Family Historian User Group

I know the answer is somewhere on this forum but can I find it

At the moment, whenever I try to open a chart (say ancestors) I'm taken to a window where I have to confirm the person and the generations up and down.

How do I get back to the situation where I can skip that window and just get the chart to open straight away.

Tx

Use Tools > Preferences > Diagrams and tick Enable One-Click Diagram Display from Toolbar ~ simples!

... if only I had your knowledge

My knowledge is not that mysterious. I just use a logical detective approach.
I initially assume that global settings like that will be in Tools > Preferences somewhere.
Since it affects opening Diagrams, I investigated the Diagrams tab, and there it was...

Actually, Mike, when the change came in with V7 you didn't use that "logical detective approach". You assumed the one-click ability had been removed!
See https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic ... 52#p105051

tatewise wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2022 13:37

My knowledge is not that mysterious. I just use a logical detective approach.

I think really "getting your mind around software" is more complex if not mysterious. It's not just knowledge; it's also an approach, an empathy and some degree of skill.

I think we need to understand that there are two broad approaches that users tend to take; those that just learn mechanistically a set of instructions that give the desired effect, and those who are not "afraid" to have a feel around and are willing to take the small risk that they may "break something". In doing the later your discover for yourself what can be done. My late mother was in the former category and relied on numerous laminated cards giving step by step instructions - the idea that you could just "click around" or "try right clicking" was alien. I think this is partly a generational thing and partly whether people feel intimidated by "systems".

When I was introduced to Lotus Symphony (an allied program to Lotus 1-2-3, but with added basic word-processing, graphics and database abilities), I had 2 or 3 days one-to-two training by two instructors who really understood the program and enabled me to get into the "mind-warp" of the person (I suspect it was a single person) who master-minded the program. You also generate an ability to think "that functionality [possibly as simple as switching an option on or off] must be possible", so you then think "how would they have developed that functionality?". That process of getting into software has served me well - although when the program is written by a committee it is more difficult.

Finding your way round software is also a skill - possibly like playing a violin ("that fingering not comfortable, try getting the note on a different string?"). "Customise" not under "Edit" - try "Preferences", try "Preferences" under "View" or "Tools". It is almost more instinctive that plain knowledge.

Of course if the single-mind that created the program was also having to work to some external requirement, say GEDCOM compatibility - or use of a library of functionality (for instance colour selection), your ability to get into the developer's mind-warp is also dependent on how comfortable they were working with the mind-warp of those who developed say GEDCOM or the library!

davidf wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2022 16:03

I think this is partly a generational thing and partly whether people feel intimidated by "systems".

I think there's something else in play here.

I regularly help somebody who is not inclined to 'click around' or explore menus to find out what is possible. They have 11 years longer in the IT industry than I do, so it isn't technology per se that they see differently, but it might be that they started in IT when mainframes were the only game in town and the equivalent of clicking around was writing a new Cobol programme via a deck of punch cards -- not something you did lightly. How widespread that effect is I don't know, but I suspect there are many occupations where following the rules/instructions was essential and experimenting led to disaster on a smaller or greater scale.

It's also an approach, an empathy and some degree of skill.

The empathy is important -- I regularly have to stop myself going 'but of course that's how it works' when I have that empathy with the developer and others don't. Which is why (I hope) I'll never say or imply that 'any fule knows/can do that' or assume that others work the way that I do. (I also hope that I'll never assume I'm dealing with somebody who is taking baby steps -- far better IMO to provide outline info/a starting point with an invitation to ask if more help is needed).

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

28 Apr 2022 16:28

I regularly have to stop myself going 'but of course that's how it works' when I have that empathy with the developer and others don't.

Well said, I've worked in a pc environment for decades and one of my distinction uni subjects was logic - so I'm neither short of generic pc know-how nor the ability to solve problems. I've even been on Jane's courses and I'm a previous FH beta tester, so not a novice.

Like many, even after spending time trying to find the answer on the forums and k/b, I still need help. This is why this forum is so excellent - keep up the good work.