* Adding Media files.

[ADC65]

But that's exactly what I said so I'm not misunderstanding: The media tab shouldn't have to be restricted to just images linked to the individual but currently there isn't a setting in FH that allows it to display images linked to sources that are linked to the individual. So currently to do so one has to work around this limitation in FH and physically link the image directly to the individual. A relatively simple change to FH (and TNG) would allow the media tab to show those images without having to do this.

Ah, OK, sorry, that's my fault. I didn't understand what you meant, but I do now.

TNG is actually more flexible about what can be linked and displayed, but because I export from FH I want to keep the automation as high as possible, and therefore I have to link the media to people in FH to do that. It doesn't bother me to do that, but I see that the suggestion you make about the simple change would make more sense.

[ADC65]

You are correct the Properties Box Media Tab does not show media other than those linked to Individuals. Your desire that it should has led you to linking media incorrectly, that is your choice and it has downsides. I have no concern how you add and link media, I'm always happy users find a method that works for them personally, I just wouldn't want someone to grab a suggestion here and regret that course of action maybe years later.

Personally I am not happy ALL media is not even optionally available to view in the Property Box Media Tab but I can accept the suggestion by LornaCraig that, perhaps, CP believe a larger window suits better for larger collections.

As per my reply to Nick above, I have to admit I was misunderstanding what you (and he) were saying, so my reply probably didn't make sense in the context of your suggestion. I still have an issue with your statements such as "Suggesting a work around by linking media incorrectly". I disagree - this is not incorrect behaviour from my point of view. I understand what I'm doing and I have both sets of software working exactly as I want them to. But arguing the point isn't helpful I don't think so I'm happy to let it lie.

[trevorrix]

I too am unhappy with the suggestions that I am incorrect in linking media to individuals. Those media are my Sources. I have used this method successfully since FH was launched to the public in May 2002, so will never change. My Method is not a Workaround.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Everybody has a method of working they're happy with; some of us are happy to change if new features come along and some of us aren't.

The important thing is that we're honest about the consequences of our own particular way of working when we recommend it to others. Trevor, you don't use source records at all and don't intend to. When you recommend that way of working to others do you mention the consequences it might have in other areas of the program? Or at least acknowledge that you don't know, if that's the case.

[trevorrix]

Helen - the people that I help with FH are beginners, mostly elderly, struggle with IT technology and computers, but want to record their family history research in a simple manner that they can understand. They have absolutely no interest in time consuming more advanced methods of using FH. If I were to recommend/teach more advanced methods they would not understand, be lost, and drop out, not being able to cope. Been there - done that.

I do use sources. The downloaded images of original source records, and screenshots of catalogues and transcriptions where images are not available, are my sources. I keep my transcriptions of those sources into FH to a minimum.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen - the people that I help with FH are beginners, mostly elderly, struggle with IT technology and computers, but want to record their family history research in a simple manner that they can understand. They have absolutely no interest in time consuming more advanced methods of using FH. If I were to recommend/teach more advanced methods they would not understand, be lost, and drop out, not being able to cope. Been there - done that.

Of course it depends on what somebody wants to get out of recording their family history, but I don't think you ought to make the assumption that everyone online is elderly and/or struggles with IT technology and computers. A blanket recommendation: 'do it this way' is unwise. My partner, incidentally, is elderly by anyone's definition and has been working with computers since the mid 1960s. And I've helped many people who aren't confident with computers to become so, in more areas that just recording their family history. FH is actually a good route to doing that, as the level of jeopardy is low.

I do use sources. The downloaded images of original source records, and screenshots of catalogues and transcriptions where images are not available, are my sources. I keep my transcriptions of those sources into FH to a minimum.

Perhaps I should have said: do not use source records. (Transcriptions are beside the point). Or do you use source records?

[tatewise]

I agree with Helen.
When describing a method, any special circumstances, unusual side effects or caveats should be mentioned.

[trevorrix]

The point that I am trying to make is that it is not always necessary to conform to a perceived standard if that standard is so technical and time consuming that it ends up taking over one's life.

I have watched many people become disillusioned, dropping out of trying to follow sessions that teach and discuss such standards. That is a great pity.

[ColeValleyGirl]

The point that I am trying to make is that it is not always necessary to conform to a perceived standard if that standard is so technical and time consuming that it ends up taking over one's life.

I have watched many people become disillusioned, dropping out of trying to follow sessions that teach and discuss such standards. That is a great pity.

