small requests

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

small requests

Martin Ewing
A few usability issues:

It would be handy if the default relationship type was "married" and not "unknown".  Or would this offend the PC or agnostics among us? I often forget to set this. (Even better, make such defaults configurable.)

It would also be handy if places and sources could be entered more easily, given that you may have a long list of each, and many of them recur often.  The "find" box helps a little, but there is still a lot of typing, clicking , and scrolling. One idea:  a self-completing entry - You type "Bos" and gramps suggests "ton, Suffolk, Massachusetts, USA"  or other possible completions to chose from.  Or supply a list of the last 5 or 10 used entries at the top of the selection list, since you're most likely to need those.

Since I am frequently using a single source to support a whole block of entries, it would be good if gramps would let you say "use this source for everything until further notice".  Or "use last source again".

I notice that the time to enter a new person (relationship, etc.) grows with the length of my gramps session (up to 7 or 8 seconds for a 1100 person database on an Athlon XP 2000+).  If I quit and start over, things are snappy again.  I assume there's an "undo" queue that is growing, or some such.  Can this be fixed?

It's kind of annoying that if I'm looking at a person, from the person list, I can't immediately click to create a new family (parents or spouse) for that person.  Instead I have to go to "relationships" or "families" etc.  Or am I missing something?

Just trying to keep your request-queue filled!

Cheers.

--
Martin Ewing, AA6E
Branford, CT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Laura Mellen
Just wanted to add that I too, would really love Martin's suggestion implemented (see paragraph below). I hate to refer to Familytreemaker yet again, but it is the only other program I am familiar with. In it, you could start typing "Bos" as Martin mentions and it would suggest "ton, Suffolk..." Very handy and quite a time-saver.

Thanks for everything...GRAMPS is nice to use.
Laura


Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:37:36 -0400
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Gramps-users] small requests

A few usability issues:

It would also be handy if places and sources could be entered more easily, given that you may have a long list of each, and many of them recur often.  The "find" box helps a little, but there is still a lot of typing, clicking , and scrolling. One idea:  a self-completing entry - You type "Bos" and gramps suggests "ton, Suffolk, Massachusetts, USA"  or other possible completions to chose from.  Or supply a list of the last 5 or 10 used entries at the top of the selection list, since you're most likely to need those.

Cheers.

--
Martin Ewing, AA6E
Branford, CT


Time for vacation? WIN what you need. Enter Now!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Timothy Legge-3
In reply to this post by Martin Ewing
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Martin, AA6E <[hidden email]> wrote:
> A few usability issues:
>
> It would be handy if the default relationship type was "married" and not
> "unknown".  Or would this offend the PC or agnostics among us? I often
> forget to set this. (Even better, make such defaults configurable.)

For me, defaulting focus to the date field when entering a date of
birth, death, marriage etc. would be great.  In true open source/ free
software spirit I may eventually submit a patch.  Ignore my email if
the newer versions has this...

Tim

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Tony Gordon
In reply to this post by Martin Ewing
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 12:37 -0400, Martin, AA6E wrote:
> A few usability issues:
>
> Since I am frequently using a single source to support a whole block
> of entries, it would be good if gramps would let you say "use this
> source for everything until further notice".  Or "use last source
> again".
>
The clipboard is easy to use for multiple entries of the same source.
Simply drag the source reference from your first entry onto the
clipboard, then for all subsequent entries that use that source, open
the source tab and drag the source from the clipboard.

Tony


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Martin Ewing
In reply to this post by Martin Ewing
About relationship type:

What caught my eye about this issue were some reports that would say something like "John Smith had a relationship with Mary Doe", when the status was "unknown".  That sounds too "modern" to me for folks in the 18th century!  Maybe I should complain about the report language rather than the default data entry, but I would assume (along with my ancestors!) that people who are cohabiting with children, etc. are "married" unless we knew otherwise.  We might say "common law marriage", but we would not have said the modern thing -- "living with" or "in relationship".  (I don't envy those in the future who have to account for modern relationships.)

OTOH I do appreciate the scientific sentiment that we should avoid any assertion for which we have no data.  All I can say is that I have not yet fully ascended to that plane. 

Martin

--
Martin Ewing, AA6E
Branford, CT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Thomas Weichmann
Hi Martin,

This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list.  The former
(several years ago) default was married.  I believe that I actually brought
it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in any
century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is married.  As
you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without the
data.  It was decided at that time that unknown was the best default, as
marital status is truly unknown until you tell Gramps otherwise with some
type of source.  Even in the 18th century, as you used as an example, many
people did not marry.  Many times it was not for the same reasons that
we "modern" people have, but other reasons.  I have been told that many
people simply could not afford to pay some type of marriage taxes that were
instilled by many countries and kingdoms, or they could not get married
because they were different religions etc etc.  Anyway, I hope that you
can "assend to the higher plane" and at least understand why this is really
the best default.

