http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section 2018-09-17T18:36:35Z 2018-09-15T14:53:52Z 7793030 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 7793030 Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section 2018-09-17T18:36:35Z 2018-09-15T14:53:52Z Gordon Collett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/5612234 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f0f8aae24dda281117cbdda3da21a8?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG gordon_collett There have been a number of posts about the appearance and readability of the new Vitals section in Family Tree. After several days now of working with it, I do have to agree that the screen, for whatever reason, is harder to read. Here is a side by side comparison of the new version and the old version which can still be seen in the merge screen (click on the image to see a full size version as it appears on my monitor): <br /><br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752012/vitalcompare.png?1537021983" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752012/vitalcompare_inline.png?1537021983" /></a> <br /><br /> Knowing that your designers are much better than I will ever be and have a better understanding of what is possible with the programming restraints that may be applicable and the number of different systems and monitors you have to allow for, I still would like to put forward a possible modification for improved readability and would invite others to come up with their own versions (click to enlarge): <br /><br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752014/vitalsproposal.png?1537022535" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752014/vitalsproposal_inline.png?1537022535" /></a> <br /><br /> This version: <br /> 1) Spaces out the information <br /> 2) Lines up all the Edit links so they are in the same column <br /> 3) Balances out the appearance of the screen by reducing white space on the right <br /> 4) Adds a little more emphasis to the Sources <br /> 5) Removes the distraction of the map pin idea 32 11 7 comment http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758591 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19758591 Juli responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-15T17:31:09Z 2018-09-15T17:31:09Z Juli http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4696028 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/96e6021d3c9bd91016276ff93d913085?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG juli_4397218 The one problem I see with your proposal is that it requires horizontal tracking without guidelines, which is something I have trouble with. Slight tweak: <br /><br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752023/FS-Vitalsproposal.jpg?1537032603" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752023/FS-Vitalsproposal_inline.jpg?1537032603" /></a> <br /><br /> (Ignore the totally non-uniform spacing. This is just a quick sketch.) 3 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758665 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19758665 Chas Howell responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-15T18:30:50Z 2018-09-15T18:30:50Z Chas Howell http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4192716 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/11319152/TreeImagePOSTgreen_medium.jpg charles_howell Both these proposals and the old design are superior to the Current design. The old design had the Titles muted so that the Values stood out from the Titles more. The Current design Bolds the Titles with a heavier weight than the Value. Not sure why, the Value is what you want to see and you will largely understand the title from the text of the Value itself and the relative position on the page. 1 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758669 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758591 19758669 Gordon Collett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-15T18:35:37Z 2018-09-15T18:35:37Z Gordon Collett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/5612234 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f0f8aae24dda281117cbdda3da21a8?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG gordon_collett I was worried about that. I like the addition. It would not have to be very prominent. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758677 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19758677 Tom Huber responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-15T18:41:07Z 2018-09-15T18:41:07Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber The problem has to do with the Chrome browser. For some reason, the displayed profile pages are wider (17") than the page displayed by Firefox (15") on a 24" (diagonally measured) display. I have checked on a 21" display at our local FHC where I am serving as staff, with all three browsers (Edge is the other) and at this time, the display width discrepancy appears to have been resolved and display at 15" wide, but I won't know for certain until I return home later this afternoon and check on the wider display. <br /><br /> If the correction in display widths have indeed been made, then the problems viewing the profile information on Chrome has been mostly resolved and it is a sharp as the displays using Firefox and Edge. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758685 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19758685 Tom Huber responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-15T18:49:47Z 2018-09-15T18:49:47Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber This issue over the bolding of the title came about when the titles were not clearly displayed. It improved the title readability, but then with the number of sources and the Edit link, the discrepancy stood out like a sore thumb. The problem is that FS is attempting to make the display look pretty, and still avoiding the practical. <br /><br /> In the old user interface, the title was slightly smaller as it is now, but it stood alone on its own line and the stats were in the same order as when they were edited. Only the title line was a slightly different size. <br /><br /> The new user interface holds the title and first two stat lines at the same size as the old display, but if there is a third line (usually a description in Other Information), it is the same size as the title and not bollded. <br /><br /> The result is a much less easily-read display -- in a rather vane and inane attempt to make the details page of the profile look pretty, rather than being practical as it was in the old user interface. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758891 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19758891 Jon Thomas responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-15T21:48:35Z 2018-09-15T21:48:35Z Jon Thomas http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/8703087 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/10926081/Cheryl-and-Jon_in-cruise-boat-auditorium_Aug2011(crop1)_medium.jpg jon_thomas_3uvwf00ahwlc1 The unfortunate move in all this re-vamp, is that the old data was in blue, because it was a link. The blue stood out great. Now it's all black and with everything else black it melds into relevant oblivion. <br /><br /> And unfortunately with the old way, I saw too many newbies that didn't realize that all that beautiful blue font was because it was all a clickable link. I would have to tell them to click the blue stuff, to get an Edit link for it to show up. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759186 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759186 Tom Huber responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T05:15:58Z 2018-09-16T05:15:58Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber On the browser issue, it still exists for my monitor (23") but not for the narrower 21" that are in the FHC. This will need to be addressed by the engineers if FS wants to stop the complaints about font size. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759213 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759213 Brett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T06:33:22Z 2018-09-16T06:33:22Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley All <br /><br /> How about, not the old, not the new; but, somewhere in between ... <br /><br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752098/RevisedNEWFORMATMySuggestion.jpg?1537079546" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752098/RevisedNEWFORMATMySuggestion_inline.jpg?1537079546" /></a> <br /><br /> Dispensing with the following: <br /><br /> ⚫ 'Separator' ( between "Sources" and "Edit" ) <br /><br /> and, <br /><br /> the Word "Edit" <br /><br /> and, <br /><br /> those "Map" 'Pins' <br /><br /> but, <br /><br /> Returning "Open Details" again. <br /><br /> Just another thought. <br /><br /> Brett 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759274 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759274 David Newton responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T08:42:15Z 2018-09-16T08:42:15Z David Newton http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/9444683 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/af12631e82ba0646269cf40b15363c27?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG david_newton_4926l90om0qdr Returning to open details adds a lot of clicks to dealing with basic tasks. That is bad UI design. Regardless of what else happens the direct edit link must stay because of that reason alone. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759323 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759323 Brett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T10:36:39Z 2018-09-16T10:36:39Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley David <br /><br /> Returning the old "Open Details" ONLY "... adds a lot of clicks to dealing with basic tasks ... " if a User/Patron is NOT fully aware how to use the "Open Details" facility properly. <br /><br /> Admittedly, most Users/Patron are NOT sufficiently "Trained" in "Family Tree"; but, that holds true for ALL of "Family Tree". <br /><br /> At least with the use of "Open Details" facility a User/Patron can open and view ALL the Records in a Section in ONE simple "Click"; and, correspondingly, with the use of reverse "Close Details" facility a User/Patron can close ALL the Records in a Section in ONE simple "Click". <br /><br /> 'Yes', individual Records can be closed individually; but, they do not have to be, as stated, the reverse "Close Details" facility can be used to close one or many Records, in one go, depending what is still open. <br /><br /> Sorry, I do not agree with you, I feel that the use of the "Open Details" is good "User Interface" design. <br /><br /> Personally, I feel that the use of the "... direct edit link ...", that is, the word "Edit" against every Record, is poor "User Interface". <br /><br /> I consider that the continual appearance of the word "Edit" on the page/screen to be poor "User Interface"; especially as, the continual appearance of the word "Edit" DOES "Clutter" the page/screen. <br /><br /> I prefer the "Edit" a "Link" for a Record TO BE that the actual Record is "Highlighted"; even, consider that a better and cleaner (ie. less "Cluttered") "User Interface". <br /><br /> Not to mention that the "Highlight" makes the Record, the actual Detail itself, to 'stand out from the crowd' - this may help with a lot (not technically; but, conceptually) with the problem/issue with the appearance of the "Font" that many, many Users/Patrons have been complaining about. <br /><br /> Just my thoughts <br /><br /> Brett 1 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759394 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759394 David Newton responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T12:45:18Z 2018-09-16T12:45:18Z David Newton http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/9444683 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/af12631e82ba0646269cf40b15363c27?