Jump to content


Photo

RM5 Botched up the Edit Source Window


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 APerson

APerson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:27 AM

Okay, I've got a whine about the new RM5.

In RM4, in the Edit Source Window, there were two buttons - both labeled "More" which were found in"Master Source" and the other under "Source Details" Clicking on the buttons revealed drop-down menus:

Source text
Source comments
Source media

Detail text
Detail comments
Detail media

Clicking on each of those, opened up a new and separate window. As far as could be, the information that might be included in each of these windows was self-explanatory (at least for me). In RM5, however, those button now are gone and have been replaced by tabs located at the top of the window:

Citation
Research notes
Media
Quality
Repository
Source Text

The problem is that not only are some of the tab names confusing (I discuss why in a moment) but their names and functions appear to CHANGE what was located in each before. Specifically, the tab for "Research note" includes what used to be called.

Source text
Source comments

Research notes and Sourcetext/comments are two COMPLETELY different things! A MUCH better name for thattab would be "Source Notes" or "Source Text".
Rather bizarrely, the "SourceText" tab is located quite a distance from the "Research notes"tab. Clicking on that reveals fields that used to be separate windows for

Detail text
Detail comments

Another really bad thing is that theseparate source reference numbers that were listed under both master source andsource details have now been combined into ONE field. On the surface, thatmakes sense BUT what if different numbers had been entered into each before?This is not as confusing as it may sound. Until today (when RM5 was released)If we had a source, let's say a County History Book, that contains the names ofseveral people who were all members of the same family (or related in someway), we could enter the main source reference number (using whatever numberingsystem we normally use) but a slightly DIFFERENT number for the source detailsthat reflect the individual records in the book. For example, if we had a bookon the History of Erie County, Pennsylvania that mentions the Crowley family.The book contains the biography of Bartholomew Crowley on page 25, HenryCrowley on page 292, and Joseph Crowley on page 564 (these are all hypotheticalcases).

In RM4, we might assign a MasterSource Reference number to the Book (let's call it Book001). But because thebook is so big, the biographies are in different locations within the book, andwe only keep copies of those pages that are relevant to the entries, eachbiography would have a source number such as Book001a (for page 25), Book001b(for page 292), and Book001c (for page 564). As RM4 permitted this, whathappened in RM5? One of the fields has completely disappeared! Which field wascut (the Master or the Detail Source Reference Number)? For the life of me, Ican't figure out why one field was complete cut from the program! UGH!

Then there's the SAME problem withMedia (which now has one tab that replaces two SEPARATE windows, Source mediaand Detail media, found in RM4). Similar to the mess now created with themissing source number field, the media files from RM4 have been combined intoone. Which media files were axed? Previously, the master media window might hold copies of the title page, copyright page, and introductory text, while theindividual pages for each individual might be kept as Detail Media. In RM5,those there is now just ONE tab for ALL media, and you've BROKEN an existingfunction that had a specific purpose. UGH! UGH! UGH!

The RM4 Edit Source Windowfunctioned well (with the exception of a few things that I'll mention later).The new Edit Source Window has not only REMOVED existing functionality and created ambiguity! QUADRUPLE UGH!

PLEASE bring back the OLD EditSource Window and add needed features to it (like the place situation discussedon the RM4 board). At the very least, PLEASE bring back the previously existingfields.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it - and,I'm afraid, that exactly what happened to the Edit Source Window in RM5!

#2 RootsMagician

RootsMagician

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 826 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 07:54 AM

No fields are lost, and what you are describing is not correct.

1. The only change in terminology is that what used to be called Detail Text is now Research Notes. Detail Comments, Source Text, and Source Comments are all still the same.

2. The Ref# fields have *not* been combined into one. The Detail reference number is still there (on the Research Notes tab), and the Source reference number is still there (on the Source Text tab).

3. Yes, the media tab will now show the media for both the source *and* the details together. But there is a filter right there to let you see just the source media, or just the detail media.
RootsMagician

#3 APerson

APerson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:25 PM

RootsMagician,

My apologies, you're are correct, after creating a fake source, I discovered that the Ref# fields were not combined. However because the fields look identical under both tabs, it appears as if they have been combined.

I continue to assert that the creation and renaming of the Detail (now called source) and Source (now called research) tabs is a disaster. Research notes are DIFFERENT than Detail text Why rename them at all? In addition, the new tab names, "Research Notes" and "Source Text" are inconsistent. If anything, they should be called "Detail Text" and "Source Text", respectively. That also brings up another VERY BIG issue - by renaming the tabs, you've also interjected another level of confusion.

  • The text info that was listed in RM4 under Master Source is now under the "Source Text" tab
  • The text info was listed in RM4 under Source Details is now under the "Research Note" tab and due to it's placement, now appears to be was used to "Master Source"

Given the new confusing names and bizarre order of the tabs, the information that used to be master source text now appears to be subservient to the source details text (now renamed "research notes") The "Source Text" tab should be first, followed by the "Details Text" (errr, "Research Notes) tab, then followed by "Quality" and "Repository"

The issue with the media tab is also as confusing as heck and very confusing. In RM4, it was very clear as to what the media files referred to (either the master source or source details), now, by splitting off media from the master source and source detail and placing them under a new tab, it is not clear, at all, what goes where unless you already know in advance where the media should go - yes, there's yet another filter that one must now use but it's still VERY confusing. At the very least, media files should continue to be added under their respective new tabs.

As the Edit Source Window has always been the one place where I do nearly all of my data entry, the new tabs and the ambiguity introduced by them are disastrous. PLEASE bring back the old edit source window - that would very well and made a lot of sense, the new one is simply a mess that is not intuitive at all. As I said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it but you BROKE it and on one of the most commonly used windows. Posted Image



#4 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3434 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:53 PM

Just to give my opinion, I prefer the new Edit Source window with the Tabs to the previous one with the More buttons.

