* FH7 Narrative Report conversion from FH6

[klm2OUMK]

Today I have started to try to use Method 3 (The Source Button) to add 15 new extra sources and citations to an original Descendants Narrative Report created using FH 6.2. I have recently updated to FH v.7.2 / AS v.7.03 and added 17 A/S Essential Templates

I originally created the original report using FH v.6.2 /AS v.4 /'generic' but at the moment I have not worked how to include the new extra media images of BMD certificates in Sources and citations in Bibliography.

Using a new Scotland 1841 Census source, I 'prepared a citation' and viewed in 'prepared citation window'. Next I used the Data Entry Assistant button but could not seem to be able to include an copy of the media image of the census in Sources at end of report or include an Essentials citation in Bibliography, thank you?

(Can I use a mix of original FH 6.2 'generic' source/citations with my attempt of using the A/S 'Essentials' templates)

[tatewise]

I have split this away and started a new thread as this is a significantly different topic.
This is an overview of your problems and we can dig deeper if the explanations are not sufficiently helpful.

I may be being pedantic, but you are not really adding to the Report but actually adding to the Project database, which is then reflected in the Report.

Why not use AS to add those new Source Citations?
Perhaps you just want to explore the new Source button.
It is not really a Method 3 because it can be used for both Method 1 and Method 2 Source Citations.
Even in earlier versions of FH you could start by creating a Source and then adding the Citations.

You do not add Media using a DEA, which is only for textual data.
Media are added via the Media tab of the Citation Window in much the same way as they were in FH V6.

For anything else to happen the Prepared Citation must be attached to some Facts in your Project data.
Until you do that the Report will not be updated.

What appears in the Bibliography section at the end of the Report depends on several settings.
In the Report > Options > Sources tab, Show Bibliography must be ticked.
The Source Template for each Source Citation must have an appropriate Bibliography Format defined.

[klm2OUMK]

Pleased to report that I have taken on board your very helpful suggestions and this morning managed to successfully enter Scotland 1841 Census source record linked to individual fact in project data using AS v.7 and FH v.7 .

- the new media image of the census appeared in Sources page in original Descendants Narrative Report OK
- the new citation appeared in the original Bibliography of the Descendants Narrative Report OK

I will now start to enter another 14 new records into my original project report, thank you for your help and advise

[ColeValleyGirl]

It is not really a Method 3 because it can be used for both Method 1 and Method 2 Source Citations.

I may be being pedantic, but it is really Method 3 of adding sources in V7. See https://fhug.org.uk/kb/kb-article/worki ... -heading-9

[tatewise]

Ah! In that context I see that there are three methods, but might that be in conflict with the splitter/lumper Methods 1 & 2?
Would some other word such as Mode or Strategy or Tactic be clearer?
I think AS has effectively been offering that Source driven mode all along.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Would some other word such as Mode or Strategy or Tactic be clearer?

Not without mangling the English language, I fear. The article is describing the methods to achieve something -- do this press that -- so Tactic and Strategy definitely don't fit; Mode might, but I don't think everyone can avoid the word Method just because it was used in AS!

Edited to Add: If anything, it is AS that is using Method when it should use Strategy, but I see no need for it to change!

I think AS has effectively been offering that Source driven mode all along.

Agreed, and the AS articles by Nick say so.

[tatewise]

What about Methods A , B & C ? or some other designation?

The concepts of Method 1 and Method 2 have spread far further than just AS.
They are well defined in the KB and have been for many years.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I shall stick with Method... after all, the word has existed longer than AS or the KB.

[Mark1834]

We’re getting a bit off the original topic, but a few things stuck out for me in the referenced KB page. “Method” looks fine in that context, and I don’t think it is likely to cause splitter/lumper confusion. However, right at the top it says you can carry on with an FH6 style of working with customisations. I think that’s potentially misleading. I work exactly the same way in FH6 and FH7 without the detailed customisations listed. The windows might look a little different, but the work flow is exactly the same.

There are a lot of subjective opinions presented as facts. “Easier”, and even “much easier” to use templates and DEAs, “better” reports, etc. There’s certainly more fine structure to the new ways of working that may suit some people, but whether it’s universally easier or better is a matter of opinion (and significant forum debate!). Personally, I’m perfectly happy with my workflow and reporting quality without embracing the new options.

It also needs updating to reflect that AS7 is available now, and has been for some time, for those that prefer to stick with the established options.

[ColeValleyGirl]

However, right at the top it says you can carry on with an FH6 style of working with customisations. I think that’s potentially misleading. I work exactly the same way in FH6 and FH7 without the detailed customisations listed. The windows might look a little different, but the work flow is exactly the same.

One of the common complaints during beta and since was/is that the source window didn't look the same, and in particular you needed to access multiple tabs to see what was once visible on a single tab. The work flow may not have changed, but the customisations make the source windows more familiar ('an FH6 style of working').

There are a lot of subjective opinions presented as facts. “Easier”, and even “much easier” to use templates and DEAs, “better” reports, etc.

It is easier (more streamlined) to use Source-driven data entry in V7 than in V6, because there's an obvious starting point for users who may never have discovered the capability in FH and thought they had to use AS instead. And it is easier to record sources consistently (none of the 'where do I put this in a generic source definition? which has caused so much discussion in the past). Bibliographies and reference notes can be customised to suit the users; and formatted text looks better in reports. Your opinion may differ but I find it hard to argue that those are not all obvious improvements.

You'll have to point me to where it says it's 'much easier' to use DEAs.

It also needs updating to reflect that AS7 is available now, and has been for some time, for those that prefer to stick with the established options.

No, it doesn't. It's an article about working within FH, and about the changes from FH6. AS is not a change from FH6, nor does it work within FH. In fact, it does much of what the article covers outside FH, and is covered by 21 articles in the KB, updated by Nick for the latest version of AS. They include such statements as "to allow faster and more convenient creation of source records with census events, BMD events, occupation attributes, and other facts linked to the sources, and the ability to easily link multimedia images" and "Ancestral Sources is highly recommended". As the first thing most new users get told here on the forums, on the mailing list and on the FB page is you must use AS' I don't think it's in danger of being overlooked.

[Mark1834]

OK, I'll be more specific if that helps:

The very first sentence says Family Historian version 7 introduces a new way of working with Sources and Citations , although it is possible (with a few customisations) to continue working in a similar way to Version 6. IMO, it would be better to say Family Historian version 7 introduces a new way of working with Sources and Citations, while still fully supporting methods used in previous versions. The interface has been updated, but can be customised to closely resemble that of FH6 if you prefer. It's more words, but it's more accurate and doesn't risk confusing interface with working methods.

The accolade of being "much easier" is reserved for Templates. That's probably the case for folk like you who have bought into the EE world of detailed structure, and it's true, other pages are equally promotional about their authors' preferred methods. To be fair, most FHUG contributors play a straight bat and advise newcomers to try all methods, even if their preferred options are abundantly clear in other postings. Without your efforts on writing DEAs and KB articles, there would probably be precious little coverage of the new options, so we'll cut you some slack to give your own preferences, even if you state incontrovertible facts in bold emphasis and others just have opinions...

At the bottom of the Creating and Using Sources and Citations concertina, it says Ancestral Sources is being updated to work with ƒh7 and will be available (when complete) as an option for those who prefer to use it. Ancestral Sources has been updated, is complete, and was released on the same day as FH7, so which part of that sentence does not need updating?

[tatewise]

Isn't this discussion getting a long way away from the OP question and likely to confuse them?
Perhaps it needs a new thread?

[ColeValleyGirl]

OK, I'll be more specific if that helps:

The very first sentence says Family Historian version 7 introduces a new way of working with Sources and Citations , although it is possible (with a few customisations) to continue working in a similar way to Version 6. IMO, it would be better to say Family Historian version 7 introduces a new way of working with Sources and Citations, while still fully supporting methods used in previous versions. The interface has been updated, but can be customised to closely resemble that of FH6 if you prefer. It's more words, but it's more accurate and doesn't risk confusing interface with working methods.

I've reworked it a bit, but kept it short

The accolade of being "much easier" is reserved for Templates. That's probably the case for folk like you who have bought into the EE world of detailed structure, and it's true, other pages are equally promotional about their authors' preferred methods. To be fair, most FHUG contributors play a straight bat and advise newcomers to try all methods, even if their preferred options are abundantly clear in other postings. Without your efforts on writing DEAs and KB articles, there would probably be precious little coverage of the new options, so we'll cut you some slack to give your own preferences, even if you state incontrovertible facts in bold emphasis and others just have opinions...

I've changed the references about templates from 'much easier' and 'easier' to 'simpler' -- or do you dispute that as well? (It will apply equally to Generic Sources created from Templates when I update that plugin).

Template =/= EE; the Essentials templates are based on practice at Strathclyde and less detailed and don't come with the EE 'best practice' baggage -- they're the ones I suggest in the article are the best choice for most users if they choose to adopt templates. (I wouldn't recommend ANYONE use the EE templates unless they're already a died in the wool EE convert; and I haven't decided yet for myself which I'm going to use -- EE or a customised version of Essentials that incorporates some but not all of EE's practices). And I thought the arguments for templates versus generic were pretty even-handed -- the article doesn't actually recommend one over the other. Also, using templates doesn't force you to use DEAs -- you can use AS or do things manually;

At the bottom of the Creating and Using Sources and Citations concertina, it says Ancestral Sources is being updated to work with ƒh7 and will be available (when complete) as an option for those who prefer to use it. Ancestral Sources has been updated, is complete, and was released on the same day as FH7, so which part of that sentence does not need updating?

Thanks -- I'd missed that reference. Now removed as AS gets a mention in the first paragraph.

[Mark1834]

Think it came off the rails after about the second or third posting, but I’ve not got anything further to add so it’s probably run its course.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I would like your feedback on the changes I've made, Mark, if you're willing. I really don't want to be steering people to a single solution without considering the pros and cons.

[Mark1834]

Ok, I’ll look at the new draft tomorrow and respond to you directly.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Thanks. I haven't made the corresponding changes to the companion article yet because some of the pros and cons are different for new fh users.

[klm2OUMK]

One extra query following on using AS to input my extra BMD certificates & Census sources and citations into original Descendants Narrative Report.

The orientation of the BMD certificates & Census images at the end of the report in 'Sources' section for some reason are all in the 'Portrait' format at 90 degrees rotation and so I am also loosing some text and making it difficult to read the source ? I have checked the orientations of the images in the individual family 'Media' which are all saved in 'Landscape' orientation .

How can I find an 'option' in Report settings to ensure that the orientation of the BMD Certificates & Census sources in Descendants Narrative Reports are all in the 'Landscape' mode?

(NB - I 'scanned' all the extra sources using my laptop and printer and 'saving' into folder on my laptop and noticed that I did have rotate through 90 degrees to see record in Landscape mode. Previously I had taken 'photographs' of the original images and all the original images were in 'Landscape' orientation )

Thank you

[klm2OUMK]

Sorry forgot to also mention that none of the small icon images of the BMD & Census appeared in the AS main page?
Is this linked to my recent previous posting?

[klm2OUMK]

Just thought of another extra difference point is that I used 600 dots per inch during scanning rather than 300 dots per inch default. Again might this be linked to my recent query?

[tatewise]

It sounds like you have two sets of Media images but my guesswork may be wrong.
One set is photos attached directly to the Individual/Family property box Media tabs and are in landscape orientation.
Another set of scans, added via AS, is attached to Source record Media tabs and are in portrait orientation.
The orientation just depends on how you photographed or scanned the images.

If you check the Media Window can you see those two sets of Media record images?

It is not usually advisable to attach source document images directly to the Individual/Family property box Media tabs which are intended for personal photos of the people.

If you wanted to use the existing 'photos' then in AS you should have chosen existing Media rather than import new files.

The resolution is unimportant.

Having reviewed what Media you have now got, how do you want to proceed?
Move the Individual/Family property box Media 'photos' to the Source records and delete the new 'scans'.
Merge the two sets of Media so they remain on both types of tab?
Or something else?

May I suggest that before updating a large batch of data & media using a new technique that you experiment with just a few?
Then you can easily resolve and abnormalities, or revise the techniques, before having a lot of entries that need fixing.

[klm2OUMK]

There were 2 images in Media of the same certificate. Deleting one of them made no difference still appearing as a Portrait image in report.

Therefore I deleted both images originally 'scanned'. Then I have just used my Canon camera to take the same image of the same certificate and this time after using AS v.7 the image in the report was the correct way round 'Landscape' without having to re orientate through 90 degrees .

So I will use my camera rather than using my Canon scanner.

Thank you help and advise

[tatewise]

You will probably get a much better image with the scanner and the scanner software package on your PC will probably have rotation and crop options and other enhancement tools.
See the FHUG Knowledge Base Common Image Problems.
Photo Orientation in Family Historian 7 talks about photo images but does not mention scanned documents.
Photo Orientation in Family Historian 6 and below explains other techniques for rotating document images that should resolve your scanner problems if the scanner software tools don't help.

[klm2OUMK]

Thank you for the extra information on scanning images for FH