Other enhancements to Records page

[PatReynolds]

• [ ] I think there need to be back buttons at top and bottom. Consider 'top of page' buttons also.

• [x] Currently only showing H - is the plan to have the alphabet along the top of this page, jumping to each letter?

• [x] Re @PhilipClarke712 's concern about the source of the content (our database or another source) - need to add line at the top "This data is derived from the FreeBMD database" (do you think that is ok @PhilipClarke712 - [please suggest something better).

• [x] Looking at how "there are no records from this District in these years" is experssed: image.png I wonder if it would be better to put 'This District did not exist in this period" rather than "XX" in this slot.

@AlOneill @DeniseColbert @PhilipClarke712 @Vino-S what do you think?

[PhilipClarke712]

@PatReynolds

I've just looked at the page as it now exists on test3 and there is a lot of useful information there.

I apologise in advance for the length of this reply,

This Coverage page is organised by Registration District, which is what the GRO use as a Place marker, but that does not correspond to what the GRO publishes, which is packaged by event and quarter year or year and that is how we transcribe and assemble the raw data. I can't "see" the records for (say) Kings Norton, so I don't transcribe King's Norton's Records - I transcribe individual GRO index pages which come from a certain volume and a certain timeframe and they have a mixed bag of records from many Registration Districts. and then I move on and do another page.

Digression Going back to a single Registration District, Hackney for instance has almost 118,000 forenames etc. and that is the one of the two things that caught my attention. I only transcribe for FreeBMD and transcriptions are done by individuals in syndicates. So any one of the two syndicates that I am in will be doing a block of records (in FreeBMD that will be one or more superChunks), but this block will be one of birth records, or death record, or marriage records and will either be one quarter or one year (depending on time frame). Since the block will have records from every Registration District in that time frame (Qtr. or Year), I don't regard the record count per District as very important - I'm only interested in the Coverage (as a percentage) of the whole GRO Index broken down by event (birth/ marriage / death) and timeframe (year and quarter or just year).

Looking at the Coverage Page for FreeREG: it appears that FreeREG is transcribed Parish by Parish, so as a researcher, record counts by parish and year are important. But, does anyone know how many records the registers of St Laurence Church in Northfield (variously was county of Worcester, County of West Midlands and probably County Borough of Birmingham) has? FreeREG tells how many it has transcribed and more importantly it has three hundred years of records from 1560 to 1856. That is useful - you will not find any records of me in that data set. FreeREG is about baptisms, marriages and burials and looking at a very small number of parishes: baptisms and burials are about the same in number and approximately twice as large as marriage records - which suggests a stable population.

Looking at the Coverage page for FreeCEN, it appears that FreeCEN records are transcribed by County and year. I can look at the coverage page year (1841, 1851, etc) and by County and get the number of records and the coverage (as a percent). Some have 0% coverage, some 100% and some numbers in between 0.1 and 100.00 percent.

What should FreeBMD's coverage look like: Since I know how FreeBMD is transcribed: time block (year or quarter year) and record type. I suggest that FreeBMD's coverage page should be closer to FreeCEN than FreeREG. but FreeBMD looks more like FreeREG.

On FreeBMD(1) you can search for names using https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search-names.pl so what is currently on test3 is an enhancement, in that you can search down to the level of a Registration District.; and that could be very useful to a One-name group. If I have an uncommon name - that rules out Clark/Clarke/Clerk etc, where does my come from in England and Wales (I think that is available somewhere based on the 1841 or 1851 census).

For every given Registration District: its Volume numbers overtime and its counties overtime are useful (but there is a catch) The first one I looked at was Hackney and that survived beyond 1974. The I looked at Oldbury - it indicates that from Year 1966 to 1973 it was Volume 9d and from Year 1974 to end it is xx. Oldbury was abolished on 1st April 1966. I vaguely remember that my comment referred to a Registration District that either came into being part way through one of FreeBMD blocks of years, or was abolished partway through the block. Hence my comment - this is meta data from the data base, not actual data.

Answer to question "This data is derived from the FreeBMD database" is an accurate statement. The problem is places like Oldbury that was abolished on 1st April 1966 (or any other date) when the computed data gives information for period (in this case) Year 1966 to 1973 - 13 years or 52 quarters and it is only "valid" for the first quarter

[PhilipClarke712]

On further reflection I think we need to include what is a "small print" get-out clause.

Below is the message that I think we need to deliver. This may not be the final form of the words that get put under the table, but this is what it think the message should deliver.

(title) Localised changes to Districts

In this table, the Volume and County associated with a particular District are shown split in to a number of set time-periods. The boundaries between these periods mark major changes made either by the GRO themselves; or imposed on them by changes in Local Government names or boundaries. They represent the creation of numerous Districts and / or changes in how the GRO organised its Indexes into Volumes and sub-volumes. You should note that some Districts came into being part-way though one of these periods, and some Districts were abolished part-way though one of these major periods. There are several reasons why this occurred: (bullet point) due to changes in population, a new GRO District was made from part of an existing GRO District(s); an existing District was abolished and spit into one or more GRO Districts. (bullet point) due to changes in Local Government, a District changed its name; it was expanded by gaining part(s) of the area of another District(s); or it lost part(s) of its area to other District(s).

You should refer to UKBMD for any such changes.

If such changes did occur, then some records and some names might be absent if you were to only search for them using the District indicated in the table. To find them you would need to include a search for them in the actual District(s) where the event should have been registered (see UKMBD for information on what changes occurred to your District).

[PhilipClarke712]

I agree with Pat's comment above. From July 1837 to December 1851 the GRO used lower case numbers for its Volume numbers, so xx (20) represented part of the County of Lancashire in that period. Note: Lancashire Districts were in Volumes were xx and xxi.

I've not tried to do such a search, but in theory, I might find a District that did not physically exist in 1837 - 1851, being shown as Volume xx - which would put it into Lancashire.

Just now, I did a search for Sedgemoor, in Somerset, which came into existence, in the 1974 local government reorganisation and only the period 1974 to date has the correct Volume number (of 23). All the previous periods have the Volume number xx, and the area now known as Sedgemoor has never been in Lancashire (volume xx).

The use of the text "District did not exist in this period", if can be fitted into the field, it would avoid any such confusion.

[PhilipClarke712]

This Records page is a long page: 1064 fields.

I was looked for Sedgemoor, which is a long way down, so I made use of my browser's (in this case FireFox) find facility to find Sedgemoor. It would be helpful to have an Alphabetic quick link on the top of the page (but see below).

However it's not obvious to me why they were listed / ranked in the order that they are: they start at Hackney (& a bunch of H- districts); then Oakham (& a bunch of O-districts); then Aberyon (and a bunch of A-districts). I stopped scrolling down at this point.

A long time ago I put a long (too long) page in Refinery of Districts going from A to Limehouse ttps://test3.freebmd.org.uk/cms/help-superseded-or-draft/draft-civil-registration-through-the-gro-w-in-p/draft-registration-districts/draft-official-districts-1st-part-only which was copied across from FreeBMD(1). I'm not suggesting that it be used, but it is an alphabetic list. The same comments apply to a County - District mapping https://test3.freebmd.org.uk/cms/help-superseded-or-draft/draft-civil-registration-through-the-gro-w-in-p/draft-registration-districts/draft-districts-in-counties-w-i-p . Arranged alphabetically by county but I stopped with Greater Manchester.

[DeniseColbert]

@PatReynolds and @DeniseColbert to look at these points and sort into needed/not needed for beta.

[PatReynolds]

All covered in other stories apart from Back Button needed - looking at current form of site on test3, not sure if this is needed, as browser back button takes one back from view of unique names to District Information to the district names for the particular letter chosen. On one hand not needed, on the other, do we want to encourage our users to use back buttons?

Also, might we want to link to District information from Entry Information?

[PhilipClarke712]

@PatReynolds , The answer to that last question is quite nuanced. The Entry Information page currently links to the relevant UKBMD page which has a 'bit more history information' than is given on test3 Records Tab - District Information page: but the latter already has a link to the UKBMD page. So, for instance, we could swap the District link on the Entry Information from UKBMD to the Records Tab - District Information page. Note: there is another story covering Districts and the relationship between the results page and the District Information Page hyperlinked to it.

I don't think we need two links on the Entry Information page: one to UKBMD and the other to the Records Tab - District Information page.

[PatReynolds]

For clarification: this is the records page It doesn't need back buttons because the header menu is sufficient. This is the next level down, which is the one that the first point in the story refers to: It doesn't, strictly speaking, need a back button, because 'records' on the bar can take you back (or you can use your keyboard to go back. But do we want to add back buttons (e.g. top, bottom and possibly in the middle) to encourage their use as good practice on the site?

[PatReynolds]

@PhilipClarke712 I agree with your comment of 24 Jan 2022: I don't see a need to link from Entry Informatin to the Records Page.

[richpomfret]

@Vino-S to add in the back-button as reviewed.

[Vino-S]

Added back button and ready for testing in test3

[PatReynolds]

@PatReynolds to test

[PatReynolds]

Back button is at the top (where is not needed, as it is close to the 'Records' button - please move to bottom.

[richardofsussex]

The code in question sits within search_queries/show.html.erb:

< div class='container' > < ! - - h1 class="semi-kilo">Results</h1 - - > < % = render(partial: 'navigation_links') % > < h4 class="accessibility">Search Criteria < /div >

(Spaces added - otherwise the Git viewer can't display the code.) I don't understand why the Search Criteria heading is included within this div: presumably it needs to stay there.The render(partial: 'navigation_links') command needs to be removed from here, and placed within its own

< div class="container" >

after the < /section > end-tag. What looks like a previous attempt to fix this issue added an extra instance of render: 'nav_header' - this has no effect. Can you please make these changes, Vino, as I haven't sorted out Git updating yet.

[richardofsussex]

Branch fb_444_rbl now pushed to GitHub, so @Vino-S can pick up the changes and deploy them to test3.

[DeniseColbert]

@vino to push the correct branch and move back to Ready for Testing

[DeniseColbert]

@Vino-S to push to test3 if not already

[DeniseColbert]

Ready for the team to test on Test3

[DeniseColbert]

Vino to check the code made it in and check the HTML

[Vino-S]

Ready for testing in test3

[DeniseColbert]

@richardofsussex to check

[DeniseColbert]

Denise to test if we have back buttons on District list page

[DeniseColbert]

There is a Back button at the top of the list, but we need one at the bottom.

[Vino-S]

Ready for testing in test3. Implemented two solution:

1. Added a back button at the bottom of the table
2. Made the table scrollable with fixed header Please let me know which solution to go with.

[DeniseColbert]

@AlOneill do you have any thoughts?

[AlOneill]

There is a lot to say. To keep things clear I will comment on a page at a time. Looking at the first page presented on selecting "RECORDS" …

Forms are not my strength but … the <label> "Make a selection" has a for attribute that does not reference anything that I can see. Should it be for="selection" rather than for="Make_a_selection" ?

"Make a selection" does not tell the user what they are selecting. I thought we had agreed on "Choose the first letter of the Registration District" or something very similar.

The page does not have a descriptive title element, so the browser tab says "FreeBMD |" — not helpful. I suggest that the page h1, which could be hidden with class="accessibility", the label element, and the title element should all be "Choose the first letter of the Registration District" or something very similar.

[DeniseColbert]

@Vino-S to act on Alison's comment

[AlOneill]

I've been asked to look at the padding around the entries on the single-letter listing of Registration Districts.

Making the bottom padding about equal to the top padding allows one more entry to be shown at a time (4 rather than 3):

N.B. Sorry but once again, I'm not convinced by the description list markup — we have definition terms, <dt>, but no definition definitions, <dd>. This looks like a non-semantic fudge or hack to get line breaks without using the <br> element. If I am wrong, or missing the point, please correct me!

[DeniseColbert]

@AlOneill please test on test3 when @Vino-S has update the comments with the changes she's made.