* FHUG Wish List, Plugins, Bugs & Features

[David Potter]

On a more general level, since migrating from TMG to FH last June, I have often wondered what the relationship is between FHUG and Calico Pie. And for sure I would be sunk without all the help I have received here in FHUG as newbie - Thank You. Having researched other replacements for TMG before selecting FH, such as RootsMagic, Legacy and FTM (Mackiev). I'm quite happy with having chosen FH. However, I do have the following comments/observations which I have been meaning to raise for some time as topics in FHUG.

1) The wish list in FHUG - what happens with those 'voted on' requests - do they go to Calico Pie as development requests? I have seen many a remark that those requests can sit there for years and not be addressed!

2) The fantastic flexibility that Plug-Ins can offer to solve inadequacies in the core program features and functions. Doesn't this to a degree drive Calico Pie away from their obligation in solving or improving the product if they can see 'Work Around' solutions can be built this way. And then when should a Plug-In become a standard feature? Don't get me wrong; I strongly support this Flexibility; but it can have a negative consequence.

3) Regards Bugs and New Features, don't we/can we not have some say in what gets addressed and prioritised? A bit like the Wish List but in the reverse direction. Or are we in FHUG so far away from Calico Pie we are ignored as a Customer Base?

[RogerF]

David makes some very sound points, with which I have much sympathy. My (entirely personal) take on these issues:

1. The FHUG wishlist.

I believe the wishlist to be virtually useless, and the voting system entirely pointless. I've no recollection of any FH change being driven by the wishlist, and there are plentiful instances of very sound ideas being ignored for many years.

2. Plugins.

David is spot-on here. Yes, it's a great feature. Yes, it absolves CP from their responsibility to deal with issues. The outstanding example here is the backup and restore of FH settings. Mike's plugin does an outstanding job, but it has to deal with the internals of FH; this area should be managed by CP, not by one of their users.

3. Bugs and New Features.

I think that CP is 99% driven by their perception of competitive pressures; their need to justify each new release by some major functionality additions overrides most feedback from the customer base, except for issues which impact on migration from competitive products. I've no recollection of their ever asking for our views on what needs addressing.

As I say, just my personal opinion.

[Valkrider]

I have found one annoying change that imho was totally unnecessary and slows down my work with FH.

The sort order in the citation popup was sticky as I work with my citations in alphabetical order on the Source Records now the default sort order is on Record ID and it always reverts back to this when the popup is closed.

[johnmorrisoniom]

I am not finding that, the pop up always reverts to whatever sort you have applied to the sources tab.

[LornaCraig]

Colin:
Like John, I am still seeing the order in the pop-up revert to whatever sort you have applied to the sources tab. This has always been the case, I am sure it has not changed.

David and Roger:
I think number 3, 'Bugs and New Features', should not be lumped together. Ultimately it is up to Calico to decide what new features to develop, although hopefully driven by users' suggestions. But when users report bugs I feel these should be addressed, even if they are minor issues that most users will never notice.

[Gowermick]

If you view sources in the records pane, whatever order you set there, is remembered and used by the property box when selecting a new source. As far as I'm aware, it stays in that order until you change it, and is remembered between sessions.

[Russell]

I don't think that the facilities provided by Plugins should be the responsibility of Calico Pie. They have provided the overall facility which allows them to interface with the program, but my belief is that many - if not a majority - of users of Family Historian do not need or even are aware of the additional features which the Plugins produce. I do not know how many copies of FH have been sold, but I am sure that many users are not yet members of FHUG, which I feel means that the numbers requiring assistance with Plugins are an even smaller number than the postings on here would suggest.

Should CP spend their time customising a program which in its base form works very well for the majority, just for the specific needs of a minority, albeit with a reasonable requirement?

The features that FH provides can already prove daunting to less computer literate users and if CP does directly add in Plugin functionalities they run the risk that FH may be perceived as an even more daunting prospect which takes so much time to learn about, there is little time left to actually do the research on our families - which is surely our prime aim. The method of recording that data (in this case FH) - should be a secondary (but still important) consideration.

That perception, however incorrect, could damage sales - and don't forget, that is a prime concern for any business, however much those involved also may have a personal interest in their product.

Jane has already given a software provider's perspective on development of new features/changes, and if CP only have a small team involved, they may well not have the capability to deal with numerous requests for new features on a regular basis. Given the time taken to accumulate my records, I for one would much prefer that the base program is stable, and that any new features are only added after extensive testing rather than have lots of additions which may cause conflicts when used in an unanticipated way - and each user has their own way of working, which may not be the way the programmer foresaw

In conclusion, I would like to thank Mike Tate, Jane and all the others who spend their own free time creating Plugins - those I have used have been very useful in making use of the thousands of pieces of information that I have accumulated over the years.

[tatewise]

In response to the main points earlier :-

1. FHUG Wish List
Although some high vote items languish on the Wish List for years, many do get implemented.
Just go there and tick Show Completed and click <<Go>> to see which FH Version or Plugin.

2. Plugins
Integration into FH was discussed in What is the Purpose of Plugins? (6095) years ago.

3. Bugs and Features
Calico Pie are a commercial organisation and must stay financially solvent otherwise they will go the way of many other genealogy products and other niche products. Then we will all lose out. So there must always be a balance.

[Gowermick]

I totally agree. How does the saying go? You can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people...

[RogerF]

Lorna:

David and Roger:
I think number 3, 'Bugs and New Features', should not be lumped together. Ultimately it is up to Calico to decide what new features to develop, although hopefully driven by users' suggestions. But when users report bugs I feel these should be addressed, even if they are minor issues that most users will never notice.

You are, as usual, quite right. My response addressed only the New Features element. On the subject of Bugs, I can only opine that, broadly, CP seem rather slower to address bug reports than would have satisfied me during my time of software development.

[Valkrider]

Colin:
Like John, I am still seeing the order in the pop-up revert to whatever sort you have applied to the sources tab. This has always been the case, I am sure it has not changed.

It must be something unusual with my install then because earlier this week on v6.2.2 it was exactly as you say but now with v6.2.4 it reverts to Record ID order regardless of what I set the sort order to. Anyway I have raised it with Calico Pie so I will wait and see what they say.

[E Wilcock]

I have just upgraded to 6.2.4

I can confirm that if one clicks the button to read what is in this upgrade there is no information. This suggests to me that the version replicates the previous one and that any adjustment was to something additional, like the legal terms of use one is asked to check. Or the subsequent acknowledgments of use of maps etc.

I have been puzzled but pleased that a biographical reference book which I frequently use as a source always appeared at the top of my source list when I wanted to add a new source.
In the light of this thread, I tried for the first time to re-sort my source records list. For some reason this removed the previous unexplained source order.
I am working from three or four specific lists and sorting the sources in order of frequence of citation (i.e. frequence of use) - brought those source records to the top when I want to add a source in the Property box.
But there is an inconsistency.
If you want to set automatic source citations, then the source names come up in alphabetical order.

Closing and re-opening fh, the source records list retains the sort by frequency both in the list and when adding a citation on the property box. But the automatic source button still offers the records in alphabetical order.

[LornaCraig]

But the automatic source button still offers the records in alphabetical order.

Yes, and frustratingly for those of us who use the Short Title field in Source records to produce a meaningful brief title (and rational order when sorted alphabetically) the Automatic Source Citation pane ignores Short Titles. Calico Pie did explain the reason for this when it was introduced. I forget the details but I think it had something to do with copying source titles direct from web sites and being able to check quickly whther you already have a Source with exactly that title.

[David Potter]

Hi All

Well that caused a stir. And I feel obliged to make a reply.
And will leave it at: That I thought some took my carefully chosen non critical comments/observations (questions even) a little out of context.

I'm very happy with the product - I was merely asking how certain things connected between FH and CP.

Anyway - thank you to those that did offer helpful clarifications.

David

[David Potter]

Hi Mike

Out of genuine Interest, I used your tip to display those Wish List Items marked as completed - Thank You. Wish List Items 557 and 556 created in March this Year appear when Checking and Unchecking the Show Completed flag? Is there something else that needs to be set to see only Completed?

I am leaving all fields before Show Completed as Default. IE, Blank, All, Any. And selecting the Added column to sort in Descending Date order.

[tatewise]

I can see the misunderstanding.
The Show Completed tick option opens the ADDED VERSION column, and includes all completed items, but does NOT exclude uncompleted items.

So sorting the ADDED column into Descending Date order lists youngest items first, which are naturally uncompleted.
Click the ADDED column again into Ascending Date order to see the older items, many of which are completed.

Bear in mind that is only Page 1 of 28 and clicking First, Previous, Next, Last will navigate the list.
Also try clicking the SCORE or VOTES columns and see how many highly voted items are completed.

Note that 0.0 Dup or 0.0 Drop means an item is a duplicate merged with others, or has been dropped due to lack of votes.

[David Potter]

Thank You Mike - Much Appreciated. That cleared that misunderstanding up.