Family view, part 1.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Family view, part 1.

Don Allingham
As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
represents.

Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
current GRAMPS screen.

I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:

1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
   Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
   part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
   mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
   family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
   http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg

2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
   to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
   spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
   and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
   be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
   relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
   approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
   http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665

3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
   the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
   and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
   that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
   http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm

4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
   every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
   both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
   father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
   Legacy and FTM use.
   http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
   http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif

Remember, my comparisons are based of screenshots, since I don't use any
of these Windows/MAC based programs (I'm Linux only).

What I seem to see, is that #1 and #2 seem to have clearly defined
concepts, and seem to be straight forward and easy to understand. The
screens uncluttered and logically defined.

When you get to #3 and #4, the concept behind the screen becomes unclear
and confusing. Many buttons start appearing, and it is no longer as
clear as to how you accomplish anything.

#1 seems to clearly define the concept of a family. Mother, Father,
Children. Additional spouses are irrelevant to this family. Grandparents
are irrelevant to this family. Children's spouses are irrelevant to the
family.

#2 seems to clearly define relationships to a particular person. This
can be in the form of children, parents, and spouses. But the focus
remains on the active person.

#3 and #4 seem to be views with no clearly defined goals as to what they
represent - they seem to be focused more on navigation than on conveying
any particular concept.

At this point, I am thinking that #2 seems to fall more inline with
GRAMPS right now.

Comments are welcome.

Don

--
Don Allingham
http://don.allingham.org

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Eero Tamminen-3
Hi,

Once again outstanding summary. :-)

I have an additional viewpoint on this subject.
It's navigation.

The main views of Gramps are about:
- navigating through people:
  - People view
  - Family view
  - Pedigree view
- Listing primary objects:
  - People view view
  - Sources view
  - Places view
  - Media view
And after user has navigated to correct item, dialog is then used to
to edit the item.  Dialog is invoked by (double-)clicking the item.


In people view, the view content controlling happens through last names,
sorting and filtering and you can see as many people at the same time as
fits to the screen. Navigation happens by opening/closing last name nodes
and using the scrollbar.

In pedigree view navigation happens through going up&down child/parent
relations. At the same time you can see only active person, his parents and
grandparents. To go up single click is enough, but to navigate child-wards,
you need two clicks.

In family view navigation happens by switching the active person/couple
with active person's:
- parents
- spouse
- spouse's parents
- children
Which are what you can see at the same time in the view.
To switch, you need (to select the person and) click a button.


I've never really though pedigree view particularly useful as it shows too
little information.

If family view would consentrate just on the nucleus family, it would be
just a slightly different variation on pedigree view and not ortagonal
enough from what the pedigree view offers (orthogonality is one of Python
virtues, hopefully also Gramps :)).

So, my preferance would be with option #2 on your list.

I also think the Gramps developer version has already implemented
this as it has removed the showing of spouse's parents:
http://developers.gramps-project.org/tiki-browse_image.php?galleryId=1&imageId=4
:-)

From what I can see from the screenshot, the arrows point now to more
logication direction due to better layout.  However, there seems to be some
things that are a step backwards in usability:
- Less relevant data:  Family view is about relationships, but
  relationship type is not shown
- To see both of the parents, one needs to open the drop down list
- To see all spouses/parters, one needs to open the drop down list
- To switch to spouse/partner, one first needs to select correct spouse
  and then click on the button
Are these correct?

Does somebody have a screenshot of the new view with all fields having
some information?


        - Eero

On Sunday 01 January 2006 19:00, Don Allingham wrote:

> As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
> Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
> represents.
>
> Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
> with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
> seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
> they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
> current GRAMPS screen.
>
> I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:
>
> 1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
>    Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
>    part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
>    mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
>    family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
>    http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg
>
> 2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
>    to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
>    spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
>    and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
>    be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
>    relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
>    approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
>    http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665
>
> 3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
>    the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
>    and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
>    that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
>    http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm
>
> 4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
>    every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
>    both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
>    father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
>    Legacy and FTM use.
>    http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
>    http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif
>
> Remember, my comparisons are based of screenshots, since I don't use any
> of these Windows/MAC based programs (I'm Linux only).
>
> What I seem to see, is that #1 and #2 seem to have clearly defined
> concepts, and seem to be straight forward and easy to understand. The
> screens uncluttered and logically defined.
>
> When you get to #3 and #4, the concept behind the screen becomes unclear
> and confusing. Many buttons start appearing, and it is no longer as
> clear as to how you accomplish anything.
>
> #1 seems to clearly define the concept of a family. Mother, Father,
> Children. Additional spouses are irrelevant to this family. Grandparents
> are irrelevant to this family. Children's spouses are irrelevant to the
> family.
>
> #2 seems to clearly define relationships to a particular person. This
> can be in the form of children, parents, and spouses. But the focus
> remains on the active person.
>
> #3 and #4 seem to be views with no clearly defined goals as to what they
> represent - they seem to be focused more on navigation than on conveying
> any particular concept.
>
> At this point, I am thinking that #2 seems to fall more inline with
> GRAMPS right now.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Don


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
<a href="http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click">http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Don Allingham
The screenshot on the website doesn't reflect anything that works, it
was just intended as a place holder. I don't expect this to be the final
implementation.

