My Shoebox

Here I am again whinging about Ancestry.
This time it's the way they have chosen to change the way the list of records in My Shoebox is displayed.
The list used to be: the title of the record, name of person the record is for, date added, the dustbin symbol.
That was good because you could cast your eyes down the list, then click on the title to obtain the full record.

Now, it displays the whole record instead of just the title. I now have 12 pages in My Shoebox whereas, from memory, I only had about 3 or 4.

One of my records is a census which is 27 lines long. What a waste of space and what a time consuming method of finding an entry in My Shoebox.

I have used their suggestion box to ask for a return to the previous method of display.

 

Ever the optimist but I see what you mean, even though I seldom refer back to my Shoebox.

I thought you were an Ancestry supporter and you know they are going through a process of changing just about everything; so be prepared for other changes. Still whinge away its good for the soul.

 

I am indeed, BUT, I don't see the necessity to 'fix things that ain't broke'. I'm fine with changing things that make research easier but they have failed miserably on that score, especially with those stupid 'Possible' pop ups.

 

Reminds of the old saying ' New Brooms sweep clean' and takes me back to my work days and a newcomer saying he could improve on a Spreadsheet I had written for the Estimating Department. He did not know it at the time but it had taken me months to iron out formulas to overcome the need for manual calculations. I had finally found a formula to overcome most (though not all) the manual calculations. It saved hours of additional work and was welcomed in the Estimating Office.

Leaving aside I was the senior and the one or two above me hardly knew how to use a Computer(it was early 90's) never mind write a spreadsheet, I thought it wise to consider what he had to say. I'm glad I did because I could see at a glance his formulas showed a far greater understanding of Excel methodology due no doubt to my own schooling having been on its predecessor, Lotus 123. So I recommended the changes and the revised Spreadsheet was made available to the Estimators.

Now we come to the point about rejections to new ways of working . The Estimators did not like the new version (despite it resolving manual calculations) and their complaints reached the ears of my MD. He asked why we could not just go back to my own version? I told him their objections came about because the old one had been written to mirror the old way of manual estimating (I had been an Estimator myself as had the MD incidentally), The new one was 'different' and overcame calculation errors. I recommended we stay with the revised version which is what happened.

The silly thing about it all was in time (a month or so) they all agreed the new Spreadsheet was an improvement over the old and they were pleased 'one of their own' had provided the suggestions to bring it about.

I believe Ancestry also have new brooms at work and they modify and adapt to add new features which if analysed professionally are likely brilliant even if not always immediately acceptable to the customer user. It will take a deal of effort to get them to change their ways and it could happen... but my betting is this - and likely ones yet to come - are here to stay.

 

I have not bothered with the "shoebox" but, when looking for something, you don't look for the detail you go for a "summary" list (index) which provides access to the detail. That provides a fast and reliable mechanism with minimum fuss and a minimal "real estate" requirement.

The DNA match lists could be better, but the requirement to usable on a touch-screen mobile means large areas of "white space" are needed. It could be worse, they could use a full touch screen style interface (like Windows 10) !

Phil

 

Now as I did not originate this topic and given I seldom understand what Phil says anyway, I will leave it to ahiNZ (or any other kind soul ) to translate his resp0nses. Just the basics will do, what "summary" list (index)"? But, more particularly, his reference to a 'minimal "real estate" requirement' (shown in bold no less). That I cannot wait to have explained.

As for his DNA match list references: 'touch-screen-mobile'..."white space" - 'Sorry I haven't a clue"

 

Oops, I left out "phone" after mobile but intentionally did not insert a hyphen between screen and mobile. The rest ... well...

"white space" - see google
"summary" list (index) - eg. A BMD index is a list of entries which provides a summary of the data available (name, reference...) sufficient to identify entries of interest
"real-estate" - the display area

Phil

 

Typical!
It might not seem like it but I have worked in an IT department, albeit as a business analyst, tester and help desk 'intermediary'. Therefore I know all about users and their needs and wants, they do not want new things thrust on them without consultation and without their involvement in testing. As a user of Ancestry, that is how I feel.

That's exactly what the Shoebox used to be.

I honestly couldn't care less, I do not have a smartphone and I am not interested in DNA. I hope you can see my bulging cheek, there's a tongue in it.

 

I see that Phil has tried to give a little more explanation but I think that Bob is experiencing a similar disconnectedness that I sometimes find when listening to my wife. (I can say that safely as I know that she will not see this.) Often the listener/reader is not necessarily thinking along the same lines as the speaker/reader and needs a little more introduction to get on the same wavelength. I think that Phil's thoughts are moving faster than his fingers.

I suspect that Bob is like me and would never consider trying to look at anything to do with genealogy on a small hand-held computer (aka mobile phone) and prefers to have a reasonable sized screen as on a laptop with or without larger additional screen. I find that the urge for developers to make some applications available to the 'masses' on smaller screens leads to many restrictions for larger screen users due to the uneconomic nature of maintaining multiple versions of systems for different environments.

Touch screens need adequate 'white space' (as on white paper) around items which might be selected to avoid 'finger trouble' and undesired selection. This is often seen when users send text messages using the small on-screen keyboard of a phone.

Regarding the reference to a summary list, I think that this is referring to a more general approach to finding items rather than something specific.