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG david_newton_4926l90om0qdr "Returning the old "Open Details" ONLY "... adds a lot of clicks to dealing with basic tasks ... " if a User/Patron is NOT fully aware how to use the "Open Details" facility properly. " <br /><br /> So let's count how many clicks it takes to do the task of editing the fact. <br /><br /> Currently: <br /><br /> 1. Click on edit <br /><br /> What you want: <br /><br /> 1. Click on link <br /> 2. Click on edit <br /><br /> Well looky, looky: that's two clicks the way you want it versus one click with the way it is now. So two clicks is twice as many as one click. QED I've proven my point. That's a 100% increase in the number of clicks to accomplish the task. Even if you include a second/third click in the workflow for saving the edit that's still a 66% increase in the number of clicks to accomplish the task. <br /><br /> Increasing the number of steps it takes to do a common task like that is terrible UI design. Common tasks should be as easy to accomplish as is possible. Editing a fact is one of the most common tasks in FSFT. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759434 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759434 Gordon Collett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T13:47:23Z 2018-09-16T13:47:23Z Gordon Collett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/5612234 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f0f8aae24dda281117cbdda3da21a8?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG gordon_collett The only trouble with your logic, is that editing should not be the most common task. Once information is complete and correct, it should never be edited again and editing should be discourage by making it more difficult, such as by adding extra clicks. It should be possible to view all the information supporting a piece of data without any encouragement to edit. <br /><br /> To do the math: <br /><br /> Incomplete birth information is added to a record. Over the next 100 years, 10,000 people want to look at the reason statement included with the information. One of those people makes an edit to complete the information. <br /><br /> Currently: <br /><br /> 1. Click on edit to view or edit - 10,000 clicks <br /><br /> What at least of few of us want: <br /><br /> 1) Click to view - 10,000 clicks <br /> 2) Click to edit - 1 click <br /><br /> Increase in number of clicks - 0.01% <br /><br /> A compromise could be this: <br /><br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752115/FS-Vitalsproposal.jpg?1537105575" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752115/FS-Vitalsproposal_inline.jpg?1537105575" /></a> 4 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759437 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759437 Chas Howell responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T13:50:50Z 2018-09-16T13:50:50Z Chas Howell http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4192716 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/11319152/TreeImagePOSTgreen_medium.jpg charles_howell I too believe it would be best to separate the viewing of the details from the edit function. 1 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759439 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759439 Brett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T13:53:34Z 2018-09-16T13:53:34Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley David <br /><br /> 'Yes' ... if you want to look at it like that. <br /><br /> But, I found the "Open Details" facility was a very useful and great tool - you could open all Records in a Section (in One "Click"); and, decide which you wanted/needed to access (if any) or just examine (if need be). <br /><br /> And, likewise, the "Close Details" facility was a useful and great tool - very simple to close one or many Records in a Section (in One "Click"). <br /><br /> As previously stated, <br /><br /> - I feel that the use of the "... direct edit link ...", that is, the word "Edit" against every Record, is poor "User Interface". <br /><br /> and, <br /><br /> - I consider that the continual appearance of the word "Edit" on the page/screen to be poor "User Interface"; especially as, the continual appearance of the word "Edit" DOES "Clutter" the page/screen. <br /><br /> Be, condescending, if you like; but, we are all entitled to our own opinion. <br /><br /> Regardless, of the number of "Clicks", I recommend that the "Open Details" facility and "Close Details" facility be returned (ie. reintroduced) to the "Sections" in "Family Tree"; because, if used correctly they are very useful tools. <br /><br /> Brett 2 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759504 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759504 Juli responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T15:10:17Z 2018-09-16T15:10:17Z Juli http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4696028 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/96e6021d3c9bd91016276ff93d913085?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG juli_4397218 I agree with Gordon that viewing should be the most common task, not editing, but I definitely think that the direct edit link in the new format is an improvement. (The fact that it goes to an immovable, obscuring-type popup is not in the same category.) <br /> I also agree with whoever said somewhere that it would be nice to be able to open the details on everything under Vitals (and under Other): <br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752122/FS-vitalstweak1.jpg?1537110012" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752122/FS-vitalstweak1_inline.jpg?1537110012" /></a> <br /><br /> However, this still suffers from FS's inconsistent interface that utterly fails to differentiate properly between links and tools/buttons. "Edit" is (currently) actually a link, as it renders inaccessible the page you're currently looking at, but "Details" would (hopefully!) just expand the text in situ, not link away from your view, so it should be a button/tool, not a link: <br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752126/FS-Vitalstweak2.jpg?1537110598" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752126/FS-Vitalstweak2_inline.jpg?1537110598" /></a> 3 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759542 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759542 Brett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T15:48:30Z 2018-09-16T15:48:30Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley Juli <br /><br /> I agree with you that "FamilySearch" fails to differentiate properly between "Links" and "Tools"/'Buttons". <br /><br /> And, I really do like the second suggested example of yours. <br /><br /> I like the way you have disassociated the word "Edit" from the rest. <br /><br /> Personally, as I have already indicated, I would do away with the word "Edit"; and, just have the actual "Details" as the editable "Link"; thereby, being "Coloured", which emphasizes them, sorting the perceived "Font" problem/issue. But, I can accept your suggested example. <br /><br /> Plus, it incorporates the useful OLD "Open Details"/"Close Details" facility. <br /><br /> The only "Tweaks" that I would suggest are (1) a bolder text for the actual details; and, (2) drop the "Lines"; or, make them fainter or faint dots/dashes. <br /><br /> I totally understand the "Lines"; and, would have them myself, if it were a "Document"; but, just feel that in this situation, that they would add ever so slightly to the page/screen "Load" times. <br /><br /> Just my simple thoughts. <br /><br /> Brett 1 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759581 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759504 19759581 Gordon Collett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T16:31:04Z 2018-09-16T16:31:04Z Gordon Collett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/5612234 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f0f8aae24dda281117cbdda3da21a8?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG gordon_collett This really emphasizes the sources. I'd probably say Show Details or Show All Details since Show All suggests there are more Vitals that are not shown here. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759601 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759601 Robert Wren responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T17:11:25Z 2018-09-16T17:11:25Z Robert Wren http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/7491962 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/11172372/FSworthy2_medium.jpg robert_wren_7185960 Here's a well presented, and discussed, proposal for a solution to a problem. Any user can "like" the idea (6 currently). But no response from those who can make a DECISION. <br /><br /> Would it be so difficult to add a button (for designated FS employees) denoting "we are thinking about it" OR reinstating the UNDER CONSIDERATION category? <br /><br /> While we often reminded that 'FS employees read every post, but' (aka, Joe Martel), some type of acknowledgement would go a long away to help this forum. <br /><br /> Several topics discuss forum IMPROVEMENTS, but no ACTION adopters to be forthcoming. A simple 'click' (if made available) would not seem to be too great a burden - IF, in fact employees ARE reading. (You can see the stats and see that Joe, Ron Tanner, Robert Kehrer follow MANY OF these posts, a few more follow some. ) <br /><br /> As a recent topic stated: 'developers, please use this forum' 2 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759698 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19759698 Tom Huber responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T18:51:03Z 2018-09-16T18:51:03Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber I fully concur with many of the suggestions. They are needed over the current interface with only it's blue Edit link that produces a <b>cover-up</b> popup. <br /><br /> I also like Juli's second example, but would move the Edit link to the expanded view, which would contain Delete, Edit, and History (not the current See <b>All</b> Changes). Changing History to See All Changes was not a good idea and needs to be less suggestive that one is going to open the entire change log. <br /><br /> I would also use the Edit link to open a true popup browser window that could be moved around. Several popups could use that and if the popup is not enabled, a message could appear that says Enable popup windows for FamilySearch.org. <br /><br /> I realize that I've covered an extra off-topic area here, but the popup that comes with the Edit link is a <b>cover-up</b> pop-up. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759751 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758665 19759751 Adrian Bruce responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T19:41:02Z 2018-09-16T19:41:02Z Adrian Bruce http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/2061616 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/dbffa9eb8d691d2175833b2290f4ec50?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG adrian_bruce " the Value is what you want to see and you will largely understand the title from the text of the Value itself and the relative position on the page. " <br /><br /> Not sure I agree - if we look at the Other Information and the Timeline displays - which should be consistent with the Vitals - then there is no contextual / positional clue there what the event refers to. So we definitely need a sub-heading / title in Other Information and Timeline, so for consistency it should be there in Vitals. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759773 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758665 19759773 Tom Huber responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T19:56:12Z 2018-09-16T19:56:12Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber Hm. Adrian, can you give an example. I've looked at several timelines of my relatives and I have no problems determining what an "Other Information" event refers to. <br /><br /> Maybe it is just me, because I always use, if available, a description field and that does appear in the timeline listings. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759942 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758665 19759942 Adrian Bruce responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T22:27:08Z 2018-09-16T22:27:08Z Adrian Bruce http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/2061616 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/dbffa9eb8d691d2175833b2290f4ec50?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG adrian_bruce Sorry Tom - I was referring to Chas' apparent implication that you could effectively understand what the item was from its value and position <i>without</i> necessarily looking at the actual Title itself. <br /><br /> Since the Titles are currently there (e.g. Residence etc) then I don't have any problems determining what an "Other Information" event refers to, either - but I <i>am</i> reading the Title, so it's a necessary thing, not something that can be faded into the background, as it were. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759943 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759504 19759943 Juli responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T22:27:43Z 2018-09-16T22:27:43Z Juli http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4696028 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/96e6021d3c9bd91016276ff93d913085?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG juli_4397218 Yeah, I'm not entirely happy with the "show all" button. I suppose there's plenty of room for it to say "Show All Details" or "View All Details". 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760008 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19760008 Golden Hind responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T23:07:21Z 2018-09-16T23:07:21Z Golden Hind http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/7455692 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/128dba1433e310854ed93fd3d6b0ea0a?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG evan_wilko The new layout is done with "edit" because there is a influx of new people aka WWII post generation (known as the baby boomers) that still have no idea how to use a computer. Sorry to be so blunt. Because of this supposed "non-transparency" they had to revert to a OLD SCHOOL approach of clicking the stupid edit button instead of clicking on a blue link which is normal and modern. Also the edit button was done on purpose to open to a pop up window, and slightly tweeking the look of it, as to get people from editing all of the time. This helps to prevent future unesesary corrections that have been happening to do people errors in there social data as they DO NOT USE PROOFS. The main problem with this new layout though is the link at the top like "memories" loads to slow and then you have to load back to main window again, there is several problems with that. It is called TAKES FOREVER NOW TO DO SOMETHING THAT USED TO TAKE SECONDS WHEN IT WAS THE OLD LAYOUT. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760037 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030 19760037 Juli responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-16T23:30:50Z 2018-09-16T23:30:50Z Juli http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4696028 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/96e6021d3c9bd91016276ff93d913085?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG juli_4397218 First draft of extending the idea to Other Information: <br /> <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752179/FS-OtherInfoproposal.jpg?1537140645" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1752179/FS-OtherInfoproposal_inline.jpg?1537140645" /></a> 1 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760180 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758665 19760180 Chas Howell responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-17T02:11:23Z 2018-09-17T02:11:23Z Chas Howell http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4192716 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/11319152/TreeImagePOSTgreen_medium.jpg charles_howell Adrian, I was only talking about the Vitals Section referred to in the original post. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760196 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760037 19760196 Tom Huber responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-17T02:26:39Z 2018-09-17T02:26:39Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber My only preference is to also have the Description and details increased in size to match that of the date and place of the event. <br /><br /> Also (this is discussed elsewhere), because of the confusion over the use of the pin, to drop its use altogether. <br /><br /> Other than that, it is clean and the use of the filled triangle to display details (or not) is a very good way to do it. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760440 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19758665 19760440 Adrian Bruce responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-17T05:37:53Z 2018-09-17T05:37:53Z Adrian Bruce http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/2061616 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/dbffa9eb8d691d2175833b2290f4ec50?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG adrian_bruce OK Chas - I understand now, but I think that all the aspects need to match - Vitals, Other and Timeline - as far as possible. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760590 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760037 19760590 Brett responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-17T08:29:31Z 2018-09-17T08:29:31Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley As long as it is grouped together in Event order and not ungrouped in Date order. <br /><br /> Oh, do not for get the "Open Details" / "Close Details" ( or "Show All" / "Close All"; or, the like ) 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19760715 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7793030/replies/19759698 19760715 Adrian Bruce responded to "Design Modification Proposal: Vitals Section" 2018-09-17T10:44:12Z 2018-09-17T10:44:12Z Adrian Bruce http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/2061616 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/dbffa9eb8d691d2175833b2290f4ec50?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG adrian_bruce "open a true popup browser window that could be moved around." <br /><br /> Indeed - in several cases I want to refer back to other values to see what's been entered there before doing the update. But I need to be able to see both at once because if I only see the other value, I invariably find I've memorised the wrong thing or insufficient things when I come to do the edit. 0