When I agreed to design, manage, and chair RT last year, it certainly was not my intention to set a new standard for genealogy conferences across the board, and yet that is a piece of feedback I have received repeatedly. My main objective was raising the genealogical accuracy of software and raising the technological capabilities of genealogists, so that some day in the future, these two groups would be able to intelligently communicate in a positive and productive manner. This has been my objective for the past five years and RT was a great mechanism to bring this about.
Here are the top ten things that I have learned through my journey of trying to unify technology and genealogy:
1. Expecting everyone who wants to do genealogy to become a professional genealogist is equivalent to expecting everyone who wants to use a computer program to learn how to program - as in code (real code, by the way; not html, folks).
2. You can never replace professional genealogical knowledge with machines, but we still need to solve the problem of helping those novices correctly connect families and individuals so that we don't keep perpetuating garbage family trees. (Also, we need a thorough, kind, and comprehensive way to send garbage family trees to the incinerator when we find them so that bad data isn't perpetuated.)
3. When you tell a programmer what a crappy job he did on a computer program, it probably feels the same as someone who comes along and tears apart the hard work and effort you may have invested in a year-long credentialing project. Computer programs have a soul of their own and deserve our respect even if they don't meet our needs.
4. It's better to come prepared with solutions to the problems you see rather than just whine about the problems. That includes feedback on software. God loves everybody but the whiners.
5. When you speak to a software developer or programmer, he or she is not thinking about the user interface - that would be the designer who makes it all pretty, so it's worthless to tell a programmer that you don't like how a program looks, or where the toolbar is placed, or any of that visual stuff.
6. Software developers are usually too nice or too scared of genealogists to tell them that they are not responsible for any of the visual stuff, so your feedback will likely fall on deaf ears. They manage the "back-end" of the program.
7. Software developers will appreciate if you ask for what you want in a program in terms of user stories. For example, "As a user, when I come to the website, I am able to place all of my digital documents for an ancestor in one location. As a user, I am easily able to recall all digital materials associated with a specific ancestor at the click of a button." You don't tell them where the button should be or what color you'd like, just what you want the program to DO.
8. Software developers are proud of their hard work. Look for what is good about what they produced and tell them!
9. Genealogists place as many (or more) software demands on developers as high-end gamers! This is a cutting-edge industry where developers have to stay on top of their game!
10. We aren't so different, really. Nobody wants to hear what I have to say when I am doing computer programming, and nobody wants to hear what I have to say when I am doing genealogy. I guess those two halves of me have a lot in common! I am getting really good at loving both of these activities even if my family and close friends really don't want to hear about them. Both of these groups should be incredibly good listeners by now! :)
We both love solving problems, we both are treated like social lepers when we attempt to discuss our respective occupations, and we both care about getting the job done right. I think it's our differences that ultimately bring these two groups together.
If there are users who say that "your software app is too confusing" -- a comment on the front end user interface (UI), and the programmers are dealing with the back end of things and aren't responsible for UI, then WHERE ARE THE UI DESIGNERS of GENEALOGY APPS?
ReplyDeleteDid they do their job and disappear? Do they exist? Do they attend shows like RootsTech?
There's a serious disconnect if one of the main responsible parties is not at the table and not interacting with the public.
This saddens me greatly: you imply that users must acknowledge and master an opaque mental model of software development in order to have a meaningful conversation with people whose work hides behind an opaque and dysfunctional user interface.
Great post! Anne - you should add the Followers gadget in your sidebar so others can have another way besides RSS and bookmarks/favorites to follow your posts!
ReplyDeleteSusan, thanks for your comments. This is an education, and sometimes it hurts. What I am trying to say is that we have to learn to speak to the right individuals. If you want a feature, you speak to a developer. If you want the visual layout to be different, you speak to a designer. And yes, the designers were there. In fact, Mark McClellan, one of the FS designers was voted by attendees to win a distinguished presenter award for his presentation.
ReplyDeleteThomas, thanks for the feedback. You may follow in the top toolbar, but I have a philosophy about followers being visible. Maybe I will convert one of these days! :)
Thanks, Anne. I'd seen something about Mark McClellan, tweets, followed through to his website to learn more, and other than some wicked cool underwater surf shots, I left unenlightened.
ReplyDeleteSo incredibly bummed I caught this dreaded bad cough-syndrome the day after I bought my plane ticket for SLC, so I was unable to make it to RootsTech. (kiss yer money goodbye!)
What was the name of his presentation? Is it blogged anywhere?
As an ex-programmer and current genealogist I would agree with Anne's comments about talking about screen design to back-end programmers. It is functionality they are concerned with, not the placement of elements on the screen. I also agree that they are people and are proud of what they do, as are the genealogists who use their programs.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't at RootsTech, I'm sorry to say, and so I don't know who was there to talk to about the software, but in my experience there needs to be an analyst in between the developers and designers on the one hand and the program users on the other to interpret what each is saying to the other. Programmers think differently about programs than users do and it is often difficult for them to understand each other.
I am now an avid follower of your blog!
Thanks for your feedback, Carole! Nice to meet a fellow gengeek! :)
ReplyDeleteExcellent points and definitely gives me some "food for thought." It would certainly help for the software programs to have something explaining these differences to the users. I remember asking someone at the genealogy fair about their program (which I use, have read the manual and am quite comfortable noodling around with). He looked clueless and told me to send in a comment - I was surprised because he is the public face of the program! This explains a great deal. So how do we connect with the Wizard of Oz in genealogy terms?
ReplyDeleteI think you make some great points - it reminds me so much of my work life about 20/25 years ago when I first learned to talk to programmers!! The first hurdle was just understanding that we often meant different things even if we used the same words! A report that was working in their world ran to completion without bombing out. I, on the other hand, did not think a report was working if the data was incorrect!! :-)
ReplyDeleteCommunication is so important - and I think both sides need to make an effort to realize that we are sometimes truly speaking different languages - even if it might all SOUND like English.
The good news that I also discovered all those years ago is that when users and programmers get their heads together the results can be wonderful because we not only speak differently, but also often THINK differently. The result is better than with just one type of thought process involved.
Well said Anne. The languages may be different but the key is communication.
ReplyDeleteOne suggestion - change the stereotypical images shown above of the genealogist vs programmer. There are many out there on both sides of the equation that don't look like the folks pictured above....you included! :)