Best regards,

Tom W

On Tuesday 29 July 2008 02:17:33 pm Martin, AA6E wrote:

> About relationship type:
>
> What caught my eye about this issue were some reports that would say
> something like "John Smith had a relationship with Mary Doe", when the
> status was "unknown".  That sounds too "modern" to me for folks in the 18th
> century!  Maybe I should complain about the report language rather than the
> default data entry, but I would assume (along with my ancestors!) that
> people who are cohabiting with children, etc. are "married" unless we knew
> otherwise.  We might say "common law marriage", but we would not have said
> the modern thing -- "living with" or "in relationship".  (I don't envy
> those in the future who have to account for modern relationships.)
>
> OTOH I do appreciate the scientific sentiment that we should avoid any
> assertion for which we have no data.  All I can say is that I have not yet
> fully ascended to that plane.
>
> Martin



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Steve Randall-2
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0400
Thomas Weichmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list.  The former
> (several years ago) default was married.  I believe that I actually brought
> it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in any
> century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is married.  As
> you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without the
> data.

Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving data
entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is as
simple as that.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Martin Ewing


On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Steve Randall <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0400
Thomas Weichmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list.  The former
> (several years ago) default was married.  I believe that I actually brought
> it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in any
> century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is married.  As
> you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without the
> data.

Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving data
entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is as
simple as that.

I would tend to go with this position -- that it's about efficiency and usability of the software, *as long as* the value being defaulted to is obviously displayed.  I think that would be the case with "married" vs "unknown".  (Although a little more color-coding or other styling on the data entry dialog might be helpful.)

Martin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Martin Steer-2
"Martin, AA6E" <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Steve Randall <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0400
>     Thomas Weichmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>    
>     > Hi Martin,
>     >
>     > This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list.  The former
>     > (several years ago) default was married.  I believe that I actually brought
>     > it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in any
>     > century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is married.  As
>     > you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without the
>     > data.
>    
>     Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving data
>     entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is as
>     simple as that.

>
> I would tend to go with this position -- that it's about efficiency
> and usability of the software, *as long as* the value being defaulted
> to is obviously displayed. I think that would be the case with
> "married" vs "unknown". (Although a little more color-coding or other
> styling on the data entry dialog might be helpful.)
>

I agree also. Users should be able to reset defaults (where appropriate)
to suit their own work habits, data, assumptions, prejudices, whatever.

--
Martin Steer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: defaults

Eero Tamminen-3
Hi,

On Thursday 31 July 2008, Martin Steer wrote:

> >     > This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the
> >     > list.  The former (several years ago) default was married.  I
> >     > believe that I actually brought it to the attention of the
> >     > developers that it is a huge assumption, in any century, to guess
> >     > that anyone who has had children together is married.  As you
> >     > suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without
> >     > the data.
> >
> >     Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving
> > data entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is
> > as simple as that.
> >
> > I would tend to go with this position -- that it's about efficiency
> > and usability of the software, *as long as* the value being defaulted
> > to is obviously displayed. I think that would be the case with
> > "married" vs "unknown". (Although a little more color-coding or other
> > styling on the data entry dialog might be helpful.)
>
> I agree also. Users should be able to reset defaults (where appropriate)
> to suit their own work habits, data, assumptions, prejudices, whatever.

Hm.  Maybe for each of the views, there should be a possibility to mark one
of the items as a "template" object which would be used as a template when
creating new objects for that view.  It should be shows always as the first
item in view and ignored in reports.


        - Eero

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Benny Malengier
In reply to this post by Martin Ewing
2008/7/28, Martin, AA6E <[hidden email]>:
> A few usability issues:
>
> It would be handy if the default relationship type was "married" and not
> "unknown".  Or would this offend the PC or agnostics among us? I often
> forget to set this. (Even better, make such defaults configurable.)

Do a feature request asking for the possibiilty of changing the default.
Note that changing it is a one line change of one number in a python
file, you could  easily do that. I'm on holiday so can't say you where
to do the change, bug me in a few weeks if you are interested.
Obviously not a solution for the user who does not write to user lists
:-)
Problem with defaults in the preference dialog is that the dialog
becomes crowded with options nobody really uses... (if the default is
good)

>
> It would also be handy if places and sources could be entered more easily,
> given that you may have a long list of each, and many of them recur often.
> The "find" box helps a little, but there is still a lot of typing, clicking
> , and scrolling. One idea:  a self-completing entry - You type "Bos" and
> gramps suggests "ton, Suffolk, Massachusetts, USA"  or other possible
> completions to chose from.  Or supply a list of the last 5 or 10 used
> entries at the top of the selection list, since you're most likely to need
> those.

