Unable to highlight and copy from the Details page
With the new format, I find that now I am not able to highlight and copy from the Details page without having to open a new pane. In the past, I could just highlight whatever fields I wanted to copy, but now there is a new pane for each field.
This impacts me as an arthritic seasoned senior. Now there are several more clicks added to get the information...opening, closing, etc. the panes. It would be less painfull and be more efficient for the user if you could remove the extra clicks programmed into this new format.
Why can't we just be able to copy the information without having to open and close panes?
コメント
-
A large number of the most experienced and frequent users of genealogical applications are older adults, frequently past retirement age. Yet at that stage of life, computer usage becomes less easy for older users (and those with younger versions of the same limitations). Most people experiencing such reduction in various functions such as pains of movement, the reduced visual acuity, etc., have learned to adapt in day-to-day life as best they can, and not be noticed by others.
There is little to no apparent consideration for certain visual, motion or pain limitations. Accommodations such as font size and type, inverting colors ("dark mode"), and consideration of which colors are most problematic for those with color blindness make all the difference in the world. The experience in the above post by @Unabletodisplay is not at all rare - mouse clicks and finger/hand movements required ARE significant to many users.
FamilySearch seems to have abandoned the long accepted beta testing before rolling out to the general public. There was an excellent reason for doing internal testing first, then beta testing with a larger group of people to use what had become tentatively "finished" software. That stage ensured even better functionality of the software with more usage by a larger number and variety of users (giving greater objectivity). Beta testing with users WITH limits in their functionality would help considerably.
Instead of discovering and fixing the majority of issues through beta testing BEFORE rolling out a new program, we've been told to provide real-time feedback to engineers. There are far more users than ever involve themselves in the Community simply because they have no idea that the Community even exists, let alone know how to use it. Many of us would welcome the opportunity to provide that feedback, knowing that it was specifically intended to result in a far better program in the end. Just throwing the changes "out there" for everyone to experience and unwillingly become beta testers drives people away.
All of this continuous change is having considerable impact on people's willingness to continue using FamilySearch.
Bring back widely spaced, well beta tested changes, along with a summary page explaining what changes have been made, and how to navigate those changes.
Just my 2¢....
--Chris
4 -
For instance, the 21 year old car salesman didn't have a clue what I meant when I said that the raised placement of the car's infotainment display was less than ideal for anyone who wears progressive glasses. He did not understand why I couldn't clearly read the screen glancing out the side of my lenses, that I had to look squarely at the screen and tilt my head up to have the screen appear in focus. I gave up trying to explain it to him. (and bought a different car with a better set-up.)
2 -
Ah yes.... The non-focus lack of correction to the left and right side of the middle teardrop of progressive lenses. Perfect example! Those that don't know, don't know! Been there, done that. 😁
True professional service includes listening and comprehending what the client or user is experiencing, and what the "objection" really is. Without understanding what a potential customer's objection is, a sale isn't going to be made. And in this case, not listening to and making sure they understand what the FamilySearch users' experiences really are, is to lose users.
--Chris
3 -
@Unabletodisplay, getting back to your actual post, you might want to develop a full explanation of how you work in Family Tree and why you need to copy all the information. If you post your workflow and your rational for that work flow and enough users work in that same way, that may lead to action on the structure of the web page which is preventing that work.
In the meantime, if you generally copy a lot of Vital or Other information from a detail page by copying and pasting, try going first to the new print option: Person Details. To do this, scroll down to Tools, choose Print Options, choose Person Details. This will open the following type of page:
While the intent of this page is to print a well formatted copy of the detail page or to save it as a PDF, you can highlight everything on the page and copy it, except for the Family Members section which does not copy very well.
For example, if I highlight this block of text:
I can copy the entire thing at once and paste it here, using "paste and match style," to get this:
Birth
12 December 1807
Corse, Gloucester, England
Christening
10 January 1808
St. John the Baptist Church, Eldersfield, Worcestershire, England
Death
8 June 1894
Smithfield, Cache, Utah Territory, United States
Burial
10 June 1894
Plot: C -5-10, Smithfield City Cemetery, Smithfield, Cache, Utah, United States
Depending on exactly what you are doing, this may be more efficient than what you used to do.