If #2 is the path we decide to take, then this would be designed to show
marriage/relationship information, including type, marriage dates, etc.
The data would not be editable here - this page would be more for
defining the relationships.

On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 22:57 +0200, Eero Tamminen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Once again outstanding summary. :-)
>
> I have an additional viewpoint on this subject.
> It's navigation.
>
> The main views of Gramps are about:
> - navigating through people:
>   - People view
>   - Family view
>   - Pedigree view
> - Listing primary objects:
>   - People view view
>   - Sources view
>   - Places view
>   - Media view
> And after user has navigated to correct item, dialog is then used to
> to edit the item.  Dialog is invoked by (double-)clicking the item.
>
>
> In people view, the view content controlling happens through last names,
> sorting and filtering and you can see as many people at the same time as
> fits to the screen. Navigation happens by opening/closing last name nodes
> and using the scrollbar.
>
> In pedigree view navigation happens through going up&down child/parent
> relations. At the same time you can see only active person, his parents and
> grandparents. To go up single click is enough, but to navigate child-wards,
> you need two clicks.
>
> In family view navigation happens by switching the active person/couple
> with active person's:
> - parents
> - spouse
> - spouse's parents
> - children
> Which are what you can see at the same time in the view.
> To switch, you need (to select the person and) click a button.
>
>
> I've never really though pedigree view particularly useful as it shows too
> little information.
>
> If family view would consentrate just on the nucleus family, it would be
> just a slightly different variation on pedigree view and not ortagonal
> enough from what the pedigree view offers (orthogonality is one of Python
> virtues, hopefully also Gramps :)).
>
> So, my preferance would be with option #2 on your list.
>
> I also think the Gramps developer version has already implemented
> this as it has removed the showing of spouse's parents:
> http://developers.gramps-project.org/tiki-browse_image.php?galleryId=1&imageId=4
> :-)
>
> From what I can see from the screenshot, the arrows point now to more
> logication direction due to better layout.  However, there seems to be some
> things that are a step backwards in usability:
> - Less relevant data:  Family view is about relationships, but
>   relationship type is not shown
> - To see both of the parents, one needs to open the drop down list
> - To see all spouses/parters, one needs to open the drop down list
> - To switch to spouse/partner, one first needs to select correct spouse
>   and then click on the button
> Are these correct?
>
> Does somebody have a screenshot of the new view with all fields having
> some information?
>
>
> - Eero
>
> On Sunday 01 January 2006 19:00, Don Allingham wrote:
> > As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
> > Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
> > represents.
> >
> > Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
> > with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
> > seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
> > they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
> > current GRAMPS screen.
> >
> > I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:
> >
> > 1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
> >    Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
> >    part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
> >    mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
> >    family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
> >    http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg
> >
> > 2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
> >    to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
> >    spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
> >    and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
> >    be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
> >    relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
> >    approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
> >    http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665
> >
> > 3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
> >    the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
> >    and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
> >    that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
> >    http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm
> >
> > 4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
> >    every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
> >    both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
> >    father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
> >    Legacy and FTM use.
> >    http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
> >    http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif
> >
> > Remember, my comparisons are based of screenshots, since I don't use any
> > of these Windows/MAC based programs (I'm Linux only).
> >
> > What I seem to see, is that #1 and #2 seem to have clearly defined
> > concepts, and seem to be straight forward and easy to understand. The
> > screens uncluttered and logically defined.
> >
> > When you get to #3 and #4, the concept behind the screen becomes unclear
> > and confusing. Many buttons start appearing, and it is no longer as
> > clear as to how you accomplish anything.
> >
> > #1 seems to clearly define the concept of a family. Mother, Father,
> > Children. Additional spouses are irrelevant to this family. Grandparents
> > are irrelevant to this family. Children's spouses are irrelevant to the
> > family.
> >
> > #2 seems to clearly define relationships to a particular person. This
> > can be in the form of children, parents, and spouses. But the focus
> > remains on the active person.
> >
> > #3 and #4 seem to be views with no clearly defined goals as to what they
> > represent - they seem to be focused more on navigation than on conveying
> > any particular concept.
> >
> > At this point, I am thinking that #2 seems to fall more inline with
> > GRAMPS right now.
> >
> > Comments are welcome.
> >
> > Don
>
--
Don Allingham
http://don.allingham.org

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Julio Sánchez-2
In reply to this post by Don Allingham

2006/1/1, Don Allingham <[hidden email]>:
> As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
> Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
> represents.
>
> Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
> with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
> seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
> they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
> current GRAMPS screen.

I personally have no real issue with the current family view.  I like the fact that spouse's parents are shown (phpGedView does it too) and I like having alternate spouses and parents very visible.  I do not find the interface confusing at all.

