[message withdrawn]
ID:4171
* Next version?
Next version?
Going by the previous track record of FH, a couple of minor versions get released soon after a major version and then nothing for a few years. I do hope that I am wrong.[frown]
Next version?
Perhaps if we were all willing to pay a little more, Simon Orde would have more of an incentive to devote more time to respond to our criticisms. I don't have money to throw away but I do think the present price is ridiculously low for a piece of software that does so much for us, whatever its present shortcomings. I suppose the price is pitched to be competitive with similar programs - but so far as I'm concerned FH is streets ahead of the rest and I for one would be prepared to pay more for it. If many others were willing to confirm that they would too, perhaps Simon might be able to come up with upgrades more frequently.
-
nsw
Next version?
I think the price could have been a bit higher, we waited 3 years between paid-for updates so to pay less than 20 pounds (for the update version) for 3 years of work seems amazingly good value! In between there were also one or two free updates which added some extra features.
Having said that, if we compare version 3 and version 4 there doesn't seem to me to be 3 years of work in there. Calico Pie is a very small company and I expect a lot of marketing, sales, support work often gets in the way of development.
Having said that, if we compare version 3 and version 4 there doesn't seem to me to be 3 years of work in there. Calico Pie is a very small company and I expect a lot of marketing, sales, support work often gets in the way of development.
-
ChrisBowyer
- Superstar
- Posts: 389
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:10
- Family Historian: None
Next version?
I've been watching this thread and biting my tongue so far. Personaly I hope we don't get another major feature release too soon.
My family history research is, and always will be, work in progress. I use FH because it is by far the best available way of recording information as you find it, and presenting it (in daigrams and narrative reports) as you go along. Auto-citation has been mentioned (surely you should never add anything without saying where you got it from, but it's hidden on the tools menu and clumsy to use). Relating new finds to existing information is essential (but queries are only for the seriously techy, and only work with hindsight). Diagram styles and text schemes are a tremendously powerful feature but almost impossible to understand.
Things like timelines and place mapping I can happily do in other ways (using other software) if I need to. That's why we have a Gedcom standard. In fact my experience is that place mapping simply doesn't work (apparently most of my grandmother's side are from somewhere in Middle America called Wales, though my Gedcom says things like Place: Chirk, Denbighshire, Wales). Jane is probably more of an expert on this than me (in fact I just gave up after that), but the point is I don't need this sort of stuff to be part of FH. It may be fun, but it doesn't actually help me to record my family tree.
But back to the point of the thread, I would be much happier to see more effort being spent on correcting some of the more serious usability issues within the existing functionality... It's all about perspective; when designing, think of what the user is trying to achieve, rather than what the data is. Try for example to use Add Media in the property box to add the same picture to 2 different people in the same diagram - wonderful feature, appalling usability. Rationalising the user view (why for example do we have both flags and named lists, and ways of setting one from the other, when either could support the functionality of both, and am I the Home person or the Root person, and is there a difference?). Remembering things as a matter of course (like where I put that form and what options I checked). And even some of the clunky presentation blunders (like insistence on the word 'Spouse' for partners of any status, and the clumsy 'Individual' for 'Person' except in 'Root Person', reports with 3 different scroll bars, links where there should be buttons and vice versa, 3 different button styles on the same form, misleading use of default button style, and tabs that work in different ways in different places... the list is almost endless).
We live with these things because FH does what it does well so much better than the competition, but please don't go on adding more badly done 'keeping up with the Jonses' features.
But having said that, I personally like the Focus window; I now use it far more than the Records window... It's a pity that despite the Add options, I can't edit anything here directly, it has the icon everyone else uses for 'Search', always shows the man on the left even when the woman is the focused individual, it distorts pictures, incorrectly abbreviates names to initials (nice idea, but needs to be done right, and then used elsewhere), you can't always tell who the parents are in the descendants view, and so on. It looks like a first draft, and needs to mature, which means it needs development effort.
As for the price, unless you bought the box, the cost of software is simply inversly proportional to the number they sell. If they thought halving the price would do better than sell double the quantity, they presumably would. Increasing it, even by a small amount, could seriously imact new sales and generate less income overall. Some people's answer to this is two versions, one cheap and one 'Professional' edition or similar.
My family history research is, and always will be, work in progress. I use FH because it is by far the best available way of recording information as you find it, and presenting it (in daigrams and narrative reports) as you go along. Auto-citation has been mentioned (surely you should never add anything without saying where you got it from, but it's hidden on the tools menu and clumsy to use). Relating new finds to existing information is essential (but queries are only for the seriously techy, and only work with hindsight). Diagram styles and text schemes are a tremendously powerful feature but almost impossible to understand.
Things like timelines and place mapping I can happily do in other ways (using other software) if I need to. That's why we have a Gedcom standard. In fact my experience is that place mapping simply doesn't work (apparently most of my grandmother's side are from somewhere in Middle America called Wales, though my Gedcom says things like Place: Chirk, Denbighshire, Wales). Jane is probably more of an expert on this than me (in fact I just gave up after that), but the point is I don't need this sort of stuff to be part of FH. It may be fun, but it doesn't actually help me to record my family tree.
But back to the point of the thread, I would be much happier to see more effort being spent on correcting some of the more serious usability issues within the existing functionality... It's all about perspective; when designing, think of what the user is trying to achieve, rather than what the data is. Try for example to use Add Media in the property box to add the same picture to 2 different people in the same diagram - wonderful feature, appalling usability. Rationalising the user view (why for example do we have both flags and named lists, and ways of setting one from the other, when either could support the functionality of both, and am I the Home person or the Root person, and is there a difference?). Remembering things as a matter of course (like where I put that form and what options I checked). And even some of the clunky presentation blunders (like insistence on the word 'Spouse' for partners of any status, and the clumsy 'Individual' for 'Person' except in 'Root Person', reports with 3 different scroll bars, links where there should be buttons and vice versa, 3 different button styles on the same form, misleading use of default button style, and tabs that work in different ways in different places... the list is almost endless).
We live with these things because FH does what it does well so much better than the competition, but please don't go on adding more badly done 'keeping up with the Jonses' features.
But having said that, I personally like the Focus window; I now use it far more than the Records window... It's a pity that despite the Add options, I can't edit anything here directly, it has the icon everyone else uses for 'Search', always shows the man on the left even when the woman is the focused individual, it distorts pictures, incorrectly abbreviates names to initials (nice idea, but needs to be done right, and then used elsewhere), you can't always tell who the parents are in the descendants view, and so on. It looks like a first draft, and needs to mature, which means it needs development effort.
As for the price, unless you bought the box, the cost of software is simply inversly proportional to the number they sell. If they thought halving the price would do better than sell double the quantity, they presumably would. Increasing it, even by a small amount, could seriously imact new sales and generate less income overall. Some people's answer to this is two versions, one cheap and one 'Professional' edition or similar.
-
ChrisBowyer
- Superstar
- Posts: 389
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:10
- Family Historian: None
Next version?
It wouldn't be half so much fun if we all agreed on everything [grin]
Next version?
Can I join in with all this agreeing? [wink] Chris has hit the nail on the head with regards FH's usability. If FH fixed all it's usability issues (which I regaulary email Simon about but get no acknowlegements in return) it would be ten times better and a joy to use. Currently FH is adequate but gets in the way of me carrying out my Genealogy rather than facilitating my research.