FH Development road map

chrisjk · Post by **chrisjk** » 30 Apr 2009 18:31

I have used FH since version 2 but not as my primary desktop software. Since getting a Mac I have used iFamily for Leopard which is my preferred desktop program but have continued to use FH for it's excellent interactive diagram capability.

Unfortunately, the developer of iFamily has died and I am considering a possible switch to another desktop program, anticpating that with the passage of time iFamily will become steadily more obsolete - although it is at present by far the best genealogy software for the Mac IMHO.

FH with version 4 has become much more user friendly compared with versions 2 and 3 and is now a contender for my regular use (I have already bought it) but I am concerned by what I see as a very slow pace of development - glacial barely describes it compared with iFamily that used to receive frequent improvements and enhancements - sometimes weekly.

My question is this really - will I be hitching my wagon to something that will be left behind by other ( Windows based) genealogical software that develops faster?

Whilst version 4 is a welcome upgrade it still has miles to go in some areas and, particularly as some of the things it misses (like the recording of GPS info for example) seem to be relatively trivial to implement, I think it's a fair question.

ID:3629

Post by **NickWalker** » 30 Apr 2009 21:35

I'm not really sure how anyone can answer this question for you, other than perhaps Simon himself and he's unlikely to do so here I suspect.

Without knowing what other software developers will do and without knowing how Calico plan to expand in the future (or otherwise), any answer will only be a guess.

The important thing is that with Family Historian if one day you do feel that it has been left behind, it will be fairly straightforward to transfer your records to another program, the code isn't locked into some impenetrable format.

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 01 May 2009 07:27

Nick Walker said:The important thing is that with Family Historian if one day you do feel that it has been left behind, it will be fairly straightforward to transfer your records to another program, the code isn't locked into some impenetrable format.

No it easy to view your data and transfer most of it, but there will always be the problem of transferring the data to another program. Data WILL get lost during the transfer, either because the other program doesn't implement Gedcom support fully/properly or because it won't understand FH's extensions which will contain valuable data. This is true of switching to FH from other programs too. FH's 100% (alleged) support for Gedcom doesn't change this fact.

RalfofAmber · Post by **RalfofAmber** » 01 May 2009 08:04

I would say there is also the 'ways of working' problem, i.e. you learn how you want to work with a product and find any replacement product a challenge as it will never work in quite the same way

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 01 May 2009 11:16

There will always be differences between programs but if they generally present the data the same way, that's one big thinking step that's not necessary. For instance spreadsheets all use the same format for showing the data, the same for word processors.

If a word processor showed the text as a series of boxes for each paragraph which had to be manipulated separately then that is something like the issue that a user will have coming to FH's record window. It works, but the user has to do more thinking about their data at the same time as learning how to use it - an extra work load that makes learning the program harder.

brian1950 · Post by **brian1950** » 01 May 2009 11:44

I have no experience of iFamily or Macs, so can't comment on how they compare to FH on a PC. At the end of last year I chose FH for my first computer genealogy software program having previously logged my research on paper... and not very well!

FH v3 has made a world of difference to my understanding and enjoyment of my family history research. If it went down I'd be ever so upset... to put it mildly.

Is FH, now in v4, up with the competition? I have absolutely no idea. Do I care? Not really. I just know FH v3 works for me, as judging from the usage experiences of many others, I'm using perhaps 30 per cent of its capabilities. Added to this, a major part of my decision to choose FH, is the superb support via FHUG; they're there if I want to further improve my skills and understanding of FH's unused capabilities, and I've learned a lot from the forums.

Of course I recognise FH needs to be competitive, otherwise it'll lose market share, become unviable and we'll maybe lose it. And partly driving developments, is that some of us always want more, when, if we're honest, really honest, it's not really needed or necessary.

So I ask a question. Is the program driving you, or are your needs driving it?

Brian

sue120502 · Post by **sue120502** » 01 May 2009 15:51

I have both Family Tree Maker 2009 and FH3 & decided to buy the full new version of FH4 rather than have the hassle of upgrade.

I far prefer FH4 and have even uninstalled FTM 2009 because I didn't like it, even though it interacts with Ancestry.co.uk. FTM had the ability to log locations but do you really need it. Why not use Google Maps.

The price of Family Historian is very competetive and the new interface is great. The other great thing is - the developers read the wish lists. I'm not sure how many of the wishes they actually incorporate but I would think they do listen because if they don't, they'll lose their loyal customer base. Plus FH is geared towards the UK - yippee something that is not focused on the USA, with the rest of us in the periphery.

Regards,
Sue

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 01 May 2009 16:06

sue120502 said:
The other great thing is - the developers read the wish lists. I'm not sure how many of the wishes they actually incorporate

Version 4 allowed me to close 22 wishes from the list, many of which were the high vote items, such as the 'undo/redo' function and the re-sizable property box.

Post by **NickWalker** » 01 May 2009 19:13

JonAxtell said:
No it easy to view your data and transfer most of it, but there will always be the problem of transferring the data to another program. Data WILL get lost during the transfer, either because the other program doesn't implement Gedcom support fully/properly or because it won't understand FH's extensions which will contain valuable data. This is true of switching to FH from other programs too. FH's 100% (alleged) support for Gedcom doesn't change this fact.

This just isn't the case Jon, if I was moving to another package I would if necessary write a little program to convert the file into the necessary format. To say data WILL be lost in my case is wrong. Because Family Historian uses an open (or mostly open - easy to interpret anyway) format it gives this flexibility. My tree used to be in Family Tree Maker a few years ago, I lost data moving to Family Historian because the file structure of FTM was completely closed to me and the export to GEDCOM wasn't great. OK so not everyone can write their own software, but if I did write it I'd make it available to others and I'm sure other programmers, like yourself, would do the same.

Anyway hopefully there will never be a need to do this and we'll all be chatting happily on the FHUG forums for years to come.

goodwin2 · Post by **goodwin2** » 01 May 2009 22:06

As one who has been/still am eagerly awaiting my copy of the full v4 - which hopefully will arrive here in the US by tomorrow, I have been tracking all the comments, suggestions and ? complaints on v4 usage.

Probably mentioned before that I have been using Family Tree Maker [now ver 16] for most of my genealogical researching activities for years. I did order and install the 2009 version, used it briefly and then sent it back as I did not find it to have added anything significantly useful to me. It was prettier and had the map feature but I really do not need to be connected to the internet for that purpose.

I have also looked at FH v4's screenshots and followed the link that Jane left to go through it. For me, the focus screen will probably be most used - it's similar to the format of FTM - familiarity counts here!

As others have mentioned - it's what works for each individual. Many of the folks posting to this website are far more technical than I am and I'm sure utilize more of the features of FH than I do at the moment. I'm trying to learn! And I do see in v4 there are areas which I will definitely be exploring more fully and will use.

My last comment - not yet having v4 - is, if there will be an upgrade - perhaps sooner than later - could Simon PLEASE add the ability to initially convert dates in FH [as we convert our gedcom from another program] to our US format and to allow input in that US format? I have great confidence that if Family Tree Maker has that capability - which it does - that Simon CERTAINLY can do it. I know that UK folks are very happy that there is a program that IS UK oriented, but I'm sure there are many of us in the US who also purchase FH who would be THRILLED to have that feature. No, you don't have to cater to us 'on the other side of the pond' but a little concession there would be REALLY GREAT! My English ancestors and I thank you kindly.

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 02 May 2009 08:07

Nick Walker said:
OK so not everyone can write their own software, but if I did write it I'd make it available to others and I'm sure other programmers, like yourself, would do the same.

I am in fact in the process of doing this.

And though I might be critical of FH I will still use it compared to the other programs.

gerrynuk · Post by **gerrynuk** » 02 May 2009 10:01

goodwin2 said:

My last comment - not yet having v4 - is, if there will be an upgrade - perhaps sooner than later - could Simon PLEASE add the ability to initially convert dates in FH [as we convert our gedcom from another program] to our US format and to allow input in that US format?

Have you set Tools>Preferences>International to 'English - United States'? This seems to give at least some of what you are looking for.

Gerry

chrisjk · Post by **chrisjk** » 02 May 2009 10:33

brian1950 said:

So I ask a question. Is the program driving you, or are your needs driving it?

Brian

It is a fair question and my answer is that it is a bit of both.

Software features driving me

As the capabilities of Genealogical software grow, so do my expectations and requirements. I think the ability of some programs to handle GPS info is a good illustration of this. Before it became possible to do it, I didn't worry about it but when I saw how some people were able to link it with Google maps and the like, I wanted it and now regard it as a fairly basic need that any program should address.

My needs driving software choice

I have always sought software that is easy and elegant to use, has a good UI and a thoughtful provision of tools to manipulate the data. Software that requires me to do a lot of fiddling about because the developer hasn't implemented a simple routine for what I need to do annoys me.

For me there is a sufficiently long list of items in both categories that don't get addressed by FH to worry me.

Sure it does a lot of stuff well but it could be so much better and I don't see why it takes so long.

brian1950 · Post by **brian1950** » 02 May 2009 12:33

chrisjk said:

I have always sought software that is easy and elegant to use, has a good UI and a thoughtful provision of tools to manipulate the data.

Here, here! I agree thoroughly.

However, my not unreasonable concern, judging by past history, is that developers eventually make their software all things to all people so that it ticks all of the boxes against the competition, and what started off as an elegant and effective tool becomes bloated, over complicated and unenjoyable in use.

I would hazard a guess that many of us never use 50 per cent of the total capability of the programs we've installed - and no, I don't have figures to back this up, just the observations of friends etc.

With this in mind, I would like to see software development concentrated on elegant, effective and stable core programs, which have the ability to download from the owners add-ons and plug-ins that integrate fully, so that users can tailor their version to suit their own particular needs and requirements.

I know some developers do this already. Perhaps Calico Pie could think seriously about this for the future?

Brian

YouTube · Post by **Jane** » 02 May 2009 12:37

Brian, there is a wish list item for plug APIs. If you have not already voted for it please do.
http://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldispl ... lwlref=324

I would love to be able to build tools direct into FH.

goodwin2 · Post by **goodwin2** » 02 May 2009 23:27

In response to my plea for US formatted dates when exporting a gedcom from another program into FH and having them then in US format AND thereafter being able to use US formatting in FH:

Gerry replied:

'Have you set Tools>Preferences>International to 'English - United States'? This seems to give at least some of what you are looking for.'

What that does, at least in v.3.1.2, is convert my US dates, Feb. 22, 1922 into the 22 Feb 1922 format - UK and other international usage. Doesn't seem to lose anything, thankfully, but not what I'm really looking for. Does anyone know if my hoped for conversion is possible in v.4? I am still [cry] waiting for deliver.

Or, is there some kind soul out there who can write something that can be incorporated into v.4 [without doing damage or corrupting it] that will answer this plea?

gerrynuk · Post by **gerrynuk** » 07 May 2009 14:50

Jane said:

Version 4 allowed me to close 22 wishes from the list

Jane,

I know how busy you have been answering posts arising from the release of V4, but if you have the time, could you list which 22 Wish List items have been included in V4, please?

(I did look in the Wish List section but couldn't find a way of identifying the items now included in V4.)

Many thanks,

Gerry

Post by **ColeValleyGirl** » 07 May 2009 15:00

If you can't wait until jane comes back, you can tick the Show Completed option and scan through for the ones added in version 4. Not quick, unless there's a particular area of functionality in which you're interested.

gerrynuk · Post by **gerrynuk** » 07 May 2009 15:43

Cole Valley Girl said:
If you can't wait until jane comes back, you can tick the Show Completed option and scan through for the ones added in version 4. Not quick, unless there's a particular area of functionality in which you're interested.

Ah! Didn't realise that was how it worked. Thanks.

Gerry

JonAxtell · Post by **JonAxtell** » 07 May 2009 22:45

Just so that people can see some of what what has been fixed here is the list.

[pre] Avg Added
Title Score Votes Rating Added Version
Ability to Parameterise the Index qualifiers (234) 66 23 2.9 07/08/06 4.0
Ability to see/edit more children in the Property Dialog (49) 329 86 3.8 07/08/06 4.0
Allow explicit objects in custom queries (277) 27 11 2.5 23/10/06 4.0
Double click object in properties dialog to open Multimedia window. (34) 60 17 3.5 07/08/06 4.0
Gallery view in the Multimedia Window (125) 45 17 2.6 07/08/06 4.0
Hyperlink the (239) 121 32 3.8 07/08/06 4.0
If construct to select one of a selection of field (13) 80 24 3.3 07/08/06 4.0
Linking multimedia to sub-tags (126) 48 14 3.4 07/08/06 4.0
Multimedia report (inc. details about each linked person) (99) 36 11 3.3 07/08/06 4.0
Multiple Values in Query filters (361) 28 10 2.8 10/01/08 4.0
Nested Conditional Functions (162) 107 30 3.6 07/08/06 4.0
Option to search a diagram for an entered name or text (334) 34 12 2.8 12/09/07 4.0
Perform Queries which return multiple lines per record (285) 52 17 3.1 10/01/07 4.0
Property Dialog to be Resizeable (43) 395 90 4.4 07/08/06 4.0
Query on events (300) 36 13 2.8 08/02/07 4.0
Show Icons based on existence of event/attribute (235) 58 19 3.1 07/08/06 4.0
Show Pictures attached to Events on Reports (272) 182 49 3.7 05/10/06 4.0
Split Tree Helper - to remember last settings (216) 40 12 3.3 07/08/06 4.0
Support for complex SQL like statements in Queries (293) 51 16 3.2 25/01/07 4.0
Support for Single Sex / Gender Relationships (90) 179 44 4.1 07/08/06 4.0
Support Multiple Functions in Query Title (386) 22 7 3.1 04/10/08 4.0
Undo/Redo (5) 484 117 4.1 07/08/06 4.0
[/pre]

gerrynuk · Post by **gerrynuk** » 08 May 2009 09:06

Thanks, Jon.

Gerry

Family Historian User Group