A few things I'd like:

  • As others said, going to a child requires two operations and is tiresome
  • There is some inconsistency in adding/selecting people, some operations have both options, some have selection and then let you add a new person if needed
  • I'd like to have and easy way to initiate merging of two spouses, two children or two parents from the family view
That said, I also understand that if a majority of users find it hard, then it has to be hard and something should be done about it.

Best regards,

Julio

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Steve Hall-4
In reply to this post by Don Allingham
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 10:00 -0700, Don Allingham wrote:
>
> I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:
>
> 1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
>    Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
>    part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
>    mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
>    family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
>    http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg

As a report not bad, but as a view, too simplified from a proper
family group sheet (http://www.ancestry.com/charts/familysheet.aspx).

> 2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
>    to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
>    spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
>    and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
>    be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
>    relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
>    approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
>    http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665

Not horrible, but I see some issues:

1. Having the spouse parent info missing makes it look less important.
   The children have two sets of grandparents. Plus, females have
   traditionally been second class citizens in genealogy, I would
   argue this view encourages this error.
2. The spouse-individual switch adds unnecessary complexity. How would
   the program set the default? Would it remember which of a couple
   was last current? (Always defaulting to the father would be wrong.)
   Why can't the non-name info for parents be removed to make room for
   the spouse parent names?
3. The concept of an active person in a family view is confusing, this
   is a static view of a whole family. (Double-clicking makes an
   individual really "active".) This looks like carry over from some
   code design issue, but it muddles the user interface.

> 3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
>    the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
>    and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
>    that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
>    http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm

My favorite, although the grey box is redundant. From experience I
know that the toolbar is common to all screens so not really part of
this particular view per se. It would also help if the button "other
spouses" is shown only when multiple exist. The little blue nav arrows
could be done better with real button widgets, like:

  http://dancingpaper.com/gramps-interface/familyview-2005-12-31b.png

The individual summary at top is nice but if the estimated ages could
be placed in the example text areas, it is redundant.

> 4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
>    every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
>    both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
>    father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
>    Legacy and FTM use.
>    http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
>    http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif

Look powerful (good for sales?) but agree that these have no concept.
They confuse viewing and editing and could be better if simpler.

So I guess none of these are perfect, which gives Gramps that
opportunity. :)


--
Steve Hall  [ digitect mindspring com ]



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Mike Bramblett
In reply to this post by Don Allingham
I, far and away, prefer the layout of Family Tree Maker.  It's clear
view/goal, to me, is that of a family data sheet.

The primary function of a genealogy program, in my view, is the easy
entering of data.  Reports, charts, different views, etc., are almost a
separate issue.  If you don't get the data input because the screens are
confusing, then you're never going to get any reports printed, books
published, etc.

Though the FTM screen linked to in #4 is newer than what I am used to
using (a screen from the version of FTM version (8) I have been using is
here http://www.bramblett.com/gen/ftm-8.jpg) it still provides an easy
place to enter the data for a person and his/her family.  The primary
information needed to identify a family (husband, wife, their
birth/death/burial/marriage dates/places, their children) are all
available on a single screen.  Then there are links for each person to
"More" info pages where you can add Facts (or 'events' with a fact name
(adoption, christening, military service, etc.) along with a date and
comment or location for each fact), Addresses, Medical History, Lineage
{with any title (Dr., Rev., etc.), 'AKA's, relationship to the person
shown to be his mother and father (natural, adopted, stepchild, etc.),
his "permanent" internal reference number}, and a free form Notes
section.  You can also click on a link for the husband and wife to add
additional spouses (it just takes you to a new family data page with the
data for the 'active person' already filled in.  You can then add the
data for the additional spouse and any children from that union.  You
can also add images into a 'scrapbook' for each person on the family page.

There are links to take you to the family page for the husband's and
wife's parents and to the family page for each child listed.

The 'active person' is the person where you have the cursor.  Almost any
report you wish to view would start with the person who's name is under
the cursor when you select that report from the menu/toolbar at the top
of the screen.  Also, if you click on any of the fields under the
husband's section (dates, places), his parents are listed on a status
bar at the bottom of the screen.  That's because on the verion of FTM I
use, the husband/wife's parents aren't shown on the family data screen.  
If you click on any field under wife, you see her parents on the status
bar.  If you click on any of the children, the status bar will show
their spouses names.  Just small bits of info that help in certain
circumstances.

Every data field can have a source and if one has been added, a small
"s" shows up next to that field.  To view (or add) a source, click into
the appropriate filed and go up and click on View, Sources.

Most fields can have 'alternate' data.  An alternate spelling of a name,
an alternate reference to a birth date/place, etc.  A small 'a' appears
out by any fields that have alternate data and they can be viewed by
clicking on the More link for each person.  The alternates are listed
under Facts and you can select a 'Preferred' piece of data that will
show on your reports and be the default each time you browse to a family
data page.

With this format you can enter the basic data for an entire family
without ever leaving this one screen.  The newer version linked to in #
4 (http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif) is even better
because they have expanded the data that can be entered for each child
so that you have to visit a child's family data sheet less often when
entering information for her parents' family data page (birth place,
death data/place are now available on the parents' family data page).

As I started off, I think the primary purpose for a genealogy program is
the easy, intuitive entry/view of data.  The family data sheet has long
been the way to collect that data from relatives.  It is the most most
basic tool for gathering family information.  The family data sheet
shows a family (husband/wife with their individual and marriage
information; their parents' names; and basic information on each of
their children).  The husband/wife's parents would then have their own
family data sheets, as would each of the children listed on the family
data sheet.  Additional information, sources, photos, etc., would be
'attached' to the family data pages.  That's pretty much the way data is
presented by the FTM family data screens.

I don't specifially recommend either of the FTM screens linked to
(version 8 or version 2006) though I would certainly support the
adoption of a screen that resembles either of the two.  But, I do think
that the basic family screen should show you the family (husband/wife
and their children) with links to the family data pages for the parents
of the husband/wife and links to each child's own family data page and
easy access to all the facts, dates, event's, photos, notes, etc., that
can be attached to an individual or his family.  I guess you could
display the same sort of family data sceen and then have a button or
link to take you to an 'individual' page where you can see all data for
a single person (though I'm sure your still gonna have to have more
links and buttons to be able to display all data, photos, sources, etc.
for an individual.  So, it seems a bit redundant to me when you can do
all that from the family data page.
 
Don Allingham wrote:

>As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
>Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
>represents.
>
>Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
>with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
>seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
>they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
>current GRAMPS screen.
>
>I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:
>
>1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
>   Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
>   part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
>   mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
>   family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
>   http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg
>
>2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
>   to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
>   spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
>   and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
>   be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
>   relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
>   approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
>   http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665
>
>3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
>   the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
>   and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
>   that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
>   http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm
>
>4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
>   every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
>   both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
>   father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
>   Legacy and FTM use.
>   http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
>   http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif
>
>Remember, my comparisons are based of screenshots, since I don't use any
>of these Windows/MAC based programs (I'm Linux only).
>
>What I seem to see, is that #1 and #2 seem to have clearly defined
>concepts, and seem to be straight forward and easy to understand. The
>screens uncluttered and logically defined.
>
>When you get to #3 and #4, the concept behind the screen becomes unclear
>and confusing. Many buttons start appearing, and it is no longer as
>clear as to how you accomplish anything.
>
>#1 seems to clearly define the concept of a family. Mother, Father,
>Children. Additional spouses are irrelevant to this family. Grandparents
>are irrelevant to this family. Children's spouses are irrelevant to the
>family.
>
>#2 seems to clearly define relationships to a particular person. This
>can be in the form of children, parents, and spouses. But the focus
>remains on the active person.
>
>#3 and #4 seem to be views with no clearly defined goals as to what they
>represent - they seem to be focused more on navigation than on conveying
>any particular concept.
>
>At this point, I am thinking that #2 seems to fall more inline with
>GRAMPS right now.
>
>Comments are welcome.
>
>Don
>
>  
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Julio Sánchez-2
2006/1/2, Mike Bramblett <[hidden email]>:

> The primary function of a genealogy program, in my view, is the easy
> entering of data.  Reports, charts, different views, etc., are almost a
> separate issue.  If you don't get the data input because the screens are
> confusing, then you're never going to get any reports printed, books
> published, etc.

For me, the primary function of a genealogy program is to help in
research, to help in the analysis of the data gathered.

With time I have developed a pet theory that explains the two
different views of computer-aided genealogy.  They are not completely
disjoint since we all hold both views at the same time, but it helps
if I present them as opposed.

The first view is that held by those who know the facts and want a
computer program to hold those facts for presentation, reporting, etc.
 The need this group has for alternative, conflicting, information is
limited.  If members of this group do research, they tend to use paper
and pencil methods or the support of other tools (spreadsheets,
databases, text documents, etc.).  I.e. they barely use the genealogy
program to help their research.

The second view is that held by those who are researching.  This group
will throw all kinds of data on a database and try to find matches and
coincidences.  They want timelines, merge candidate detection,
research logs, people lists arranged by places and estimated dates for
events to help checking archives or microfilms and planning visits,
etc.  They have inconsistent data on their database and do no not know
which one is good.  They are not even sure they will ever find out.
They complain about poor support for alternative lineage versions,
etc.

The separation, as I said, is not real.  In fact, data moves from the
second view to the first as it freezes.  A perfect genealogy program
should support both uses.  GRAMPS is so-so.  Quick data entry is easy,
but the kind of data entry done for the second view (typically will
lots of source references) may be improved (I miss many of the
keyboard shortcuts that were lost in the transition to version 2.0).
For some massive data entry operations (systematic church record
extraction, for instance), I prepare the raw data outside GRAMPS.
This is because adding a baptism record, for instance, that mentions
some ten people or more (the baptized child, plus parents and
grandparents, one or two godparents, two or more witnesses plus the
priest, you get the idea) and may have details about birth place,
residence, age, liveness, occupation, etc. of every one of them, is
too hard with a general-purpose genealogy programs in my opinion.  But
for other data entry operations, I go slowly introducing data with
citations and all.  It takes time, but it is inmensely useful as soon
as you see conflicting information: click, click, click, and you are
reading the source for the fact and even the excerpt that supports the
fact.

So, maybe I'm biased because of how hard is my typical data entry, but
I see basic data entry so easy and quick, that I do not understand
what's all the fuss about.  I remember I could input data in
quasi-real time while interviewing people.  That of course, was when I
was a beginner and did not care about references as much as I do now,
back then before I found how embarrassing not having an answer to
'Says who?' is.

Well, how was that for a different view?

Julio


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
<a href="http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click">http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Eero Tamminen-3
In reply to this post by Steve Hall-4
Hi,

On Monday 02 January 2006 08:04, Steve Hall wrote:

> > 2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
> >    to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
> >    spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
> >    and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
> >    be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
> >    relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
> >    approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
> >    http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665
>
> Not horrible, but I see some issues:
>
> 1. Having the spouse parent info missing makes it look less important.
>    The children have two sets of grandparents.

Good point. :-)

>    Plus, females have
>    traditionally been second class citizens in genealogy, I would
>    argue this view encourages this error.
> 2. The spouse-individual switch adds unnecessary complexity. How would
>    the program set the default? Would it remember which of a couple
>    was last current? (Always defaulting to the father would be wrong.)

Who is shown as active person in family view depends on who you have as
active person currently in the previous view, or which person you selected
(as active person) in the family view.

>    Why can't the non-name info for parents be removed to make room for
>    the spouse parent names?
> 3. The concept of an active person in a family view is confusing, this
>    is a static view of a whole family. (Double-clicking makes an
>    individual really "active".) This looks like carry over from some
>    code design issue, but it muddles the user interface.

If family view doesn't have a single active person, which person should be
selected when you switch to people or pedigree view?


> > 3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
> >    the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
> >    and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
> >    that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
> >    http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm
>
> My favorite, although the grey box is redundant. From experience I
> know that the toolbar is common to all screens so not really part of
> this particular view per se. It would also help if the button "other
> spouses" is shown only when multiple exist. The little blue nav arrows
> could be done better with real button widgets, like:
>
>   http://dancingpaper.com/gramps-interface/familyview-2005-12-31b.png

Compared to the devel screenshot, the arrow directions are less clear,
but this is pretty minor point. :-)

> The individual summary at top is nice but if the estimated ages could
> be placed in the example text areas, it is redundant.

In the image the marriage information is also duplicated for both active
person and spouse.

To me ideal solution would be having a list of the relation information
(marriage, divorce etc) with all of the details and the persons (parents,
children, grandparents) related to the relation just with names. However,
as I'm not sure how one could make a good UI out of something like this:

    grandparents                 grandparents
           \                         /
    parent - list of relation events - parent
             and related information
                      |
                   children

I'm not proposing it.  :-)


        - Eero

> > 4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
> >    every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
> >    both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
> >    father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
> >    Legacy and FTM use.
> >    http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
> >    http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif
>
> Look powerful (good for sales?) but agree that these have no concept.
> They confuse viewing and editing and could be better if simpler.
>
> So I guess none of these are perfect, which gives Gramps that
> opportunity. :)


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

bm-7
In reply to this post by Don Allingham
Hi,

My thoughts: I don't mind how gramps works now, so I would not do too
drastical
improvements. I like the 2.2 screenshots.
I agree to the fact that a family should not have an active person as
it is now:
man and women are equal, the events between them (like marriage) could
be listed
(I regularly have to switch spouses just to see the date of birth/death of the
spouse as this is not shown now in family view).
So I lean to the view that Family View should bring up the nucleus family with
info that is relevant to this family, with quick access to the more detailed
info (that opens in another screen not on top of GRAMPS if possible) and with
quick navigation between different families.

For navigation I would suggest:

1/double click brings you to the editor of the person. The link info that you
get now on double click of a child or spouse is information that is created on
creation of the spouse/child and only rarely must be changes. To assign
this to
double click is a pity in my view. Edit of persons is more needed.

2/some quick way to jump between families must still be possible: So to the
family of the child or grandparent, or to another family of father/mother.
Needing two clicks to go to family of a child is an annoying aspect while
working with gramps, especially on a laptop with touchpad.
For grandparents: listing a shorter version than is done now would make
room for
other info. To make clear a person has 2 sets of parents (by birth and by
adoption) some graphical hint could be used instead so this is not overlooked.
Like putting 1/2 in front of the parent, or showing a drop down list only in
this case and otherwise not, or ....

3/possibility to open the edit person dialog of several people of the same
family. I do not know if this is possible, but like that you could get a
maximum amount of information on the screen if you need this.

4/persistency of moved dialogs: if an edit person dialog is moved, the next
opened edit person dialog should go to the moved position. If you copy info
from digital sources it's very annoying that the dialog keeps popping up over
the source.

5/keyboard shortcuts: GRAMPS needs a lot of input on different screens. Usage
would be greatly enhanced with a good set of shortcuts and intelligent use of
the tab key. Eg: after selecting a child, the tab could bring you to
the family
down button, so that enter brings up the family of the child or Alt-F could do
this in one go (perhaps this excists already and I did not find the
info, could
be in the tooltip of the arrow key to bring up the family?). Instead of two
mouse clicks, the experienced user would switch to keyboard use for
bringing up
family of a child. Another example is the selection of a source. After the
selection of the source, the tab could bring you to the ok button in one
keyboard click, and only the folowing clicks to the input text fields.
So shortcuts should be clearly defined, listed in the documentation and
supported in the future. I think this is a very important user interface
feature that is now a bit neglected.

Benny

Quoting Don Allingham <[hidden email]>:

> As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
> Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
> represents.
>
> Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
> with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
> seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
> they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
> current GRAMPS screen.
>
> I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:
>
> 1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
>   Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
>   part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
>   mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
>   family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
>   http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg
>
> 2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
>   to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
>   spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
>   and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
>   be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
>   relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
>   approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
>   http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665
>
> 3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
>   the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
>   and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
>   that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
>   http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm
>
> 4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
>   every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
>   both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
>   father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
>   Legacy and FTM use.
>   http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
>   http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif
>
> Remember, my comparisons are based of screenshots, since I don't use any
> of these Windows/MAC based programs (I'm Linux only).
>
> What I seem to see, is that #1 and #2 seem to have clearly defined
> concepts, and seem to be straight forward and easy to understand. The
> screens uncluttered and logically defined.
>
> When you get to #3 and #4, the concept behind the screen becomes unclear
> and confusing. Many buttons start appearing, and it is no longer as
> clear as to how you accomplish anything.
>
> #1 seems to clearly define the concept of a family. Mother, Father,
> Children. Additional spouses are irrelevant to this family. Grandparents
> are irrelevant to this family. Children's spouses are irrelevant to the
> family.
>
> #2 seems to clearly define relationships to a particular person. This
> can be in the form of children, parents, and spouses. But the focus
> remains on the active person.
>
> #3 and #4 seem to be views with no clearly defined goals as to what they
> represent - they seem to be focused more on navigation than on conveying
> any particular concept.
>
> At this point, I am thinking that #2 seems to fall more inline with
> GRAMPS right now.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Don
>
> --
> Don Allingham
> http://don.allingham.org
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Richard Taylor-2
In reply to this post by Don Allingham
Don,

As everyone appears to have a view on this one I guess I should muddy the
waters further with mine.

Firstly on the edit/view issue. I have always thought that it is odd that the
Family 'view' in the only one that allows in-place editing. I think it would
be much more consistent to make the Family 'view' a view only window that
looked more like a report with hyperlinks with an 'Edit' button that opened a
separate 'Edit Family' dialog. A single click on any of the People links
would change the 'current person' and a double click would open the 'Edit
Person' dialog. A separate 'Edit Family' dialog would also mean that it would
be possible to edit more than one family at a time and the RMB menu in the
other views could have an 'Edit Family' entry that would bring up the 'Edit
Family' dialog from anywhere. (This of course has knock on effects for the
underlying code because it will need to be able to deal with a family record
changing whilst the Edit Family dialog is open).

For consistency I would like to see 'double click on a Person' anywhere in
Gramps open the 'Edit Person' dialog. I would also like to see a consistent
RMB menu that always has delete/edit/edit family etc. everywhere a Person is
listed. These could then have appropriate key board short cuts so that to
edit a family for a person you TAB to that person in a dialog and hit Ctrl-F
no matter which view/dialog you are in.

As for what is listed in the Family View, I think of someones Family as all
those people that are directly related (either by blood or adoption) by just
one generation. For me this includes siblings. As an example I would list my
family as:

Parents
=======

Name Relationship  
Tony Father (Birth)
Val Mother (Birth)
Sheila Step-Mother
Ron Step-Father

Partner
======

Name Relationship Parents
Tracy Partner Harry (Birth), Dot (Birth)

Children
=======

Name Relationship Other Parents
Maddy Birth Tracy (Birth)

Sibliings
=======

Name Relationship Parents
Tam Sister (Birth) Val (Birth), Tony (Birth), Sheila (Step), Ron (Step)
Tim Brother (Birth) Val (Birth), Tony (Birth), Sheila (Step), Ron (Step)
David Brother (Step) Sheila (Birth), David (Birth), Tony (Step)
Debbie Sister (Step) Sheila (Birth), David (Birth), Tony (Step)
Becca Sister (Step) Sheila (Birth), Paul (Birth), Tony (Adopted)
Mark Brother(Step) Ron (Birth), Jane (Birth), Val (Step)


A hyperlink type view could show all of this information with an 'Edit Family'
dialog providing facilities similar to the current Family view but with out
the navigation issues.

