Why do some users prefer FR1?

[DeniseColbert]

Problem with Website:

"How can i access version one as much easier to find siblings than version 2 which is cumbersome to use slow and very annoyingly slow from time clicking accept cookies to allowing one to type into any of the boxes and why does it give a message as one leaves a box re upper/lower case irrelevant, bring back version one and up date it not this slow cumbersome over prettified slow difficult to resolve any useful information from Please give me a link to version One it may be out of date but it did work fast and was easier to locate family groups on unlike version 2. Unhappy user"

[DeniseColbert]

When asked for clarification: "Hi Denise I have always used www.freereg.org.uk and was sad when you changed to version 2, which is slow cumbersome and less helpful in use also if you use the browser back arrow the search block remains a square and you cannot search but have to forward and use the new search or edit keys why?, and yes I do prefer and would like to use version 1" ...and... "The layout of freereg 1 is simpler easier to use e.g. only one date and a choice of +/- 10, 5, 2, 1, years easier and quicker, also area only one choice and the results area much more information easier to read and comprehend for location of possible siblings in a family, much more intuitive than the freereg 2 which is slower and also hindered by the cookies which one has to have in order to proceed and then takes up to 20+ seconds to do whatever it does loading the cookies before allowing access the results does not give enough info in the display , the final window is similar, and have found more people using version one than the new one since version 2 searches take longer for less results and if one forgets to use the buttons to go back to make amendments to search it does not the search button does nothing. The only good thing about version 2 that is any good is the colour scheme, I presume the old was a visual basic style prog upgraded to visual basic.net style prog which looks nice but loses functionality."

[Captainkirkdawson]

Interesting that they talk about the cookie! We are technically illegal with FR1 by not giving a cookie warning. We could make the cookie process easier by going to implicit acceptance instead of explicit acceptance as suggested in 992

[AlOneill]

We could move the Soundex, Family Members and Witnesses checkboxes to be near the Names inputs (first fieldset, with Dates), then put County, Place and Nearby places, together with Search button, in fieldset 2 ... or ... if that would be clearer, or more helpful ???

[Captainkirkdawson]

Is there some whitespace between the heading and the first box that could go? So we need to search options box?

Why not 1 box?

[edickens]

I don't think FR1 uses Cookies.  It is very basic.  E

[Captainkirkdawson]

No it does not.

[AlOneill]

White-space between heading and fieldset could be reduced by 14px, but this would give a slightly squashed appearance. (Would be surprised if that solved anything for the above complainer.)

Two fieldsets (boxes) are used to break form into manageable chunks. As noted above, we may not currently have the best field groupings and placement for ease of use and understanding.

Perhaps we need to work a bit harder on selling FR2. Change is harder to take when user has little idea of why it is needed and what the net benefits are. Article could cover such things as increased flexibility of new search approach, the need to accommodate a variety of devices, the need to be accessible to those with disabilities, the availability of up to date and accurate numbers of records, benefits to transcribers and coords (and hence for researchers), &c, &c.

[edickens]

From what I have heard, it is the presentation of the results and the text colour that are the two complaints.

Take these search results..

Click the 1 and you get:-

All shown without scrolling.

E

[Captainkirkdawson]

There are no images so its tough to comment.

It is important to keep this in context. We are likely talking about less than 2% of the REG researchers.

At least 50% of the accesses to freereg1 leave without doing anything. They bounce. Likely are robots.

[edickens]

I agree with Kirk. And remember that FR1 never had Places and Churches set up as a list, it just took whatever was transcribed including a load of rubbish. So FR is far more comprehensive and will get even better.
It is different and we cannot compare like with like. FR1 was exceedingly complicated and error prone to maintain.

E

On 01/02/2017 16:21, Kirk Dawson wrote:

There are no images so its tough to comment.

It is important to keep this in context. We are likely talking about less than 2% of the REG researchers.

At least 50% of the accesses to freereg1 leave without doing anything. They bounce. Likely are robots.

[AlOneill]

That -- "FR1 never had Places and Churches set up as a list, it just took whatever was transcribed including a load of rubbish." and "FR1 was exceedingly complicated and error prone to maintain." -- is just the kind of thing I had in mind to tell researchers. Though probably not in those words exactly!

2% of 14,000 say, is still 280 people per day who are far from convinced that FR2 is necessary or helpful. Maybe some will never be convinced, but others will get it.

[Captainkirkdawson]

The 14000 is searches per day not people.

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 1 February 2017 at 10:40, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

That -- "FR1 never had Places and Churches set up as a list, it just took whatever was transcribed including a load of rubbish." and "FR1 was exceedingly complicated and error prone to maintain." -- is just the kind of thing I had in mind to tell researchers. Though probably not in those words exactly!

2% of 14,000 say, is still 280 people per day who are far from convinced that FR2 is necessary or helpful. Maybe some will never be convinced, but others will get it.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/1070#issuecomment-276726207, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACvdRsvNg4qUD8HenfOlbJL8zC3GcEmfks5rYMOCgaJpZM4Ltr_r .

[AlOneill]

Oops! You are right, Kirk. Just trying to make the point that small percentages can hide larger numbers of things and/or people.

[PatReynolds]

As actions from the answer 'because of accessibility issues' are tabled elsewhere on the board, I am assigning this to 1.7, for consideration of the other actions at that time.

[PatReynolds]

Answer: (for a quarter) because they live in Edmonton: (Analytics for last 30 days)

[Captainkirkdawson]

That Answer: (for a quarter) because they live in Edmonton: would be a funny to Canadians!! A quarter is 25 cents and Edmontonians are always thought to be odd for living in one of the coldest cities in Canada. This just proves it!