(By the way, one of the presentations at RootsTech mentioned this Print Person Details page and stated that it was developed in response to user requests to be able to print the detail page. The presenter himself admitted that he was rather surprised that so many people wanted to print the detail page on paper. This again points out that if the developers understand the need for a feature, they really do try to help us out.)
4 -
Gordon Collett, why would I have to basically do a print preview (more clicks with the mouse) to be able to copy information off the Details page? On the previous version of FS, I just highlighted what I wanted to copy, then paste it where I wanted in other applications.
BTW, I only wanted to copy and paste the birth and death information. For example, if I wanted to copy that same information from a Find A Grave memorial page, there is no problem doing that. Highlight, copy, paste. Even though I have editing privileges there, I don't have the same problem of copying text from that page as I do on FS and triggering an Edit.
I must admit that I have discovered the problem in FS. If you notice the gray box around the birth information on this first example. It is the edit box and triggers the edit feature if you click anywhere inside of it. If you avoid clicking in any and all of the boxes on the page (second example), you can copy and paste without impunity. In my humble experience, I've never had to do this on any other Internet page... The ordinary user usually puts the cursor next to the information one wants to copy, but on FS that will trigger an edit instead of a copy. How can FS make it so that an ordinary copy paste request works the same on this page as any other page on the Internet?
0 -
That grey button does not trigger the edit box. Only the pencil triggers the edit box. The large button triggers the new Data View pop up that allows one to view the data and all its sources without editing. The programmers do seem to make buttons as large as possible for ease of use of the site. And their focus does seem to be more on making it easy to get data into Family Tree and to evaluate data in Family Tree rather than to get data out of Family Tree.
Nice to see you found that it is still possible to highlight and copy the data.
2 -
I admit that I haven't done much on WikiTree lately, but I did explore the Print Options -> Person Details page, and it worked pretty well for transferring details. It opens in a new tab, which I can stick next to the WikiTree tab, and then I can work back and forth easily.
What it doesn't work for is sources: I cannot find a way to select a source's title without editing it, for example. I tried the "Family Group Record With Sources" option, but it generates a PDF in which nothing is selectable. If I try, either nothing happens or the text turns into gibberish.
I agree with Gordon that FS's focus appears to be on the opposite direction: they want to make it easy to put data in, and sometimes, this comes at the cost of making it hard to get data out.
1 -
Had to check copying source title out. I found that if you go all the way to View you can also highlight and copy the title:
which is the same number of steps as going to Edit but without the risk of accidentally changing something.
0 -
My dear friend, Gordon Collett, I do not see the "gray button" you are referring to in my example of the difficulties of copy and pasting from the Details page. However, if you are referring to the "gray box", may I ask you to initiate the "gray box" with the cursor and then click anywhere inside it. You may find that if you do, it triggers the edit function. Therefore, if you are trying to highlight the text within the box, it opens a preview edit pane/window. The edit pencil is contained in the "gray box" not as a stand alone icon. That's the problem.
0 -
@Unabletodisplay I understand your complaint, but I offer a couple of clarifications to this comment.
In my humble experience, I've never had to do this on any other Internet page... The ordinary user usually puts the cursor next to the information one wants to copy, but on FS that will trigger an edit instead of a copy. How can FS make it so that an ordinary copy paste request works the same on this page as any other page on the Internet?
First, although most Internet pages do allow a simple copy of text, there are some prominent sites that work the same as FamilySearch in this regard: GMail (and multiple other Google app sites), Spotify, Netflix, etc. On all these sites, clicking on text is interpreted as an action, and so dragging to select text is not allowed. I'm not making a judgment as to whether that behavior fits each user's intent, but I'm just clarifying that it's not the case that simply selecting and copying text is available on "any other page on the Internet."
Also, as @Gordon Collett pointed out, clicking in many of these places such as a vital event triggers a view popup and not an edit, but that distinction is not particularly helpful to someone who hopes to easily select and copy text. The new behavior may be appreciated by someone who wants to see the details available in that data view popup, but clearly necessitates more steps for someone like you who wants to copy text. The challenge in any user experience is understanding the different intents of various users and striking the proper balance in facilitating those intents.
0 -
Again, I find it interesting that this issue may be pointing to a generational/age issue. Those that have been using Windows (and I presume Apple) operating systems since very early in their existence, and began to rely on word processors for documents, also learned to click, drag, highlight, copy, and paste. That was "the" way to copy and paste. "Everybody did it that way!" It was pretty much the standard.
I note the examples you provided (Google products, Spotify, Netflix, etc.) are all much more recent additions to the wide range of programs used by people. Older (i.e. longer term computer users) got used to what they were using in the way of word processors, etc., and how those programs behaved. But newer users (less than two decades of computer use perhaps) tended to use and adopt some of the newer sites, applications, etc., and therefore that became their norm, which include different behaviors in program use, as you pointed out.
Perhaps it would be well for FamilySearch to be more heavily weighting the input of older users (i.e. longer experience with computers) and incorporating that input with more "weight" when deciding on how things work. The more experienced users (by definition chronologically also older) tend to be more resistant to change at least in part because of long established habits, whereas younger users tend to be less resistant to change at least in part because they don't have the long established habits that older users do.
So is this an age issue? I would argue that it most likely is, at least in part. But who's using genealogy software and doing the deeper research that requires such "older" techniques as "click, drag, highlight, copy, and paste?" I would expect it's more heavily weighted toward older users. Therefore the case could be made that when complaints start stacking up with statements similar to, "that's the way I've always done it," or "I've never seen it work that way," we're also seeing evidence of an experienced user whose habits are well established. And changes to how things work make FamilySearch/ Family Tree less easy to use, therefore less enjoyable, and the result is decreased motivation. The longer established users will tend to sit in front of a larger monitor using a laptop or desktop, as opposed to using smaller devices, and that further perpetuates the use of "how it's always been done." Thus a legitimate case can be made for having mercy on the older users 😉, not so much due to their age, but due to their long established patterns of use, and the high percentage of older users.
Just my 3¢ (inflation, after all).
--Chris
0 -
This feedback of copying text came up several times during the trial period. We reached out to several of the users that gave feedback and after explaining what would have to change they said it wasn’t that big of a deal. That being said we did make it easier to copy the text.
The problem is each conclusion is one big button with lots of text. If you are copying the text from a button you have to click outside of the button and drag over the button. This does work and we formatted the copied text better than it was.
Making the conclusion to be not a button would remove the highlight on hover, and force us to choose a smaller target to open the information. I'm sure there would be complaints about that change.
1 -
As someone I believe in another thread said the other day, trying to do web design for a site like FamilySearch is at best a significant task. I acknowledge that, and appreciate your additional insight. There is not a good "best answer" in too many cases.
At the same time, please also keep the generational/age issue significantly in mind. I took my first computer programming course in 1966 with Fortran IV when there was no such thing as a monitor - just a large stack of individual punch cards, one for each line of code, then wait several hours or more to get a stack of printed out paper results to wade through as the output. (Which dates me considerably. 😁) So I'm neither computer illiterate nor unaware of the complexities of programming, alpha and beta testing, etc. But I also am aware of the changes in how my brain works (and those of others with more than a few decades of experience behind them), and just hope that issue will (continue to) be a relatively front-burner issue as decisions are made. Please remember the large percentage of people that use computers for very few things, but learned how to use genealogical software many years ago due to a passion, and still do. They tend to be less
flexibleadaptable than 25-30 year olds.Thanks.
--Chris
0 -
OK...I guess I should have been listening to my kids that I need to pack up my Apple IIe and upgrade to using 3.5" floppy disks... Did I mention we added another disk drive so that we now have TWO?!? One to read and the other to save my files to... At least it was a step up from the Fortran and punch cards. What's that Google products, Spotify, etc. stuff you're talking about? 🤐
2
