Family Historian User Group

I thought we ought to start off any reorganisation/revamp of the Knowledgebase on common ground, by agreeing what we are trying to achieve. Can we come up with a short statement of purpose for the Knowledgebase that we can assess all our changes against, to make sure that each change makes things better?

My starter for 10:

The FHUG Knowledgebase provides easy-to-find, practical and succinct advice on how to use Family Historian and associated resources effectively to support genealogy research activities, based on the accumulated years of experience of the members of the Family Historian User Group (FHUG). It is intended to supplement the **documentation** provided by **Calico Pie**, the authors of Family Historian.

My thinking:

• Easy-to-find is in there because we've identified that as a key issue with the current Knowledgebase.
• Practical and succinct are in there because they should feed into our style guide for the new Knowledgebase. People looking for an answer to a specific problem don't always want to wade through all the technical detail -- although that needs to be available to the subset of users who want it -- the focus should be on answering a problem as quickly and helpfully as possible.
• Ensure users realise it's based on real and not theoretical experience from long-term users.
• Provide a link to documentation from and about Calico Pie, which we are not attempting to replace. (These links should be accessible elsewhere in the Knowledgebase as well).

Note:

There's nothing in here about advising peple how 'to do Genealogy', only about how to support that activity with FH. However, the current Knowledgebase has some pages devoted to this with what might be called 'editorial content' -- we may want to park the question of how we handle this and come back to it once we've tacked the main content.

Note2: I'm adding changes in red as the discussion progresses.

There is a lot more in the KB than your last paragraph suggests that goes beyond just how to use Family Historian:
ancestralsources:index|> Ancestral Sources perhaps omitting AS was an oversight?
research:index|> Genealogy Research which is much more than just how to do genealogy.
fhugdownloads:index|> Downloads and Links have much that goes beyond just using FH.
links:index|> Member Web Sites are mostly little to do with using FH.
info:index|> FHUG Web Site Usage is my planned topic of KB useful info, but nothing to do with using FH.
Family Historian Wish List what role does this play in how to use FH?

I am not convinced that all such related information should be excluded from the KB.

I was including AS as part of using FH effectively.

Knowledge Base > Genealogy Research has no FH specific content which is why I suggested parking it until the main content is dealt with and then debating how to proceed with it. It also overlaps enormously with other information sources on the 'net, whereas the FH content doesn't -- which is why I want to prioritise the FH-specific content. I would also take the same approach to Downloads and Links that are not FH specific. I do wonder why we're trying to compete with Cyndi's List but that's not the most important debate right now.

Of course the downloads of FH specific queries, icons, tab customisations etc. are part of using FH effectively.

Member Web Sites could be included as examples of what can be produced using FH in the category of content dealing with building a website.

The FHUG website info is part of using FH/FH specific resources effectively, and should have a place; ditto the Wish List.

Mike, do the words I've added in red help?

Scope

For accessibility I think we need to be clear about the primary scope which I would suggest is supporting users of Family Historian, its plug-ins and add-ons and associated programs (AS being the clearest example).

Beyond that there is no point in resisting secondary scope items - they are needed (by possibly a more restricted audience) - and the logical place for them would be the FHUG Knowledgebase. Most (if not all) of the items listed by Mike could have a home here - as long as they don't drown out items in the primary scope - perhaps most live "below the fold"?

Helen's "starter for 10" and its relationship to Calico Pie's documentation and help system

There is no point in duplicating content and style but sometimes the same content in a different style will unblock a user's understanding and in that respect for them it may replace Calico Pie's documentation. Different people learn in different ways and there is no harm in the Knowledgebase offering "different ways" - there already seems to be a consensus that "User Guide" and "Technical Manual" are different (possibly not easily compatible) ways of presenting the same core content.

Helen, yes, I am happy with the words added in red as that seems to include everything in the current KB
So from that perspective it is effectively maintaining the status quo for the scope of the advice.
It is the phrases before and after that add focus, and differs from the current KB.

there is no point in resisting secondary scope items

I'm suggesting we discuss secondary scope items later in the process -- although I may resist some of them then! I just don't think we should put our effort into them first.

supporting users of Family Historian, its plug-ins and add-ons and associated programs

is a bit of a mouthful -- and prone to need changing as additional elements to support come along. I'm hoping to come up with something short and pithy that will sit on the Landing Page. Do the more generic words in red suffice, David or do you want the longer version?

There is no point in duplicating content and style but sometimes the same content in a different style will unblock a user's understanding and in that respect for them it may replace Calico Pie's documentation. Different people learn in different ways and there is no harm in the Knowledgebase offering "different ways" - there already seems to be a consensus that "User Guide" and "Technical Manual" are different (possibly not easily compatible) ways of presenting the same core content

I totally agree which is why I said 'supplement' the official documentation -- and I think it's not only a matter of content and style but structure as well.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2020 14:12

there is no point in resisting secondary scope items

I'm suggesting we discuss secondary scope items later in the process -- although I may resist some of them then! I just don't think we should put our effort into them first.

supporting users of Family Historian, its plug-ins and add-ons and associated programs

is a bit of a mouthful -- and prone to need changing as additional elements to support come along. I'm hoping to come up with something short and pithy that will sit on the Landing Page. Do the more generic words in red suffice, David or do you want the longer version?

(original replied not appeared - so trying again - will it be approximately the same?)

The "starter for 10" that you originally specified could have had two meanings:

1. The "Headline" purpose for the "Landing Pages"
2. The project purpose for the "revamp project"

I interpreted it as the second and was trying to make it a bit more precise, Doing so would either help prevent mission-creep or (more likely?) make sure that any creep was conscious!

I think our project scope has to be focused on the main users and their main needs (hence me trying to propose a "primary scope"). There are other things (Mike's list on the second posting is a good starter) which we will want to include but probably later and without distracting from the primary purpose of the web site.

What introductory "purpose" words end up on the first page is very much a "final polish" and marketing of what the revamp project has achieved. They need as you say to be short and pithy and reassure readers that they have come to the right place.

We may be having a vigorous agreement?

Yep, vigorous agreement -- always the best kind.