I'm not the genealogy police. I don't expect anyone to follow a particular standard for anything if it isn't fit for their purpose. But we aren't talking about standards here. We're talking about methods of working. Some methods of working, while superficially attractive, make work down the line. If somebody is certain they're never going to make a mistake and need to unpick hours days or years of work; and if they don't care how the people who inherit their research will now how they came to their conclusions, then fine -- ignore source records. But there are simple ways of using source records that make life easier and don't involve detailed pedantic discussions of Gedcom or citation standards, just common sense recording of where did I find X and what did it tell me.

[trevorrix]

The conclusions are drawn from the images of the original source records that are linked to the individuals concerned, all saved within the single project folder. The evidence is within the project, to refer to and examined whenever needed.

[ColeValleyGirl]

We're getting way off topic for 'Adding Media files' but....

If you link a marriage certificate to an individual and the father's name on the certificate doesn't match the father's name in the tree, I'm assuming you write notes explaining why -- but where? for the individual? for the fact? And when you attach the certificate to the father? Do you repeat the notes? Or do you create a shared note and link that to both individuals, as well as linking the media?

And how is that less work that creating a simple source record with the note in it, linked to the media, and automatically citing it for the marriage fact and the father's identity? The source could be simply titled 'Marriage Certificate for X and Y, Place, Date'. Leave everything except the title and the note blank, link to the Media. You could then use AS or a DEA to create all the facts or do it manually.

There may be reasons that lead people to attaching source media to individuals, but telling them to do it because 'sources are difficult' is doing them a disservice.

[trevorrix]

If you link a marriage certificate to an individual and the father's name on the certificate doesn't match the father's name in the tree ...

As I work primarily in Diagrams and the Property Box I can see at a glance where any such anomalies occur. As the evidence is in the linked source record images within the project, with my method I do not need to write notes or citations. I would just review the evidence by viewing the source record image(s).

After understanding the absolute basics, if people want to progress to using other areas of FH that is fine. They are well aware that the capabilities of FH are vast, and understand that it is their choice which they do or do not use.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I would just review the evidence by viewing the source record image(s).

Whereas I would prefer that people seeing my research didn't have to retread my steps (although they should question them).

After understanding the absolute basics, if people want to progress to using other areas of FH that is fine. They are well aware that the capabilities of FH are vast, and understand that it is their choice which they do or do not use.

As long as they haven't been led down a route that makes it harder to use other capabilities later.

[Vyger]

I too am unhappy with the suggestions that I am incorrect in linking media to individuals. Those media are my Sources. I have used this method successfully since FH was launched to the public in May 2002, so will never change. My Method is not a Workaround.

And now I'm unhappy I have made you unhappy, well more disappointed, you state the media are your sources so why not link them to Sources?

Time for a metaphor:

When we moved into our new paint warehouse back in 2002 it was mayhem, everything was stacked against one wall as construction were still fitting out the interior, we could find nothing and it took forever to complete an order.

The interior is complete and well established now, we have each base colour in its own isle, we can lay our hands on orders in seconds, it works like a dream.

If you come to work at the warehouse we train you on how things work now, we don't mention 2002.

----------------

I explained how I chose to link source documents to facts in my last software. I was aware it wasn't where they should be linked but my last software did not print fact or source media, Family Historian does.

I want to tidy my 'warehouse' up so it works better for me in the future, time consuming but my choice. If I was coming to Family Historian as a new user today I would want to get on the right track from the outset making use of all the 'basic' features available.

I would not want to restrict myself to the limitations of earlier versions with all the resulting downsides.

For today, and in my 'warehouse', please don't put a blue tin of paint where the red paint is stored.

[Vyger]

The point that I am trying to make is that it is not always necessary to conform to a perceived standard if that standard is so technical and time consuming that it ends up taking over one's life.

Trevor,

In my previous software I still have a project called Property Management. The parents are condominiums or buildings, the children and grandchildren are buildings or rooms.

It works for my simplistic purposes keeping note and media of damage, repairs and issues but I don't recommend it as a property manager and I could never approach the vendor for better reports etc.

I was never saying you were wrong to do as you do, just it's incorrect linking within the current program design and there are better ways.

[jelv]

Are we all agreed that it is highly desirable that on the media tab of the property box there should be an option for all of the images associated with the individual to be listed?

At the moment you just get the media directly linked to the individual with a paper clip icon beside. On the Facts tab, any fact with media attached has an icon in the More tab which can be clicked to bring up the Media for Fact pop-up. Why can't they be listed on the media tab? Likewise, in the Citation List Pane, any citation with media attached has an icon which can be clicked. Why can't they also be listed on the media tab with a different icon (e.g. the source scroll & pen). Icing on the cake would be a preference to select which media are listed on the media tab.

Is there a wish list item along these lines? If not should one be raised?

[Vyger]

John,

I'm on vacation but I'm on the same page as you.

If you raise a NWLR I will contribute to the discussion with some graphics and thoughts when I return home.

I have seen this discussed before so it is an area which warrants attention imo.

Jackson

[LornaCraig]

Are we all agreed that it is highly desirable that on the media tab of the property box there should be an option for all of the images associated with the individual to be listed?

I woudn't object but I wouldn't use it, so for me it's definitely not 'highly desirable'. The Media tab of the Property would be too small in most cases. It would take longer to scroll through everything in the Property box than to click the option to View Media linked to < ... > in Media Window, where there is far more space.

[ADC65]

Are we all agreed that it is highly desirable that on the media tab of the property box there should be an option for all of the images associated with the individual to be listed?

Same as Lorna - I wouldn't object but it wouldn't make much difference to me so I'd be unlikely to vote for it. As I need media linked to people anyway, for reasons previously explained, the option would not show anything different to what I already have. I do understand how it could be useful to others.

[ADC65]

Sorry to drag this up again, but I have another question.

From my point of view with Ancestral Sources I do like to at least feel that there is some logic to new features I'm adding. If someone asked me to add a setting to allow them to save their census entries as a baptism fact I would suggest that isn't sensible and wouldn't do it. It doesn't make any sense to me to have the image of a census being added as the photograph of an individual - it isn't a photograph of the person, it is a photograph of a source document! So this isn't something I'd add as a feature except reluctantly. Having said that I did add this as a feature for method 2 as has been mentioned - I did this because I was asked nicely and also as method 2 is already something I don't recommend, I don't feel so protective of adding something I can't recommend to a method I don't recommend

If I was to hypothetically decide to start linking images to Facts (keeping in mind I already link them to Sources), is there any way in AS to do this? Having had a good look around the options, I think probably not. I understand your moral objection to linking 'fact' images to people, but does that extend to linking them to facts too?

It seems even more of a faff in FH to link media to facts than it does to people

[tatewise]

Please explain "even more of a faff".
You select the fact in the Facts tab, then use the Show Media button and either drag or Add Media for Fact...
IMO that is little different from using the Media tab.

[NickWalker]

If I was to hypothetically decide to start linking images to Facts (keeping in mind I already link them to Sources), is there any way in AS to do this? Having had a good look around the options, I think probably not. I understand your moral objection to linking 'fact' images to people, but does that extend to linking them to facts too?

It seems even more of a faff in FH to link media to facts than it does to people

I wouldn't call it a moral objection, it's just choosing what I decide to develop next with my very limited spare time and not wanting to waste that time on something that seems unnecessary. No there isn't a way to link images to a fact with method 1. This is possible with Method 2 mainly because lumped sources don't have anywhere to link an image other than within a fact or a citation (which is really just part of a fact anyway).

In Family Historian, in the list of facts in the Properties dialogue, if a fact has a source that includes an image (which is what method 1 does) then it shows up with the fact as an icon. Clicking that icon will display the image (or images).

image.png (10.06 KiB) Viewed 218 times

[ADC65]

No there isn't a way to link images to a fact with method 1.

Thanks for letting me know, Nick.

No offence intended with the 'moral' comment, it's just you mentioned originally you wouldn't develop things you didn't feel were sensible, I didn't know if that included linking to facts rather then people.

Thanks for the tips on the icons. I'm aware of those, it's mainly to do with my TNG setup to be honest. I was just wondering if it was any easier to set up media linked to facts rather than people, and how that workflow would look. I understand this isn't 'standard' workflow for those working solely with FH.

[ADC65]

Please explain "even more of a faff".

You'll have seen my reply to Nick, above, so you'll now know this was from an experimental point of view.

But the reason I considered it more of a faff is because in the case of a Census image for three people, say, then I believe I would have to go to each person, find the Census fact in the Facts tab, click the icon, Click 'Add Media for Fact', then 'Link to Existing Media Record', find the record, move it over, click, click, click ... rinse and repeat for each person. Whereas linking to a person or persons, I click the Census Fact on any of the people it has been attached to, click the cog in the sources and go straight ot the Media Window. From there it is very easy to drag and drop people over to the image. The Media Link Tool makes this very easy for multiple people.

[jelv]

Please could you explain what benefit you gain by linking a census image to the fact given that from the facts tab as it's only three clicks to select the fact, open the media pane on the citation and open the image in the Editor/player?