I would like to see an option in auto-citation to enable the adding of citations to any field that is edited whilst in auto-citation mode.
Currently when auto-citation is turned on, it is possible to have citations added to all new fields as well as to new records. However there are many times when adding information from a source, that some of the information is already known but more details become available. For instance having got a date from one researcher, another provides the location. In the later case, auto-citation doesn't work on the event whose location is now known.
ID:2889
* Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
-
ChrisBowyer
- Superstar
- Posts: 389
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:10
- Family Historian: None
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
Hear Hear
(In fact I thought I'd raised this as a wish list item myself)
What I do when I get a new source of information is add it on a relevant entry, then Copy Citation, Tools/Set Auto Citation, Paste Citation, Set Automatic.
It's a bit of a rigmarole, in fact almost a ritual by now. I reckon you never want to add or edit anything without something being cited. Then you get it on new records automatically, and can hit Paste Citation to add it to anything you edit.
(In fact I thought I'd raised this as a wish list item myself)
What I do when I get a new source of information is add it on a relevant entry, then Copy Citation, Tools/Set Auto Citation, Paste Citation, Set Automatic.
It's a bit of a rigmarole, in fact almost a ritual by now. I reckon you never want to add or edit anything without something being cited. Then you get it on new records automatically, and can hit Paste Citation to add it to anything you edit.
-
Jane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8441
- Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Somerset, England
- Contact:
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
I think this is your original one
198 - One touch copy and auto-citation
http://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldispl ... lwlref=198
Does this need an extra one, I suspect you know Jon, but on the records window and All tab you can already paste the current AutoSource Citation from the Right click menu.
198 - One touch copy and auto-citation
http://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldispl ... lwlref=198
Does this need an extra one, I suspect you know Jon, but on the records window and All tab you can already paste the current AutoSource Citation from the Right click menu.
Jane
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."
-
ChrisBowyer
- Superstar
- Posts: 389
- Joined: 25 Jan 2006 15:10
- Family Historian: None
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
Well found Jane... yes, I guess that's what I had in mind, not quite what Jon was asking for, but along the same lines. I hardly ever edit in the records window... I'm nearly always on a diagram with the Properties form open on either Main or Events so hadn't come across your trick.
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
Yes, the paste auto-citation is available in the record window and all tab, but not anywhere else. No button in the source pane to paste the auto-citation. Lack of consistency is a major failing in FH, if a function is available in one place, it should be available in all other similar places.
I don't use the record window or all tab that much because when you primarily use a keyboard to enter data they just don't work*. Tabbing between fields just does not produce consistent results and you are forced to use the mouse to add new fields (no support for Windows context menu key to the right of the space bar). In the property dialog you can just tab to add the most common fields.
Now blame me for being disorganised, but commonly when entering information from another researcher (so setting auto-citation to them) I might double check some facts so I will create extra citations, and sometimes these need to be copied for multiple events/people. This means that copying and pasting the current auto-citation doesn't always work as I have to recopy it after these diversions. However even this pasting of the citation requires me to move my hand from the keyboard to the mouse to be able to click on the paste button in the source pane.
The whole point about this request is that it makes it easy to ensure that all relavent fields are fully citated as Chris says. Now, there could be occasions when the field doesn't require editing since the information is the same from both the old and new sources. In these cases a one touch paste auto-citation button/keyboard shortcut would be useful.
* It's a well known rule in user interface design that if the user is mainly entering data via the keyboard then they MUST be allowed to keep using the keyboard as much as possible. The times when they will be required to move their hands to the mouse should be kept to the barest minimum, if at all. The record window breaks this rule in every possible.
I don't use the record window or all tab that much because when you primarily use a keyboard to enter data they just don't work*. Tabbing between fields just does not produce consistent results and you are forced to use the mouse to add new fields (no support for Windows context menu key to the right of the space bar). In the property dialog you can just tab to add the most common fields.
Now blame me for being disorganised, but commonly when entering information from another researcher (so setting auto-citation to them) I might double check some facts so I will create extra citations, and sometimes these need to be copied for multiple events/people. This means that copying and pasting the current auto-citation doesn't always work as I have to recopy it after these diversions. However even this pasting of the citation requires me to move my hand from the keyboard to the mouse to be able to click on the paste button in the source pane.