I think that this approach makes a clear distinction between using the family
relationships for navigation purposes, which should change the 'current
person' of all the views, from the editiing of family relationships for an
individual, which should be possible from anywhere in gramps that a person
appears.

Regards

Richard


On Sunday 01 January 2006 17:00, Don Allingham wrote:

> As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
> Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
> represents.
>
> Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
> with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
> seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
> they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
> current GRAMPS screen.
>
> I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:
>
> 1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
>    Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
>    part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
>    mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
>    family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
>    http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg
>
> 2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
>    to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
>    spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
>    and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
>    be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
>    relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
>    approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
>    http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665
>
> 3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
>    the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
>    and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
>    that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
>    http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm
>
> 4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
>    every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
>    both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
>    father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
>    Legacy and FTM use.
>    http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
>    http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif
>
> Remember, my comparisons are based of screenshots, since I don't use any
> of these Windows/MAC based programs (I'm Linux only).
>
> What I seem to see, is that #1 and #2 seem to have clearly defined
> concepts, and seem to be straight forward and easy to understand. The
> screens uncluttered and logically defined.
>
> When you get to #3 and #4, the concept behind the screen becomes unclear
> and confusing. Many buttons start appearing, and it is no longer as
> clear as to how you accomplish anything.
>
> #1 seems to clearly define the concept of a family. Mother, Father,
> Children. Additional spouses are irrelevant to this family. Grandparents
> are irrelevant to this family. Children's spouses are irrelevant to the
> family.
>
> #2 seems to clearly define relationships to a particular person. This
> can be in the form of children, parents, and spouses. But the focus
> remains on the active person.
>
> #3 and #4 seem to be views with no clearly defined goals as to what they
> represent - they seem to be focused more on navigation than on conveying
> any particular concept.
>
> At this point, I am thinking that #2 seems to fall more inline with
> GRAMPS right now.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Don
>
> --
> Don Allingham
> http://don.allingham.org
>

--
Jabber: [hidden email]
PGPKey: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xA7DA9FD9
Key fingerprint = D051 A121 E7C3 485F 3C0E  1593 ED9E D868 A7DA 9FD9


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

Don Allingham
Richard,

I think you are on to something here. The problem we have been dealing
with is the battle between navigation and editing. These are two
distinct operations with different goals. The problem we have is that
what you want to do for navigation makes editing more difficult, and
vice versa.

Breaking the family view into two separate operations (navigation and
editing) would solve a lot of problems. One of the big problems we have
now is that the editing is done on the main window. Since there is no
"Apply" or "OK" button, we do not know when the user has finished
editing. This is one of the reasons you currently have to pick the
parents of a person in pairs (when you add a second parent, we don't
know if the previous family that had only one parent should be kept or
deleted). A separate edit dialog would remove these ambiguities, and
allow for a much more intuitive editing session.

And without the need to worry about editing, the navigation portion of
the family view can be cleaned up considerably.

Don

Richard Taylor wrote:

> Don,
>
> As everyone appears to have a view on this one I guess I should muddy the
> waters further with mine.
>
> Firstly on the edit/view issue. I have always thought that it is odd that the
> Family 'view' in the only one that allows in-place editing. I think it would
> be much more consistent to make the Family 'view' a view only window that
> looked more like a report with hyperlinks with an 'Edit' button that opened a
> separate 'Edit Family' dialog. A single click on any of the People links
> would change the 'current person' and a double click would open the 'Edit
> Person' dialog. A separate 'Edit Family' dialog would also mean that it would
> be possible to edit more than one family at a time and the RMB menu in the
> other views could have an 'Edit Family' entry that would bring up the 'Edit
> Family' dialog from anywhere. (This of course has knock on effects for the
> underlying code because it will need to be able to deal with a family record
> changing whilst the Edit Family dialog is open).
>
> For consistency I would like to see 'double click on a Person' anywhere in
> Gramps open the 'Edit Person' dialog. I would also like to see a consistent
> RMB menu that always has delete/edit/edit family etc. everywhere a Person is
> listed. These could then have appropriate key board short cuts so that to
> edit a family for a person you TAB to that person in a dialog and hit Ctrl-F
> no matter which view/dialog you are in.
>
> As for what is listed in the Family View, I think of someones Family as all
> those people that are directly related (either by blood or adoption) by just
> one generation. For me this includes siblings. As an example I would list my
> family as:
>
> Parents
> =======
>
> Name Relationship  
> Tony Father (Birth)
> Val Mother (Birth)
> Sheila Step-Mother
> Ron Step-Father
>
> Partner
> ======
>
> Name Relationship Parents
> Tracy Partner Harry (Birth), Dot (Birth)
>
> Children
> =======
>
> Name Relationship Other Parents
> Maddy Birth Tracy (Birth)
>
> Sibliings
> =======
>
> Name Relationship Parents
> Tam Sister (Birth) Val (Birth), Tony (Birth), Sheila (Step), Ron (Step)
> Tim Brother (Birth) Val (Birth), Tony (Birth), Sheila (Step), Ron (Step)
> David Brother (Step) Sheila (Birth), David (Birth), Tony (Step)
> Debbie Sister (Step) Sheila (Birth), David (Birth), Tony (Step)
> Becca Sister (Step) Sheila (Birth), Paul (Birth), Tony (Adopted)
> Mark Brother(Step) Ron (Birth), Jane (Birth), Val (Step)
>
>
> A hyperlink type view could show all of this information with an 'Edit Family'
> dialog providing facilities similar to the current Family view but with out
> the navigation issues.
>
> I think that this approach makes a clear distinction between using the family
> relationships for navigation purposes, which should change the 'current
> person' of all the views, from the editiing of family relationships for an
> individual, which should be possible from anywhere in gramps that a person
> appears.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Sunday 01 January 2006 17:00, Don Allingham wrote:
>
>>As I indicated in a previous message, I first step in creating a new
>>Family View is defining the screen, or rather, defining what the screen
>>represents.
>>
>>Looking at the screenshots of other program, I've been able to come up
>>with a few ideas. I've noticed that the cluttered and confusing ones all
>>seem to have the same problem - they don't have a real definition, so
>>they try to do everything. This is the same trap we fell into with the
>>current GRAMPS screen.
>>
>>I see a couple of ways of really defining the view:
>>
>>1) A view that represents the family as a nuclear family. Mother,
>>   Father, and children. No alternate spouses, since they are not
>>   part of the nuclear family. No multiple sets of father's or
>>   mother's parents, because they are not part of the nuclear
>>   family. That seems to be the approach taken by this:
>>   http://www.genealogos.com/descriptifs/800/img12.jpg
>>
>>2) A view that focuses on the active person, and the relationships
>>   to this person. This type of view would provide a list of
>>   spouses connected to the person, the children of the person,
>>   and the parents of the person. The spouses' parents would not
>>   be displayed, and the spouse would be there to define the
>>   relationship to the active person. This seems to be the
>>   approach take by Personal Ancestral File (PAF)
>>   http://appdb.winehq.org/appimage.php?id=665
>>
>>3) A view that is a collection of all kinds of links, showing
>>   the active person, a spouse, the potential for other spouses,
>>   and connections in every manner possible. This is the approach
>>   that GRAMPS has, and appears to be what Reunion has as well.
>>   http://rootsmagic.com/famview.htm
>>
>>4) A view that has no clear concept of an active person, but has
>>   every imaginable link, defining children, multiple spouses of
>>   both the father and mother, and multiple parents of both the
>>   father and the mother.  I think this is the approach that both
>>   Legacy and FTM use.
>>   http://www.ftm2006.com/images/FTMShotFamilyView.gif
>>   http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/_images/FamilyViewLarge.gif
>>
>>Remember, my comparisons are based of screenshots, since I don't use any
>>of these Windows/MAC based programs (I'm Linux only).
>>
>>What I seem to see, is that #1 and #2 seem to have clearly defined
>>concepts, and seem to be straight forward and easy to understand. The
>>screens uncluttered and logically defined.
>>
>>When you get to #3 and #4, the concept behind the screen becomes unclear
>>and confusing. Many buttons start appearing, and it is no longer as
>>clear as to how you accomplish anything.
>>
>>#1 seems to clearly define the concept of a family. Mother, Father,
>>Children. Additional spouses are irrelevant to this family. Grandparents
>>are irrelevant to this family. Children's spouses are irrelevant to the
>>family.
>>
>>#2 seems to clearly define relationships to a particular person. This
>>can be in the form of children, parents, and spouses. But the focus
>>remains on the active person.
>>
>>#3 and #4 seem to be views with no clearly defined goals as to what they
>>represent - they seem to be focused more on navigation than on conveying
>>any particular concept.
>>
>>At this point, I am thinking that #2 seems to fall more inline with
>>GRAMPS right now.
>>
>>Comments are welcome.
>>
>>Don
>>
>>--
>>Don Allingham
>>http://don.allingham.org
>>
>
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Family view, part 1.

wb-3
In reply to this post by bm-7
On Tuesday January 3 2006 04:04, [hidden email] wrote:
> I agree to the fact that a family should not have an active person as
> it is now:  man and women are equal, the events between them (like
> marriage) could be listed (I regularly have to switch spouses just to
> see the date of  birth/death of the spouse as this is not shown now
> in family view).

I agree with this idea.  I also say that the context menu (right-click
menu) should allow mostly the same options for each person represented.  
For instance, I often want to bookmark both a husband and wife, or
maybe several children.  But, I cannot bookmark the spouse or children
with a right-click.  So, a two-action operation turns into a 4-action
operation, at least.

                        -- Wayne Bergeron
--
        What is best in life?
       
        To crush your enemies, to see them driven before
        you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
       
                -- The Governator, as Conan


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel