1^st of all, I’d like to congratulate Genopro/Ron for the review of the report (toc, popup pane,…). This is excellent. A very good job.

Here are now some minor observations and/or adjustments following 17c:

1)      In Genopro, when opening an Ind Properties panel, the 1^st tab row doesn’t show up. Looks strange.

2)      On viewing a gene rep (with MSIE):

a.       When clicking on the W3C link, the site panel says “No referer header found”. What does this means?

b.      The Places Picture Name should be under the picture, to keep consistancy with an Ind or Fam Pict:

c.       Any need for the additional “Marriage / Union” References ?:

d.      Similar remark as 2c. for Occu (& also Edu): shouldn’t a straight link to the Ind be better?:

e.       When clicking on an Ind or Fam Place link, the pictures are cut off. Also same remark as 2b. for the picture name:

f.        Any possibility of having the Genomaps Index: alphabetically ordered and sub-grouped?:

Also no response when clicking on the letters.

g.       And finally I don’t want to be a nuisance but is the following feasible and not too demanding: when clicking on the M letter, the Index opens revealing, in my case, 3 names. The user then clicks on 1 of the names to reveal the Ind(s) name(s). That’s fine.

Now, clicking on the N reveals only 1 name. In this “single case name”, is it possible, when clicking on the initial letter, to reveal the Ind(s) name straight away instead of having to clicking again on “Neveu”?

Same remark for other “single case name” index entries.

Thank you.

For small report, the tree should automatically open, having to calculate the the sub tree count to open them would reduce the javascript speed that is already not that fast on huge (5000+ individuals) report. It's a great suggestion but I would not implement it for this reason.

Jean-Claude Morin
Information Technology Director, GenoPro.
http://www.genopro.com

2 a) The W3C site is expecting the url of the referer so that it can validate the page against the standard. If you run the report from a local disc rather than a web site then no referer URL is sent (because W3C can't (you hope!) acess your hard disc), and hence the message. I must admit I have not tried it from a web site yet either.

2 b) This was an oversight and I agree it needs to be changed.

2 c) & d) agreed. I'll make changes for the next release. Although I believe  it is possible for more than one couple to share the same marriage ceremony e.g. double weddings. I'll allow for this a put a list of the couples should it occur. Similarly with occupation, several individuals can share the same occupation, so I'll just list the individuals after the occupation title instead of the separate expandable list.
I guess I got carried away with the simplicity of the coding here as all I had to do was put in a recursive call to the same function to achieve the current layout, but now a bit more work is required!

2 e) This looks like the infamous IE 'guillotine' bug that has 'reared its head' before. I should be able to fix it again.

2 f) Again an oversight, missed this template when I changed the others. A simple fix to 'sort' this one and make them clickable.

2 g) I agree with your namesake (JC) one this one. It is probably a smallish tree that only has one name under a particular letter. Use the Config.xml parameter cTocExpand ensure the trees are initially fully expanded.

Thanks again for your good job. I really like it.

I understand that with so many input fields facility, you cannot possibly test every scenarios. I believe other users are also encouraged to report any findings. I’ve no doubt there are others.

Personally I opted for Genopro for 2 main reasons because: 1) the languages translation facility and 2) the web site report creation facility. Talking about the later, it is perhaps why I am more concerned about the report cosmetic appearance, consistancy and homogeneity rather than digging deep into the sources, burial type, calendar types, BC years, relationships, … facilities.

Now just a few further observations:

2e. This complement my initial point: the place photo, in the popup pane was showing OK (including the slide show green arrows) when I clicked on an Ind birth place. But the photo got cut off when I cliked on “Place References (8)”:

3a. When a genomap is open in the pane, if you click on a Ind Hyperlink to have the other link genomap popping up, the new one opens in a new window instead of staying in the pane.

3b. I have a Fam listed as Unknown (unknown husband). The gene rep, however swapped male-female names to female-male names as shown. As a std male-unknown female Fam is properly listed (my Baron Fam), is it possible to have my unknown female-male Fam also listed within her name group, i.e. in my case, within my Guasp group?

3c. Contacts: I think you are still working on the subject but, so far, comparing the sources and the contacts indexes, the display difference is quite significant:

a. the sources index only shows my (dummy) entries (no Ind names shown).

b. the contact index shows the Ind names first then, after clicking on the +flag, the grouped contacts links. The problem is that site visitors will tend to click on the Ind name link first (it’s what I did at first) and unfortunately will be directed to the Ind narrative instead of being directed to the contacts list on the right pane.

I’m not too sure about, but perhaps the contact list (the left one) should be better re-arranged based on the 4 actual contact types, i.e. Email, Fax, Phone home, Phone mobile (additional proposed item possibly to be added within Genopro Ind contact tab) and Web Home Page, without Ind names in order to keep consistancy with the actual sources left list.

As I said, I’m not too sure about what should be the best display option. Maybe the sources left list should also possibly shows the Ind names. Up to Genopro. I just wanted to pinpoint the display difference.

Thank you.