TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-09 > 0999412626


From: Robin Lamacraft <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Step children
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 16:07:06 +0930
References: <3B91ACB9.E48B70F3@infoave.net><MPBBIHKABPIFJBGOECLHCEPNDEAA.guitarman@surfbest.net><4.2.0.58.20010901174915.0487be90@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><4.2.0.58.20010901202608.0487ad60@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><4.2.0.58.20010901231612.0238b930@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20010902001733.02e436a0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com>


RichardB and BobV,
I don't want to extend this thread too long - however, there is merit in
the discussion. Let me dive in with the following simple example of how TMG
makes unwitting assumptions.

Create a new data set. with person X as the first person.
Now use the "Add a New Person" screen to a Father Y to X.
Now look at the PV of X and the PV of Y and the relationship Y -> X.
The later changing the relationship to step does not change the
presentation of the father in either PV of this example.

Nowhere on the "Add a new person screen" could I set (or change) the type
of the relationship between X and Y. It assumes Father/Son - NAT. Therefore
we need a clear definition of the design intentions of the "Add a New
Person" dialog - clearly all the relationships intended to be added by this
window are *biological* and not something else. I don't see a warning to
the casual/new user that this is the case. (May be I have missed the fine
print in the manual - but many never read it anyway?)

I recognize that this area will not be changed in TMG4. But in TMG 5, I
feel that this window needs revision to ensure that this type of *mistaken*
use of a feature is only done by users intentionally and deliberately with
full warning of their actions. To fix this, there seem to be 3 paths,
(1) add non-biological family relationships to the choice selection at the
start of the process,
(2) allow the user access to the type of relationship (nat/step/ado, etc)
during the data entry process.
(3) don't make automatically make the only parent primary if they are not
designated as biological.

This is just a reflection on the discussions at our local TMG User group
meetings. It seems as if this problem is raised at each 2nd or 3rd meeting
as the *mis-use* of TMG for Family History continues. Unfortunately for
family historians, TMG is still the best evidence / anecdote blotting paper
around and many historians turn to it as a method of computerizing their
records.

I feel that this user base needs guidance and TMG 5 could do this for them
by giving a clear way of keeping their records correct from both the
biological and historical perspectives.

Hence I agree with BobV about mis-use _and_ I agree with Richard that it is
very easy for a user to unwittingly get reports that are not a true and
correct record of descendancy. Let us learn from this discussion and hope
that BobV can reduce the confusion in TMG5.

Robin Lamacraft (Adelaide, Australia)



At 01:49 2/09/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Richard said:
>
>> > >When I select a man as the primary father it is because I want him to
>> > >appear at the bottom of the Person View with the primary mother. If
>> by doing so I
>> > >will have step children appearing in charts and reports as
>> > >biological children, I consider that a flaw.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Maybe it is because we are all too dumb to use
>>the program as designed but I prefer to consider it a TMG flaw.
>
>Neither you nor Dennis is too dumb to use it as designed, Richard, and it
>isn't fair to suggest that I'm saying so. Even if you didn't know as a
>new user, we've had this conversation before and you know how the primary
>designation on parents is designed to be used. I appreciate when users
>try to help by giving each other advice, even if it turns out later that
>they were wrong. But you _choose_ to use the feature in a way for which
>it wasn't designed (even knowing the effect it has) and then you advise
>others to do the same while blaming the effect on a flaw in the program.
>
>You want to make this into a conversation about whether or not the program
>should or could be harder to make mistakes. My point is that, to what
>ever extent you believe that to be a problem, you only compound it by
>advising people to use the program contrary to its design.
>
>I prefer not to speculate about what Dennis might know. I simply gave him
>the answer. But what he does or doesn't know is immaterial insofar as
>whether or not your advice to him or your characterization of my position
>were appropriate.
>
>-Bob
>
>
>==== TMG Mailing List ====
>.

This thread: