PC Genealogy programs; bland!

[tev]

I agree completely.

While it's important to have a solid piece of software, it's that extra bit of polish that makes it feel like a professional application, and more pleasant to use.

I think the problem arises from the fact that most developers, sadly, don't have much design experience. The result is that the app ends up looking like an old DOS app, since they use the standard interface from Visual Basic. Often when a developer tries to add color, they use bright primary colors on buttons, with no unifying theme.

Reading this, you may think I am just a design snob, but a good UI is about more than just looking good. It is about things being labelled well, easy to get to, with a good layout... *and* looking good.

Products like Family Tree Maker are big business at this point, I don't see any reason they can't affort to hire a UI designer to add a little class to their apps.

It is always true that function is more important in an app than form, but if you have *both* it is much better than just function.

Just my two cents.

[Susan D. Young]

Can you provide some examples of what it is you are looking for in a design?
A "bit of polish" in the user interface leaves a lot of room for
interpretation. For instance, have you determined that you would like links
to children accomplished by way of web-style clickable buttons, or
flash-style drop-down menus listing children's names rather than the
standard children's list that seems to appear on most programs' family
screen?

I am genuinely curious about this. Being an artist my visual sensibilities
are skewed using most of the programs on the market, today. But, being a
genealogist, primarily, I am after a data storage program that permits fast,
accurate data-entry with logically-designed yet flexible reporting options.
Consequently, I will choose function over form every time.

There have been quite a few comments about the user interface style but I
have noticed that not too many have actually formulated a specific design
solution.



----- Original Message -----
From: "tev" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:59 PM
Subject: PC Genealogy programs; bland!

I agree completely.

While it's important to have a solid piece of software, it's that extra
bit of polish that makes it feel like a professional application, and more

pleasant to use.

I think the problem arises from the fact that most developers, sadly,
don't have much design experience. The result is that the app ends up

looking like an old DOS app, since they use the standard interface from
Visual Basic. Often when a developer tries to add color, they use bright
primary colors on buttons, with no unifying theme.

Reading this, you may think I am just a design snob, but a good UI is
about more than just looking good. It is about things being labelled well,

easy to get to, with a good layout... *and* looking good.

Products like Family Tree Maker are big business at this point, I don't
see any reason they can't affort to hire a UI designer to add a little class

to their apps.

It is always true that function is more important in an app than form, but
if you have *both* it is much better than just function.

Just my two cents.

______________________________

[Hugh Watkins]

I agree most computer screens are pretty ugly
and the web is the death of typography

I stick with FTM2005 because you can see 3 generations on one screen
at data entry time
and you may chose many other views by custom making trees

Then you should be able to do everything without using the mouse if you wissh

and you can if you take the time to learn the keyboard short cuts



Hugh W

On 7/11/05, Susan D. Young <[email protected]> wrote:

Can you provide some examples of what it is you are looking for in a design?
A "bit of polish" in the user interface leaves a lot of room for
interpretation. For instance, have you determined that you would like links
to children accomplished by way of web-style clickable buttons, or
flash-style drop-down menus listing children's names rather than the
standard children's list that seems to appear on most programs' family
screen?

I am genuinely curious about this. Being an artist my visual sensibilities
are skewed using most of the programs on the market, today. But, being a
genealogist, primarily, I am after a data storage program that permits fast,
accurate data-entry with logically-designed yet flexible reporting options.
Consequently, I will choose function over form every time.

There have been quite a few comments about the user interface style but I
have noticed that not too many have actually formulated a specific design
solution.



----- Original Message -----
From: "tev" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:59 PM
Subject: PC Genealogy programs; bland!


I agree completely.

While it's important to have a solid piece of software, it's that extra
bit of polish that makes it feel like a professional application, and more
pleasant to use.

I think the problem arises from the fact that most developers, sadly,
don't have much design experience. The result is that the app ends up
looking like an old DOS app, since they use the standard interface from
Visual Basic. Often when a developer tries to add color, they use bright
primary colors on buttons, with no unifying theme.

Reading this, you may think I am just a design snob, but a good UI is
about more than just looking good. It is about things being labelled well,
easy to get to, with a good layout... *and* looking good.

Products like Family Tree Maker are big business at this point, I don't
see any reason they can't affort to hire a UI designer to add a little class
to their apps.

It is always true that function is more important in an app than form, but
if you have *both* it is much better than just function.

Just my two cents.

______________________________

--
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=lapham
one-name study with over 2000 LAPHAM amongst 3800 individuals and 1000 marriages

soc_genealogy_britain_moderated
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sgbm?hl=en

My new photo blog
SNAPS http://slim2005.blogspot.com/

[Paul Blair]

FTM2005 is a most curious beast.

1. They took "buried at" off the main screen - not at all a good move.
And the "3 generations" names up the top could be provided in full, not
the half-witted way they are.
2. They crippled the web page output to 2000, so that's not much use.
But as it seems the only place to "make" them is in their space, it
doen't really matter to most.
3. They have kept some of the old screens (eg calendar)
4. They did fix the date format, though. Bet that annoys the US citizens!
5. You can't amend the general reports.

I'll install it for people who want it, but not for me!

Paul Blair
Canberra



Hugh Watkins wrote:

I agree most computer screens are pretty ugly
and the web is the death of typography

I stick with FTM2005 because you can see 3 generations on one screen
at data entry time
and you may chose many other views by custom making trees

Then you should be able to do everything without using the mouse if you wissh

and you can if you take the time to learn the keyboard short cuts



Hugh W

On 7/11/05, Susan D. Young <[email protected]> wrote:

Can you provide some examples of what it is you are looking for in a design?
A "bit of polish" in the user interface leaves a lot of room for
interpretation. For instance, have you determined that you would like links
to children accomplished by way of web-style clickable buttons, or
flash-style drop-down menus listing children's names rather than the
standard children's list that seems to appear on most programs' family
screen?

I am genuinely curious about this. Being an artist my visual sensibilities
are skewed using most of the programs on the market, today. But, being a
genealogist, primarily, I am after a data storage program that permits fast,
accurate data-entry with logically-designed yet flexible reporting options.
Consequently, I will choose function over form every time.

There have been quite a few comments about the user interface style but I
have noticed that not too many have actually formulated a specific design
solution.



----- Original Message -----
From: "tev" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:59 PM
Subject: PC Genealogy programs; bland!



I agree completely.

While it's important to have a solid piece of software, it's that extra

bit of polish that makes it feel like a professional application, and more
pleasant to use.

I think the problem arises from the fact that most developers, sadly,

don't have much design experience. The result is that the app ends up
looking like an old DOS app, since they use the standard interface from
Visual Basic. Often when a developer tries to add color, they use bright
primary colors on buttons, with no unifying theme.

Reading this, you may think I am just a design snob, but a good UI is

about more than just looking good. It is about things being labelled well,
easy to get to, with a good layout... *and* looking good.

Products like Family Tree Maker are big business at this point, I don't

see any reason they can't affort to hire a UI designer to add a little class
to their apps.

It is always true that function is more important in an app than form, but

if you have *both* it is much better than just function.

Just my two cents.

______________________________

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:50:05 +1000, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

FTM2005 is a most curious beast.

1. They took "buried at" off the main screen - not at all a good move.
And the "3 generations" names up the top could be provided in full, not
the half-witted way they are.

These aren't configurable options? (boggle)

2. They crippled the web page output to 2000, so that's not much use.
But as it seems the only place to "make" them is in their space, it
doen't really matter to most.
3. They have kept some of the old screens (eg calendar)
4. They did fix the date format, though. Bet that annoys the US citizens!

That's not configurable either?

5. You can't amend the general reports.

I'll install it for people who want it, but not for me!

Can you not make custom reports and so on, customized for format and
content?

[Ron Parsons]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:50:05 +1000, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

FTM2005 is a most curious beast.

1. They took "buried at" off the main screen - not at all a good move.
And the "3 generations" names up the top could be provided in full, not
the half-witted way they are.

These aren't configurable options? (boggle)

2. They crippled the web page output to 2000, so that's not much use.
But as it seems the only place to "make" them is in their space, it
doen't really matter to most.
3. They have kept some of the old screens (eg calendar)
4. They did fix the date format, though. Bet that annoys the US citizens!

That's not configurable either?

5. You can't amend the general reports.

I'll install it for people who want it, but not for me!

Can you not make custom reports and so on, customized for format and
content?

We are just way to spoiled by Reunion.

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:03:02 GMT, Ron Parsons <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:50:05 +1000, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

FTM2005 is a most curious beast.

1. They took "buried at" off the main screen - not at all a good move.
And the "3 generations" names up the top could be provided in full, not
the half-witted way they are.

These aren't configurable options? (boggle)

(snip more horror)

That's not configurable either?
Can you not make custom reports and so on, customized for format and
content?

We are just way to spoiled by Reunion.

Well, I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's good enough that it
was the final straw that got me to switch to Mac. Of course, once I got
there, I can't imagine why I waited so long.

I mean, it's fine to change the default display, reporting, or whatever,
but why in the world make it the _only_ option?

[Kerry Raymond]

even Family Tree Maker 2005
looks quite bland and, well, old fashioned.

I'm afraid I think the new FTM2005 GUI is a backwards step. It seems to have
made a number of common tasks a few more "clicks" away than it used to be.
There are also some omissions/errors in the GUI which impact on the
consistency of the information,

e.g. if Edit Individual and then go into the Add Fact window, you can't use
CTRL-S to add a source for that fact from the Add Fact window.

Instead, you have to return back to the Edit Individual window and click
SOURCE to bring up a source citation window. But then you look carefully and
realise that you are adding a source to the wrong fact because when you
return from the Add Fact window to the Edit Individual window, the selected
fact isn't the one you just added, so you have to click on the newly added
fact to select it and then on SOURCE to put the source onto the new fact.

So, instead of CNTRL-S, I now have to click "OK", click on the newly added
fact and then click on "SOURCE". A simple task made harder and with the risk
of adding the source to the wrong fact Adding data with sources is now
slower, and so the temptation is to not bother with sources

The other problem with the new Edit Individual window is the effect of
Cancel. If you use the Edit Individual window to add/edit a number of facts
and perhaps edit the notes as well, you might not realise that Cancel will
get rid of all of these changes not just the most recent one. This more
transactional style of behaviour is different from the previous FTM versions
where every change was applied separately to the database.

And what's worse is that the position of the Cancel on the Edit Window seems
to be located where I click it by accident, so I often unintentionally
discard a whole bunch of changes. Extremely frustrating!

I guess some people might think it is a good thing that you can now have 8
children displayed instead of only 4 on a family group page and that you can
death details as well as birth details displayed for the children, but
personally I miss having the burial data on the main family group page
enormously as I now have to back and forwards onto the Edit Individual
window to update that data.

I am so fed up with FTM2005 that I would happily go back to the previous
version of FTM I was using, but unfortunately I can't find what I did with
the installation CD so I am stuck with FTM2005. It's certainly frustrating
me to the extent of considering switching to some other product completely.
For some years I had been considering a switch to TMG for its functionality,
but TMG's GUI was difficult for me to use (too many steps to do a common
task). NB I have a permanently broken arm so GUI design is more of an issue
to me at times than functionality.

Kerry

[Hugh Watkins]

this is the most boring subject
like the old MAC versus DOS discussions


the label on the button describes the result not the mechanism

read the help pages and look at some sites
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/us ... index.html


"To create your own home page, fill out the form below. When you are
finished, click the Create Home Page Now button at the bottom of this
page. "
just corrected a typo

http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=lapham
is much better

I have not started using html notes but that is a theoretical possibility
I should make a test gedcom

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/
Search Family Trees
at WorldConnect

Lapham
Alfred Thomas

gives 5 hits

database :3011593 is via ancestry.co.uk

hughw36 is my later version after passing the 2000 limit

lapham is the latest

:a1224 is an old original database
Father: Forrest Alexander BARE b: 15 Sep

ID: I1318
Name: Forrest Alexander BARE
Sex: M
Birth: 15 Sep
Death: 17 Jul 1961

ID: I1319
Name: Stella DOEPKE
Sex: F
Birth: 13 Sep
Death: 23 Jul 1982


gives a pointer to the owner of the base
=======================================

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/us ... index.html

you can see the InterneTree parses the data you have submitted
an unwieldy beast to manage

http://www.genealogy.com/internetree_help.html
404 the site is getting big and messy too

http://www.genealogy.com/index_a.html

what I do like about ti
is it generates quick and nasty web sites

bit like "art brute"

Hugh W

On 7/12/05, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

You mean "Create a family home page" is not the truth?

Paul


At 05:50 pm 12-07-2005, you wrote:
FTM does not create webpages
It uploads data

Having passed the 2000 I just export gedcom and put them into world connect

there are some bugs in the report pages
involving maximum size

1000 marriages is over the top
for example


But as a practical tool it is useful and simple and continues to evolve

Hugh W





On 7/11/05, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

FTM2005 is a most curious beast.

1. They took "buried at" off the main screen - not at all a good move.
And the "3 generations" names up the top could be provided in full, not
the half-witted way they are.
2. They crippled the web page output to 2000, so that's not much use.
But as it seems the only place to "make" them is in their space, it
doen't really matter to most.
3. They have kept some of the old screens (eg calendar)
4. They did fix the date format, though. Bet that annoys the US citizens!
5. You can't amend the general reports.

I'll install it for people who want it, but not for me!

Paul Blair
Canberra



Hugh Watkins wrote:
I agree most computer screens are pretty ugly
and the web is the death of typography

I stick with FTM2005 because you can see 3 generations on one screen
at data entry time
and you may chose many other views by custom making trees

Then you should be able to do everything without using the
mouse if you wissh

and you can if you take the time to learn the keyboard short cuts



Hugh W

On 7/11/05, Susan D. Young <[email protected]> wrote:

Can you provide some examples of what it is you are looking for
in a design?
A "bit of polish" in the user interface leaves a lot of room for
interpretation. For instance, have you determined that you
would like links
to children accomplished by way of web-style clickable buttons, or
flash-style drop-down menus listing children's names rather than the
standard children's list that seems to appear on most programs' family
screen?

I am genuinely curious about this. Being an artist my visual
sensibilities
are skewed using most of the programs on the market, today. But, being a
genealogist, primarily, I am after a data storage program that
permits fast,
accurate data-entry with logically-designed yet flexible
reporting options.
Consequently, I will choose function over form every time.

There have been quite a few comments about the user interface style but I
have noticed that not too many have actually formulated a specific design
solution.



----- Original Message -----
From: "tev" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:59 PM
Subject: PC Genealogy programs; bland!



I agree completely.

While it's important to have a solid piece of software, it's that extra

bit of polish that makes it feel like a professional
application, and more
pleasant to use.

I think the problem arises from the fact that most developers, sadly,

don't have much design experience. The result is that the app ends up
looking like an old DOS app, since they use the standard interface from
Visual Basic. Often when a developer tries to add color, they
use bright
primary colors on buttons, with no unifying theme.

Reading this, you may think I am just a design snob, but a good UI is

about more than just looking good. It is about things being
labelled well,
easy to get to, with a good layout... *and* looking good.

Products like Family Tree Maker are big business at this point, I don't

see any reason they can't affort to hire a UI designer to add a
little class
to their apps.

It is always true that function is more important in an app
than form, but

if you have *both* it is much better than just function.

Just my two cents.

______________________________









--
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=lapham
one-name study with over 2000 LAPHAM amongst 3800 individuals and
1000 marriages

soc_genealogy_britain_moderated
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sgbm?hl=en

My new photo blog
SNAPS http://slim2005.blogspot.com/

--
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=lapham
one-name study with over 2000 LAPHAM amongst 3800 individuals and 1000 marriages

soc_genealogy_britain_moderated
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sgbm?hl=en

My new photo blog
SNAPS http://slim2005.blogspot.com/

[Hugh Watkins]

On 7/13/05, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote:

even Family Tree Maker 2005
looks quite bland and, well, old fashioned.

I'm afraid I think the new FTM2005 GUI is a backwards step. It seems to have
made a number of common tasks a few more "clicks" away than it used to be.
There are also some omissions/errors in the GUI which impact on the
consistency of the information,

e.g. if Edit Individual and then go into the Add Fact window, you can't use
CTRL-S to add a source for that fact from the Add Fact window.

ALT P I

opens the individual edit box
select the fact with the mouse
(it turns grey)

CONTROL S

still works
to open source citation box

Instead, you have to return back to the Edit Individual window and click
SOURCE to bring up a source citation window. But then you look carefully and
realise that you are adding a source to the wrong fact because when you
return from the Add Fact window to the Edit Individual window, the selected
fact isn't the one you just added, so you have to click on the newly added
fact to select it and then on SOURCE to put the source onto the new fact.

So, instead of CNTRL-S, I now have to click "OK", click on the newly added
fact and then click on "SOURCE". A simple task made harder and with the risk
of adding the source to the wrong fact Adding data with sources is now
slower, and so the temptation is to not bother with sources

The other problem with the new Edit Individual window is the effect of
Cancel. If you use the Edit Individual window to add/edit a number of facts
and perhaps edit the notes as well, you might not realise that Cancel will
get rid of all of these changes not just the most recent one. This more
transactional style of behaviour is different from the previous FTM versions
where every change was applied separately to the database.

true
but us old dogs need to learn the new tricks

use delete fact button for the surplus one
then OK

And what's worse is that the position of the Cancel on the Edit Window seems
to be located where I click it by accident, so I often unintentionally
discard a whole bunch of changes. Extremely frustrating!

I guess some people might think it is a good thing that you can now have 8
children displayed instead of only 4 on a family group page and that you can
death details as well as birth details displayed for the children, but
personally I miss having the burial data on the main family group page
enormously as I now have to back and forwards onto the Edit Individual
window to update that data.

I am so fed up with FTM2005 that I would happily go back to the previous
version of FTM I was using, but unfortunately I can't find what I did with
the installation CD so I am stuck with FTM2005. It's certainly frustrating
me to the extent of considering switching to some other product completely.
For some years I had been considering a switch to TMG for its functionality,
but TMG's GUI was difficult for me to use (too many steps to do a common
task). NB I have a permanently broken arm so GUI design is more of an issue
to me at times than functionality.

I have a sore right arm /shoulder
so using keyboard
instead of mouse is a big winner for me

have to be careful about posture and chair
age 69 things get creaky

eg can't sleep
so up in night

regards

Hugh W

--
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=lapham
one-name study with over 2000 LAPHAM amongst 3800 individuals and 1000 marriages

soc_genealogy_britain_moderated
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sgbm?hl=en

My new photo blog
SNAPS http://slim2005.blogspot.com/