I can say many users use the scratchpad/clipboard tool for this,
dragging and dropping items from there to where they are needed.
Because of the ease of use of this tool, suggestion as you type has
low priority (at least in my mind). Try the clipboard.
The selection tools in 3.0.x have search at the top to quickly find
something you only need once.
>
> Since I am frequently using a single source to support a whole block of
> entries, it would be good if gramps would let you say "use this source for
> everything until further notice".  Or "use last source again".

see above remark about the clipboard tool. It is a lot more handy: you
copy a source reference of a person to it, and then drag it to the
other people you will add with such a reference and _everything_ is
preentered.
>
> I notice that the time to enter a new person (relationship, etc.) grows with
> the length of my gramps session (up to 7 or 8 seconds for a 1100 person
> database on an Athlon XP 2000+).  If I quit and start over, things are
> snappy again.  I assume there's an "undo" queue that is growing, or some
> such.  Can this be fixed?

hmm, no idea here. Start a bug ticket on the bug tracker. There must
be some memory hole somewhere I would think.

> It's kind of annoying that if I'm looking at a person, from the person list,
> I can't immediately click to create a new family (parents or spouse) for
> that person.  Instead I have to go to "relationships" or "families" etc.  Or
> am I missing something?

Yes, this is so. I can only think of a feature request: add a create
family entry in the context menu on the person list. However, moving
to relationships and clicking add family is not that much work. You
will have to check anyway if the family does not exist already, no?

Beny

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Duncan Lithgow-2
In reply to this post by Martin Ewing
2008/7/28 Martin, AA6E <[hidden email]>:
> A few usability issues:
>
> It would be handy if the default relationship type was "married" and not
> "unknown".  Or would this offend the PC or agnostics among us? I often
> forget to set this. (Even better, make such defaults configurable.)

I just wanted to add my two cents... I'm agnostic theist but not known
for being very PC and don't see how any of that is very relevant, but
anyway...

I think that the general rule for all defaults is, and should be: "do
not assert unconfirmed knowledge". So defaulting to 'married' and
sometimes being overlooked in haste would be a serious problem. How
can you be sure that you just overlooked at and those two are actually
married or not. It's pretty nearly impossible to be certain that they
were not married. On the other hand, being a bit careless and leaving
the field as 'unknown' just gives me something to research and add
with a good source. It simply creates problems to 'leave' a field as
asserting that something is true (the relationship state of 'married')
without some user action.

That's what I think at least. Duncan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Thomas Weichmann
On Saturday 02 August 2008 07:22:09 am Duncan Lithgow wrote:

> 2008/7/28 Martin, AA6E <[hidden email]>:
> > A few usability issues:
> >
> > It would be handy if the default relationship type was "married" and not
> > "unknown".  Or would this offend the PC or agnostics among us? I often
> > forget to set this. (Even better, make such defaults configurable.)
>
> I just wanted to add my two cents... I'm agnostic theist but not known
> for being very PC and don't see how any of that is very relevant, but
> anyway...
>
> I think that the general rule for all defaults is, and should be: "do
> not assert unconfirmed knowledge". So defaulting to 'married' and
> sometimes being overlooked in haste would be a serious problem. How
> can you be sure that you just overlooked at and those two are actually
> married or not. It's pretty nearly impossible to be certain that they
> were not married. On the other hand, being a bit careless and leaving
> the field as 'unknown' just gives me something to research and add
> with a good source. It simply creates problems to 'leave' a field as
> asserting that something is true (the relationship state of 'married')
> without some user action.
>
> That's what I think at least. Duncan



I completely agree Duncan.  I don't mind if there is a way to change the
default, but as long a GRAMPS ships with the default - default being unknown
and just letting you change the default to married I guess I don't care.  
Perfect example of having Married as a default being a problem is my DB.  
Gramps used to use Married as a default, and the UI used to be different so
it wasn't super easy to know that.  I put TONS of people in my DB back then
and didn't know that they were being marked ad Married when I really have no
idea if most of them were or not.  So now I am left with messed up data and
no real easy way to fix it.  The end result is that due to a poor choice for
a default, I can no longer trust my marriage data.  I have to go an extra
step and check if I have a source listed.

Tom W.



>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win
> great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere
> in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Joel Parker-5
In reply to this post by Steve Randall-2
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 08:46 -0500, Steve Randall wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0400
> Thomas Weichmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list.  The former
> > (several years ago) default was married.  I believe that I actually brought
> > it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in any
> > century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is married.  As
> > you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without the
> > data.
>
> Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving data
> entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is as
> simple as that.

I would contend that this default wastes time only for those who know
that the mother and father are married, or are comfortable making that
assumption.

For those of us who assume "unknown" in the absence of a source, this
default saves the time of correcting each one.