 

Spot on Bryman, and for the same reasons as my wife and I are often disconnected and have to repeat things before any hope of being on the same wavelength. Therein lies the root of my problem in trying to understand Phil. Who else would use 'White paper' and 'Real Estate' to explain something which intrinsically means 'text free' and 'display' areas. I will of course respond directly to his follow-up explanations but thank you for your own interpretations.

Again spot on and correctly interpreted. I do possess a smart phone mainly because my daughter (family, friends) often use WhatsApp to communicate, and a non ios (Apple) Tablet for out-of-hours reading but rarely writing. For all Genealogical work it has to be a large screen, preferably a PC with a sizeable Monitor, but also laptops, which again have secondary more sizeable Monitors. This is not just for clarity reasons - and I admit to having prescriptive glasses for Computer use - but really for sanity as trying to type anything on a mobile phone or tablet is a no go area - and don't mention 'predictive text' which is my personal bête noire.

Most of all I believe in the acronym (which for someone who hates acronyms is saying something) KISS. Which stands for 'keep it simple stupid'. That should be the goal for anyone communicating, especially in the Forum.

 

Perhaps a "confession": my aversion to verbosity is extreme to the point where my English teacher once said "You were supposed to write a précis, not a précis of a précis"

Unfortunately, it means I tend to leave out "obvious from the context" explanations that are not "obvious" to others!

Phil

 

You will see you get an honourable mention in my response to Bryman's post with the comment ...'who else would use "white paper"/"real estate"... which you now attempt (half heartedly by telling me to Google one of them ) to address. I am beginning to think you inhabit a parallel universe (a la Philip Pullman's 'Dark Materials') where different things have a different name in each parallel world. In this one I suggest you are referring to the difficulty in using a mobile phone or tablet to view things best viewed on a laptop or PC Monitor. You could have explained this without falling back on techno-jargon.

However on the matter of Summary Index I do now understand the point you were trying to make but just remind that is exactly what ahiNZ was saying about Ancestry's Shoebox. It used to a mere Summary of what was in the Shoebox, but has now turned into chapter and verse, to which she objects.

 

Just picked this up Phil, and yes it does explain things, and -as I have posted before- my own precis experience in school was to be told I had extended the original to twice its size. So we inhabit different ends of the spectrum. I am averse to jargon, acronyms and terse one-line responses and -continuing the confession mode - yes I tend to go 'round the houses' with my prose.

I don't think I mentioned before however that I was once asked to write an Essay explaining what instructions should be given to a Humanoid Robot to allow it to post a letter. Such would then be interpreted in Algorithm form for its eventual programming. Believe it or not I lost marks on not explaining things sufficiently for it (the Robot) to recognise a Letter Box, its likely location, defining the letter slot and more along the same lines. I recall the tutor saying he would have thought I of all people would pick up on these aspects. You would have failed miserably Phil..."Take this and post it" would not have cut the mustard!

 

I am intrigued to know what you mean by out-of-hours reading, Bob.

 

I was about to comment that this appears to be a very good example of not lining up the source for readers to get in synch with the subject matter but then I noticed the up arrow above the quote which directs readers to the original quote. In this case it shows my lack of understanding about the forum features. I therefore apologize for having thoughts about asking for more information and leave this posting as a reminder for anyone else that might otherwise be having similar thoughts.

 

In short (with Phil type brevity) out of hours means when not at my computer and reading means not writing. But in Bob terms I have an upstairs Computer Den with computers manned (morning) 8.30 to about 11.30. After lunch my afternoon sessions are roughly 2.30 -4.30 (unless gardening). After 5.00 pm my computers are Shut down; laptops the same, except one which is I have in sleep mode. After 5.00pm, during lunch hours and before 8.30am I regard such times as 'out-of-hours'(ooh).

In 'ooh' mode I will browse my phone either in response to a 'ping' or a call ( and whilst waiting for my wife in the car). I will also check my Tablet (I have two: one downstairs the other upstairs in the bathroom). The downstairs one early evening perhaps just to Google something or check my emails. The upstairs one the same before retiring, and usually at least once in the night (don't ask). I keep phone texts to a minimum and Tablet responses (perhaps to an email) rarely more than a brief acknowledgement, saying I will reply further in the morning.

I am replying to this email in an afternoon session on a PC of course. Hope your question is now answered Susan.

Edit: It dawns on me that I also have a Kindle which I keep in my bedside drawer. Habits change and I no longer read e-books, but have a few Cookery Books (mostly curries) still on it so keep it charged just in case I need to refer to them.

 

Well I spot the arrow, but clicking on it does not take me to the original quote. I am using Opera browser but that should not make any difference. Perhaps someone else will try it to see if it does indeed take one back to the original and if so, what browser is being used.

 

I'm using Chrome and don't go anywhere when I click on the arrow.

 

Works every time for me using Firefox v88.0.1. Hovering over the arrow causes the pointer arrow to change to a pointing finger.
It doesn't identify/highlight the actual quote, just shows the relevant post on the screen so there could be a bit of reading to find the actual quote.

 

I get the same response with Chromium (Chrome without proprietary code - I use Linux).

However, a quick check of Chromium gives:-
left click arrow: no response
middle click arrow: open new tab at relevant post
right click arrow/open in new tab: open new tab at relevant post

Phil