The one thing I would prefer is some indication on the tabs that Data or Media lies behind them rather than having to click each one to check.

Customers should never be frustrated by things they cannot do.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.2, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#5 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:21 PM

Just to give my opinion, I prefer the new Edit Source window with the Tabs to the previous one with the More buttons.

The one thing I would prefer is some indication on the tabs that Data or Media lies behind them rather than having to click each one to check.


+1

#6 mapleleaf

mapleleaf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 559 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:43 PM

Just to give my opinion, I prefer the new Edit Source window with the Tabs to the previous one with the More buttons.


I prefer the new look as well. It reminds me of RM 3 when entering into these fields was so much easier because both of the fields are now sitting there ready to type into, without clicking OK and going thru the "more" down arrow.
~ Debbie

#7 John James

John James

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:07 PM

I prefer the new look as well. It reminds me of RM 3 when entering into these fields was so much easier because both of the fields are now sitting there ready to type into, without clicking OK and going thru the "more" down arrow.

+2

#8 APerson

APerson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:26 PM

I'm not concerned with "the look" but the ease in which data is entered consistently - the new Edit Source widow makes that more confusing. In RM 4, it is very clear what data goes where, in RM5 it is not. The names on the tabs (regardless of how nice they look) also infers that DIFFERENT information is now to be posted there and the relationships between the tabs and the source citation have been muddied considerably.

#9 APerson

APerson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:37 PM

I prefer the new look as well. It reminds me of RM 3 when entering into these fields was so much easier because both of the fields are now sitting there ready to type into, without clicking OK and going thru the "more" down arrow.


I believe that you're right - there seems to be one less click to get to the correct fields - which is a good thing. This that could have been also been addressed using the RM4 Edit Source Window and either changing the manner in which the "more" button works (e.g., show the same fields but in a new window similar to what now happens in RM5 - although media still needs to be attached in the same place). That would have avoided the new ambiguity introduced by the new (and confusingly named) tabs.

#10 APerson

APerson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 07:13 PM

I'm watching the Webinar now - the reason that the tabs are so confusing is that RM5 has adapted Elizabeth Shown-Mills terminology - UGH! No wonder it's confusing. This also makes it appear as if RM is now becoming as system that advocates Evidence Explained practices. That's really a shame as RM is, apparently, limiting choices instead of enhancing them. Having tried to use Mill's system for a year, I concluded that it only makes a mess of citations :( This is really disappointing.

#11 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3608 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:06 PM

I was one of the people who was very critical of the RM4 version of the Edit Source screen. I've played with the new RM5 Edit Source screen for about an hour now. That's probably not enough time to make a fair determination as to whether the new way is an improvement or not, but here are my first impressions (I'm working my way through the new features one at a time.)

The RM5 way of doing things has some advantages as compared to RM4, and the RM5 way of doing things definitely has some disadvantages as compared to RM4. In my opinion, both versions are very hard to use effectively. Whatever difficulties the Edit Source screen has, both the RM4 and the RM5 versions do have one virtue: no matter how painful they may be to use, with either version you can eventually accomplish the task of entering your source citation.

The worst thing about the RM5 way of entering a source citation is what happens after you click on the Research Notes tab. I use what is now called the Research Notes area of that screen heavily, and I never use what is now called the Comments area of the same screen. With RM4, I could make either area a Note sub-window that could occupy the entire screen. With RM5, both areas are confined to the same sub-window and both areas occupy 1/2 of the sub-window. That means that with RM4 I could have a large area in which to enter Research Notes and with RM5 I have only half the area in which to enter Research Notes. It's like what if Microsoft Word could only use the top half of your computer screen. The second worst thing about the RM5 way of entering a source citation is that it has even less hot key capability than the RM4 way of entering a source citation. For example, there seems to be no keyboard way at all to select the RM5 style tabs.

On a scale of A to F, I would give both the RM4 way doing the Edit Source Window and the RM5 way of doing the Edit Source window about a C-. The C- is sort of the average of a B+ or so for the ability of getting the job done and a D- or so for the difficulty of getting the job done.

Jerry

#12 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8491 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 07:23 PM

The worst thing about the RM5 way of entering a source citation is what happens after you click on the Research Notes tab. I use what is now called the Research Notes area of that screen heavily, and I never use what is now called the Comments area of the same screen. With RM4, I could make either area a Note sub-window that could occupy the entire screen. With RM5, both areas are confined to the same sub-window and both areas occupy 1/2 of the sub-window. That means that with RM4 I could have a large area in which to enter Research Notes and with RM5 I have only half the area in which to enter Research Notes. It's like what if Microsoft Word could only use the top half of your computer screen.

In the 5.0.0.3 update the bar separating the sections under the Research Notes and Source Text are now re-sizable. If you hover over the line you will see where you can drag it up or down to your liking. The setting will not be remembered after closing and reopening the Edit Source screen. This will enable users to always see both section in the window and any information in them.

The second worst thing about the RM5 way of entering a source citation is that it has even less hot key capability than the RM4 way of entering a source citation. For example, there seems to be no keyboard way at all to select the RM5 style tabs.

Confirming enhancement request is in our tracking system.
Renee
RootsMagic

#13 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3608 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 09:30 PM

In the 5.0.0.3 update the bar separating the sections under the Research Notes and Source Text are now re-sizable. If you hover over the line you will see where you can drag it up or down to your liking. The setting will not be remembered after closing and reopening the Edit Source screen. This will enable users to always see both section in the window and any information in them.

Yes, this part of the puzzle works extremely well now in 5.0.0.3. Much thanks for the quick fix.

Jerry