Perhaps what we need is a survey of people who assume marriage (or have
marriage sources ready) vs. those that assume "unknown". Maybe other
genealogy programs could be a guide.

- Joel


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Gerald Britton-2
Well, I know that my parents are married but don't have a copy of
their marriage certificate. That doesn't mean that I mark their
relationship as unknown.  I marked them "married"





On 8/2/08, Joel Parker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 08:46 -0500, Steve Randall wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0400
>> Thomas Weichmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Martin,
>> >
>> > This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list.  The
>> > former
>> > (several years ago) default was married.  I believe that I actually
>> > brought
>> > it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in
>> > any
>> > century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is married.
>> > As
>> > you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without the
>> >
>> > data.
>>
>> Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving data
>> entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is as
>> simple as that.
>
> I would contend that this default wastes time only for those who know
> that the mother and father are married, or are comfortable making that
> assumption.
>
> For those of us who assume "unknown" in the absence of a source, this
> default saves the time of correcting each one.
>
> Perhaps what we need is a survey of people who assume marriage (or have
> marriage sources ready) vs. those that assume "unknown". Maybe other
> genealogy programs could be a guide.
>
> - Joel
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
> prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>

--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Thomas Weichmann
Gerald,

Right so then you should create a source called, "Personnel Knowledge"
or "interview with Mr & Mrs XXX" or something like that and make that your
source for your parents' marriage.  I've also made my parents married, but I
think that it is not as easy to jump to these conclusions for almost anyone
else in your family tree other then your actual parents.

Tom W.


On Sunday 03 August 2008 07:57:48 am Gerald Britton wrote:

> Well, I know that my parents are married but don't have a copy of
> their marriage certificate. That doesn't mean that I mark their
> relationship as unknown.  I marked them "married"
>
> On 8/2/08, Joel Parker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 08:46 -0500, Steve Randall wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:09:50 -0400
> >>
> >> Thomas Weichmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Hi Martin,
> >> >
> >> > This has actually been discussed a long time ago here on the list.
> >> > The former
> >> > (several years ago) default was married.  I believe that I actually
> >> > brought
> >> > it to the attention of the developers that it is a huge assumption, in
> >> > any
> >> > century, to guess that anyone who has had children together is
> >> > married. As
> >> > you suggested, it is not a good idea to make any assumptions without
> >> > the
> >> >
> >> > data.
> >>
> >> Defaults are not about making assumptions; they are about saving data
> >> entry time. This default wastes time. Therefore it is wrong. It is as
> >> simple as that.
> >
> > I would contend that this default wastes time only for those who know
> > that the mother and father are married, or are comfortable making that
> > assumption.
> >
> > For those of us who assume "unknown" in the absence of a source, this
> > default saves the time of correcting each one.
> >
> > Perhaps what we need is a survey of people who assume marriage (or have
> > marriage sources ready) vs. those that assume "unknown". Maybe other
> > genealogy programs could be a guide.
> >
> > - Joel
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> > challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK &
> > win great prizes
> > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the
> > world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gramps-users mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Vladimir Perić
In reply to this post by Gerald Britton-2
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Gerald Britton <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, I know that my parents are married but don't have a copy of
their marriage certificate. That doesn't mean that I mark their
relationship as unknown.  I marked them "married"

You can also just mark an individual (say you, or your parents) as the source for the information. Yes, it might seem redundant (I know it does to me), but it's a good habit to have.

--
Vlada Perić

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Duncan Lithgow-2
2008/8/3 Vlada Peric <[hidden email]>:

> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Gerald Britton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I know that my parents are married but don't have a copy of
>> their marriage certificate. That doesn't mean that I mark their
>> relationship as unknown.  I marked them "married"
>
> You can also just mark an individual (say you, or your parents) as the
> source for the information. Yes, it might seem redundant (I know it does to
> me), but it's a good habit to have.
Why is this redundant? Is no-one here planning to leave their database
for someone else to continue one day? I know that's my plan.

Duncan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: small requests

Gerald Britton-2
I can see the use for a program default setting about this.  One day I
could be adding folk whom I know in person and can vouch for their
status without docs to back it up.  The next day I could be working on
distant (or dead) cousins about whom I am much less certain.  Being
able to change the default from "married" to "unknown" and back would
be handy.

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Duncan Lithgow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2008/8/3 Vlada Peric <[hidden email]>:
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Gerald Britton <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I know that my parents are married but don't have a copy of
>>> their marriage certificate. That doesn't mean that I mark their
>>> relationship as unknown.  I marked them "married"
>>
>> You can also just mark an individual (say you, or your parents) as the
>> source for the information. Yes, it might seem redundant (I know it does to
>> me), but it's a good habit to have.
> Why is this redundant? Is no-one here planning to leave their database
> for someone else to continue one day? I know that's my plan.
>
> Duncan
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users