The whole point about this request is that it makes it easy to ensure that all relavent fields are fully citated as Chris says. Now, there could be occasions when the field doesn't require editing since the information is the same from both the old and new sources. In these cases a one touch paste auto-citation button/keyboard shortcut would be useful.
* It's a well known rule in user interface design that if the user is mainly entering data via the keyboard then they MUST be allowed to keep using the keyboard as much as possible. The times when they will be required to move their hands to the mouse should be kept to the barest minimum, if at all. The record window breaks this rule in every possible.
-
jmurphy
- Megastar
- Posts: 712
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007 23:33
- Family Historian: V6.2
- Location: California, USA
- Contact:
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
Jon, I do respect your comments about the user interface, as they are always well-thought-out.JonAxtell said:
I don't use the record window or all tab that much because when you primarily use a keyboard to enter data they just don't work*.
* It's a well known rule in user interface design that if the user is mainly entering data via the keyboard then they MUST be allowed to keep using the keyboard as much as possible. The times when they will be required to move their hands to the mouse should be kept to the barest minimum, if at all. The record window breaks this rule in every possible.
However, I must take the dissenting view on this particular point. I assume when you say 'all tab' you mean the 'individuals' tab in the Records Window?
When I am editing information that requires Paste Auto-Citation, I work in that view all the time, as it allows me to see exactly which line of someone's record I am attaching the auto-citation to.
It doesn't bother me to take my hands off the keyboard -- in fact, in these days when it is all too easy to keyboard or mouse too much and get an RSI, switching back and forth between keyboard and mouse is a welcome change of tasks.
I chose FH precisely because I like the display in the Records window, and hardly ever use the diagrams. I do realize this makes me the odd-person-out, but I'm used to that.
Cheers,
Jan
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
Jan, I understand that you (and many others) have their particular way of working and what I am suggesting doesn't stop you from working in particular way. However the current method stops me from working my way.
What a program with a good UI should provide is methods to allow people to work in their most efficient manner. Generally, naive* computer users are happy using the mouse to select menu options, buttons, etc. For others who may be good typists, keeping your hands on the keyboard as much as possible is more comfortable. So a good UI program will have buttons, menus, to allow mouse clicking. But it also have keyboard shortcuts, accelerator keys, and well laid out tab ordering.
So keyboard users can use the keyboard to their hearts content and are not forced to use the mouse. Conversly, mouse users can use the keyboard and mouse and are not forced to use the keyboard.
One reason for the rule about keeping your hand on the keyboard is that for those who become familiar with using a program, the delay in finding the mouse, positioning it just right within a few pixels and clicking is tremendously long compared to a single keypress combination. E.g. Ctrl-V compared to move mouse to Edit, click, move mouse to paste, click.
* By naive, I mean users who have not much experience with computers or who don't use them intensively and have not become a geek.
PS. As for RSI - as a heavy keyboard user I've got one of those ergonomic kidney bean shaped keyboards.
What a program with a good UI should provide is methods to allow people to work in their most efficient manner. Generally, naive* computer users are happy using the mouse to select menu options, buttons, etc. For others who may be good typists, keeping your hands on the keyboard as much as possible is more comfortable. So a good UI program will have buttons, menus, to allow mouse clicking. But it also have keyboard shortcuts, accelerator keys, and well laid out tab ordering.
So keyboard users can use the keyboard to their hearts content and are not forced to use the mouse. Conversly, mouse users can use the keyboard and mouse and are not forced to use the keyboard.
One reason for the rule about keeping your hand on the keyboard is that for those who become familiar with using a program, the delay in finding the mouse, positioning it just right within a few pixels and clicking is tremendously long compared to a single keypress combination. E.g. Ctrl-V compared to move mouse to Edit, click, move mouse to paste, click.
* By naive, I mean users who have not much experience with computers or who don't use them intensively and have not become a geek.
PS. As for RSI - as a heavy keyboard user I've got one of those ergonomic kidney bean shaped keyboards.
-
jmurphy
- Megastar
- Posts: 712
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007 23:33
- Family Historian: V6.2
- Location: California, USA
- Contact:
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
Well, I am one of those 'neither fish nor fowl' users. I am not a coder myself -- I am a language and data-handling person -- but I understand enough about programming and computers that I do rate as a geek. I can certainly appreciate an elegant design when I see one.
However, when I have my 'ordinary computer user' hat on, I just want the bleeping computer to work and not crash, so I can get my task done without losing my work.
Since no program is perfect, if I could choose, I would rather have an ugly design that did not crash over a sleek elegant design that looks nice, but will not function. Over the decades, I have been moved from ugly but powerful programs to pretty ones whose every upgrade added many new features but usually took away the ones I was using the most.
An extreme example would be the word processor I used to use on my Commodore 64, where there were some tasks that were very easy to do, that either took a ridiculous amount of work on other word processors or were not available at all (it had a module whereby you could generate your own printer driver, if you had a printer whose driver was not included).
Your own code may be both elegant and robust, so that the user is not faced with this dilemma of choosing between a program that worked or a program that was pretty, but I'm sure you have used enough programs which are one or the other to know the kind of thing I am talking about.
So I hope you can forgive me when you make your sensible comments and I sometimes respond with cross mutterings. Most of the times I do agree with you.
But if you hear a faint cry of 'for God's sake don't make Simon (or Nick) break something I am using' coming from across the Atlantic, then it's probably me.
[grin]
Jan
However, when I have my 'ordinary computer user' hat on, I just want the bleeping computer to work and not crash, so I can get my task done without losing my work.
Since no program is perfect, if I could choose, I would rather have an ugly design that did not crash over a sleek elegant design that looks nice, but will not function. Over the decades, I have been moved from ugly but powerful programs to pretty ones whose every upgrade added many new features but usually took away the ones I was using the most.
An extreme example would be the word processor I used to use on my Commodore 64, where there were some tasks that were very easy to do, that either took a ridiculous amount of work on other word processors or were not available at all (it had a module whereby you could generate your own printer driver, if you had a printer whose driver was not included).
Your own code may be both elegant and robust, so that the user is not faced with this dilemma of choosing between a program that worked or a program that was pretty, but I'm sure you have used enough programs which are one or the other to know the kind of thing I am talking about.
So I hope you can forgive me when you make your sensible comments and I sometimes respond with cross mutterings. Most of the times I do agree with you.
But if you hear a faint cry of 'for God's sake don't make Simon (or Nick) break something I am using' coming from across the Atlantic, then it's probably me.
[grin]
Jan
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
If I might offer an impression here:
I'm totally new to FH, being an FTM 2008 user looking to move to a superior software package. To that end, I'm currently evaluating the 30 day demos for both FH and TMG.
One of my challenges has been to understand the source and citation capabilities in each package. This is an area which FTM seems to have handled differently than both FH and TMG. In FTM, the source-citations (such as BMD certificates or a Census entry for a specific family) are created as a set of entities unto themselves. You then simply link any number of relevant facts (such as a birth date and place, a parent's name, etc) to a particular citation.
Here's the nice part: if you subsequently change the information in a source-citation, it's automatically reflected in each of the facts that link to it: no need to track each one down and update it.
I suspect that this functionality depends on diverging from the GEDCOM standard in some way. I've noticed that the sources for the information I've imported into FH are not in very good shape [frown]
And just for the record, this is the only feature I've found so far that I would actually miss in FTM: FH appears to be a fabulous package!
Cheers,
Paul
I'm totally new to FH, being an FTM 2008 user looking to move to a superior software package. To that end, I'm currently evaluating the 30 day demos for both FH and TMG.
One of my challenges has been to understand the source and citation capabilities in each package. This is an area which FTM seems to have handled differently than both FH and TMG. In FTM, the source-citations (such as BMD certificates or a Census entry for a specific family) are created as a set of entities unto themselves. You then simply link any number of relevant facts (such as a birth date and place, a parent's name, etc) to a particular citation.
Here's the nice part: if you subsequently change the information in a source-citation, it's automatically reflected in each of the facts that link to it: no need to track each one down and update it.
I suspect that this functionality depends on diverging from the GEDCOM standard in some way. I've noticed that the sources for the information I've imported into FH are not in very good shape [frown]
And just for the record, this is the only feature I've found so far that I would actually miss in FTM: FH appears to be a fabulous package!
Cheers,
Paul
-
NickWalker
- Megastar
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: 02 Jan 2004 17:39
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Lancashire, UK
- Contact:
Auto-citation when editing fields, not just adding
What you refer to as source citations are sources in Family Historian. The links to the source are the citations. You can change a source and the citations don't need to change which seems identical behaviour to how you describe it in FTM.