Usability of FH with/without the Book
Posted: 31 Jan 2018 01:04
Aye Adrian and Mike,
Mike Gordon wrote: "However, when the programme package is advertised for sale, I think there should be a note to say that the buyer may find the programme difficult to use without also buying the book."
Adrian Bruce wrote: "Absolutely not intending any criticism of anyone, but in the interest of balance and anyone coming to see this thread later, I think it important to point out that others may find completely the opposite. I suspect that the difference between those who take to FH like a duck to water (myself, e.g.) and those who have to work at it, may be something to do with their analytical nature. I was hopeless at history at school (so why am I doing this as a hobby?) because I simply had to learn lists of facts. I was great at maths because all I ever learnt was the bare bones and I constructed everything in an exam from them. I loved FH from when I first opened it (well, mostly...) but when I trialled FTM (years ago) at the same time, I wept tears of frustration over it because although each view and button was powerful, I couldn't work out which to use without just memorising the stuff.
Your mileage will vary - that's what makes User Interface design so - err - interesting."
And Mike Tate wrote: "This is purely subjective, but I get the feeling that users who start out with FH are fine, whereas users who migrate from other products have more difficulties assimilating FH, perhaps because they come with preconceived concepts that are understandably difficult to ditch."
I found the data entry into FH fine with v2.3, but as the 'options' have increased with each update I have become more intimidated to enter data and whilst I appreciate and wish to use AS v5.2.0 I have developed a block about entering any data for fear of it not being "right"!
In my past life mapping and diagnosing soils in the field; after 6 months I could get by, after 2 years I was competent and after 20 years I was still learning. The same pattern applied when using GIS packages to create and illustrate my survey findings, but only competent in the parts of the software I regularly used.
I agree with Adrian when he says "I suspect that the difference between those who take to FH like a duck to water (myself, e.g.) and those who have to work at it, may be something to do with their analytical nature." Maths was a blind area for me, logic and algebra? But where multiple factors produce "grey areas" or soils e.g. climate, topography, geology, biological and human modification and then having to "think" in 3D beneath the surface vegetation so as to diagnose the soil characteristics and or genealogical links was and is a delight.
Starting out with FH v2.3 was limited but fine, albeit labourious; but at least I had an idea what I was doing and could "see" the genealogical links. FH v6.2 enables a greater diversity of individual "visions" to be acheived and AS v5.2.0 makes that "easier" still, if I can pluck up the courage. But, it isn't comprehensible unless you understand the coding and therein lies the problem; I think.
Logic and algebra, plus this quote from Adrian's paragraph sums up my problem with FH v6.2 + AS v5.2.0, "I wept tears of frustration over it because although each view and button was powerful, I couldn't work out which to use without just memorising the stuff.", or writing it on a bit of paper!
My regards, Bill
Mike Gordon wrote: "However, when the programme package is advertised for sale, I think there should be a note to say that the buyer may find the programme difficult to use without also buying the book."
Adrian Bruce wrote: "Absolutely not intending any criticism of anyone, but in the interest of balance and anyone coming to see this thread later, I think it important to point out that others may find completely the opposite. I suspect that the difference between those who take to FH like a duck to water (myself, e.g.) and those who have to work at it, may be something to do with their analytical nature. I was hopeless at history at school (so why am I doing this as a hobby?) because I simply had to learn lists of facts. I was great at maths because all I ever learnt was the bare bones and I constructed everything in an exam from them. I loved FH from when I first opened it (well, mostly...) but when I trialled FTM (years ago) at the same time, I wept tears of frustration over it because although each view and button was powerful, I couldn't work out which to use without just memorising the stuff.
Your mileage will vary - that's what makes User Interface design so - err - interesting."
And Mike Tate wrote: "This is purely subjective, but I get the feeling that users who start out with FH are fine, whereas users who migrate from other products have more difficulties assimilating FH, perhaps because they come with preconceived concepts that are understandably difficult to ditch."
I found the data entry into FH fine with v2.3, but as the 'options' have increased with each update I have become more intimidated to enter data and whilst I appreciate and wish to use AS v5.2.0 I have developed a block about entering any data for fear of it not being "right"!
In my past life mapping and diagnosing soils in the field; after 6 months I could get by, after 2 years I was competent and after 20 years I was still learning. The same pattern applied when using GIS packages to create and illustrate my survey findings, but only competent in the parts of the software I regularly used.
I agree with Adrian when he says "I suspect that the difference between those who take to FH like a duck to water (myself, e.g.) and those who have to work at it, may be something to do with their analytical nature." Maths was a blind area for me, logic and algebra? But where multiple factors produce "grey areas" or soils e.g. climate, topography, geology, biological and human modification and then having to "think" in 3D beneath the surface vegetation so as to diagnose the soil characteristics and or genealogical links was and is a delight.
Starting out with FH v2.3 was limited but fine, albeit labourious; but at least I had an idea what I was doing and could "see" the genealogical links. FH v6.2 enables a greater diversity of individual "visions" to be acheived and AS v5.2.0 makes that "easier" still, if I can pluck up the courage. But, it isn't comprehensible unless you understand the coding and therein lies the problem; I think.
Logic and algebra, plus this quote from Adrian's paragraph sums up my problem with FH v6.2 + AS v5.2.0, "I wept tears of frustration over it because although each view and button was powerful, I couldn't work out which to use without just memorising the stuff.", or writing it on a bit of paper!
My regards, Bill