colors.
11 -
I provided comments months ago when the new version came out so I don't wish to repeat myself. I dislike the new page as I find it much slower. It is really taking my desire to do this away.
Also, there needs to be something for notes on the top of the data for each person. Often there is something that needs to be noted and looking at the bottom of the page for the life bio doesn't help. For instance, if a person has been merged and umerged multiple times because the same errors get repeated, no one can see that right away. If a user wants to warn someone off regarding something in the record (e.g., there are two families that lived within 20km with similar names, please ensure you are attaching the right records) that needs to be front and center.
5 -
@R.G. Bennett The Life Bio is the wrong place for this kind of warning. This is the exact reason why it was move to the bottom. Please take a look at the new Alert Notes feature, that was built for this kind of warning need.
6 -
@lyleblunttoronto1 I also agree with @Ewa_Telazek. The new format is too messy for all her reasons and more. I've said as much in this forum, as many others also have, yet we, the users, were NOT listened to. The font isn't the same size as the previous version, Especially the "Reason" section when adding info like Census Records showing Residence. It's TINY and difficult to read. THIS info IS important, because it shows a timeline for the person regarding Occupations, Ages, other People living in the household, and verification of how many children born to the mother. This had been the same size font as the rest of the entry.
What "Alert Notes" feature? Something that's buried in the right column and not easily seen?!? I had scroll and LOOK to find it! Alerts that are important need to be seen quickly and easily, hence, the reason for the warning added into the Life Bio section first seen at the TOP of the profile. It may be the wrong place for it, but those doing the research don't care if it is or not, especially when others keep making the SAME MISTAKES on that person, and others have to keep correcting those mistakes. Those making the mistakes aren't going to look at the "Collaboration" section or a buried "Alert Note" section. Perhaps you should take note of that fact and add that "Alert Note" at the top just above the "Brief Life History" section......
Clicking on a hint doesn't open a box with an easy "Review and Attach" button. It opens a larger, and slower, side box, which makes zero sense. When you close, the hint, it SLOWLY goes away, which is a waste of time.
Don't get me started on the complete MESS called the "About" Section, which has unnecessary duplicating info from the "Details" section. The ONLY Redeeming quality is the generated Brief Life History, and Timeline.
6 -
@JenniferBristol, the best use of the About section is to ignore its existence.
But regarding the Alert Notes, did you actually try creating one? The alert is right across the top, just below the profile navigation bar.
Clicking the underlined text of the alert produces a (movable) popup with the text of the note, plus a Show All link that does the same thing as clicking on Collaborate. There is also a new Notes box in the right-hand column of the Details page, after the search links but before the change log, which allows you to add a note right there, without leaving the Details page (unfortunately in yet another popup, but fortunately a movable one). The Show All link at the bottom of the Notes box is yet another way to get to the Collaborate tab, so I'm not sure what else could possibly be done to make this feature easier to get to.
Also, have you explored the first item in the Tools box? You can put the biography back at the top if you want. (But keep in mind that it's intended for a biography, not alerts.)
5 -
@JulieKlar "Perhaps a graphic designer could develop a theme that resembles the old layout and offer that in the settings, or at the very least, offer a theme that pays more homage to the old layout in terms of font sizing and colors."
I also find the new look messy, distracting, and harder for me to read than the current version, which leads to eye strain and the inability to work as long as I used to be able to work under the old format. I can adjust some of the problematic factors by changing the CSS with StyleBot, however I can only do so much. I can't adjust spacing, eliminating the empty space between entries, which is part of my issue with the new look.
Since there are some who love the new look (wish I was one of them), it would be nice if users were offered the choice between the new look and one that mimics the old version as closely as possible, allowing us to choose the appearance that we find most readable. It would be an option in much the same way as is the ability to organize the page view to suit our preferences (which is a feature I like, thanks for that).
5 -
Browsers can zoom in and out to adjust size of text, but that doesn't help fix the relative size between the fonts and excessive white space.
6 -
@RTorchia, I have page view set to 80%, which changes a lot of the bolder text to a size I find less distracting to read, especially on the Sources page. But it does make some of the font smaller than I'd prefer on the Details page.
I have "old eyes" but I do have decent near vision so I rarely have my glasses on when I work at the computer. I've no problem setting the view at 80% but it would help if font sizes were more in line with the old format, with less variation in size, so that I don't have to keep shifting back and forth between 80% and 90%.
2 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi A Lot more extra steps instead of making it more user friendly... An Alert Note is a nice feature, but hiding stuff where you have to search for it... Not so much This isn't an Easter Egg Hunt, it's a research site that needs to have LESS steps that waste time.
1 -
@LisaAlbert1 I have mine set to 100%, and it's NOW a challenge to read, when it used to be EASY. I'm VERY Nearsighted, and have to wear glasses to see anything clearly beyond 6 inches. Now, I'm also getting to the point of readers to see a computer screen clearly, too. Having lots of empty spaces, and different font sizes doesn't help whatsoever. The Previous version was MUCH easier on the eyes.
3 -
@JenniferBristol, I agree that the "drawers behind (double) cabinet doors" approach is not an improvement, but nothing is really any more hidden than it used to be. It's just not as familiar to you.
Regarding the readability/sizes, the numbers say that very little has changed: there are still the same two sizes and the same two weights of the same exact typeface in use. Some things that used to be the bigger size (such as reason statements) are now the smaller size, and vice versa (such as the labels of "Birth" and "Death" and so on), but the main conclusions haven't changed.
What has changed is the amount of room between lines of text; it has been greatly increased -- and no, I don't see that as an improvement. I've made a specific suggestion about an area where I think it's especially bad.
(I'm pretty much exactly where you are for eyesight: can't see without glasses past a half a foot, can't read with them closer than a foot, or further than a foot and a half.)
4
