1921 census release

I doubt I even read that newsletter as we left NZ on 28 Jan 2016 for 2 weeks in Oz. You can't win 'em all as they say.

 

She is the person who was in the video shown on Morning Live on Wednesday. It also showed the conservator repairing sections with Japanese tissue paper.

 

Here is an extract from TNA about that matter


Anyone will be able to view the digital images of the 1921 Census of England and Wales for free on the premises at The National Archives at Kew upon release on 6 January 2022 (00:01 GMT). The original paper census returns will not be available in the reading rooms. The paper records will be kept secure by The National Archives at their offsite storage facility and readers at The National Archives at Kew will be directed to the digital version. This is to ensure the preservation of the paper records for years to come. Searching the 1921 Census will be free on Findmypast but viewing any images or transcriptions will be on a pay-per-view basis using Findmypast micropayments.

I see the links have also copied across and I think will still work if you want more information.

 

Yes it certainly could and I believe Katie Bee has also confirmed same. (Interesting video by the way)

 

Even though the fmp item on micropayments implies that you can use them now, I have tried and the option is not available.
They must be saving it for the 1921 census, but it might have been worth them trying it out before then as there are sure to be problems.
Nowadays most websites seem to let their customers test updates rather than testing them properly before going live.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission comes to mind.

 

That is how it used to be, but more and more I am finding that updates are put in place that certainly haven't been beta tested.
Sometimes, I even wonder if they have been tested at all. For example the CWWGC update in 2020.

 

Indeed it is, and I would confidently say (from having been an Alpha (Windows Insider) and Beta Tester -both as an Insider and by selection as a new user of software) that NOTHING is or can ever be (within the realm of reason) bug-free. I do not know how far up the Greek alphabet one would need to go to appoint testers but well beyond Delta. Perhaps, just perhaps, a letter or two before Omega.

 

It was when they moved to a new website, here is the discussion about it on this forum
They did admit to having "some of our regular features missing" and it was quite a list.
They gradually got it all up and working again, but a little bit of testing would have helped the situation for the user.

 

If they had followed the above they would not have had as many of their regular features missing when it went live.
I hope that findmypast are following your advice when they go live with micropayments.

 

That's normally pretty obvious. A lack of many regular features should normally be detected and stop any release to customers. Unfortunately, management is often under enormous pressure to get the product out on schedule that quality suffers. I have even heard it argued that meeting the schedule is part of product quality. I used to counter that argument with, "No, you are confusing Product Quality with Project Quality."

I remember a statement made by a director of the company where I was working . . .

"The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of meeting schedules is forgotten."

 

Bob, you have turned up trumps. Thanks so much. I have copied and pasted into an email to my friend.
It will also help anybody else who is thinking about visiting TNA.

 

That's normally pretty obvious to most users. Checking only that the corrected feature now works does not constitute real testing. As I said before, if other features are no longer working then release to customers should not take place until 'appropriate and adequate' testing is done. The initial focus might be on the original issue but any worthwhile testing should include checks that other features appear to be still available, even if not all functions are rigorously retested. That then all comes down to the professionalism of the developer and overseeing project manager.

 

I think one could drive a bus through the phrase "appropriate and adequate" testing. There are always driving forces; a return on investment versus 'product integrity'. The Boardroom should never hold sway over Technical integrity, and to ensure integrity technicians need to test again and again. There has to be a pre-conceived level of testing which when achieved, and verified can justify the program's release. Even so 'bugs' will be found because the laboratory (even with external free range testing) will never replicate every conceivable piece of hardware, or the program's use and misuse, and so the need to issue patches and updates will forever be necessary. One can have an opinion on just how many such are needed and judge against past releases or how they shape up to a competitor; but that's about all.

 

You have missed a "nearly" before "always". It depends on the project status; for anything "life critical" testing will dwarf other aspects.