ThinkGenealogy

Soon after posting the Genealogy Research Process map, I was contacted by Bob Coret about translating it into Dutch.  Bob took charge of the entire effort and enlisted the help of the Family Tree Forum (Stamboom Forum).  With the help of about 8 volunteers the map was translated, reviewed, and corrected.  My part of the project was easy as I simply copied and pasted the translations and as needed reduced the font size to fit the longer words.  The team did an excellent job and I want to congratulate them for their efforts.  I hope the translated map will be very useful to you for many years.

downloadable PDF (Dutch) - 8.1 MB

Last week I had the honor of being interviewed by DearMyrtle for her 4 March 2008 podcast.  We discussed the Genealogy Research Process map in detail with specific examples at each step.  The interview lasted about 38 minutes and was fun to do.  I was a little nervous at first, but Ol’ Myrt put me at ease very quickly.  I very much enjoyed the time talking to her during the interview and afterwards.  Hopefully we will cross paths this week at the 2008 Computerized Family History & Genealogy Conference at BYU.

Note: Due to some technical difficulties, the podcast is temporarily available here.

Earlier this week, Drew Smith and George G. Morgan (The Genealogy Guys) spent 9 minutes of their podcast discussing the Genealogy Research Process map.  Their discussion starts about 26 minutes into the podcast.  I am a long time listener of The Genealogy Guys and am pleased that they are spreading the word about the map.  Both George and Drew were very kind in their remarks about this visualization based on the work of The Board For Certification of Genealogists and Elizabeth Shown Mills.

DearMyrtle has honored a question I posted on the APG mailing list and the many good responses with the BEST of the Internet for Genealogists Award: Most Interesting Thread for the week ending 24 February 2008.

 Myrt writes in part:

The public genealogy mailing list of APG, the Association of Professional Genealogists, has recently discussed a topic proposed by ThinkGenealogy.com’s Mark Tucker who asked: [APG] How Widely Used is the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS)?

When I posted the question to the APG list, I was in the final stages of developing the Genealogy Research Process map and was wondering what kind of reception it would receive.  It has been well received.

 Thank you Myrt for the recognition.

The Genealogy Research Map (downloadable PDF - 11.4 MB) combines the concepts found in The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) from the Board for Certification of Genealogists and the many works of Elizabeth Shown Mills into a single visualization.  It is my hope that others will find this map useful as a learning tool or reference. 

For those interested in a format for use as desktop wallpaper, follow this link.

Many years ago I was (incorrectly) singing the words to the song, “Que, Sera, Sera” and my wife pointed out my humorous mistake.

Instead of singing:

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not ours, to see

I sang:

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not hard to see

This personal joke has been used many times since then and has never failed to deliver a cheerful effect.

I think that the author and design leader, Bill Buxton, would agree that the “future’s not hard to see.” In his book, “Sketching User Experiences: getting the design right and the right design,” Bill stresses the importance of looking at least 5 years down the road when designing user experiences and adds:

Now most people say that you cannot predict the future, much less five years out. They use this as an excuse for not making the effort, or even contemplating it. I believe that this reflects a lack of training, technique, or responsibility on the part of design or management. (page 209)

He then goes on to quote William Gibson from an NPR interview on 30 November 1999:

… the future is already here. It’s just not very evenly distributed.

Buxton gives two examples. The first computer mouse was built in 1964 but didn’t reach widespread use until about 1995 – 30 years later. The idea for the CD came around 1965 but it wasn’t until 25 years later in 1990 that the industry reached $1 billion. From idea, to design, to prototype, to first production, to ubiquity takes time.

Bill then makes this statement that I would like us to consider:

If history is any indication, we should assume that any technology that is going to have a significant impact over the next 10 years is already 10 years old. (page 215)

 This made me wonder if this could be applied to genealogy software. What has happened over the last 10 years that could affect the design and innovation of genealogy software over the next 10 years?

At first nothing came to mind, but then I thought of Elizabeth Shown Mills’ book, “Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian” which was published in 1997. In 2007, the much expanded “Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace” was released. We are now beginning to see specific examples of Elizabeth’s work showing up in genealogy software. In a podcast interview by Dick Eastman, Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens indicated that the software Clooz version 2.x was influenced by handouts she received from Elizabeth Shown Mills. Another example is from a podcast by DearMYRTLE where she interviews Geoff Rasmussen about Legacy version 7. In this interview, Geoff gives a sneak peek of one of the major new features which is source citation following the standard set by Elizabeth Shown Mills. There is still much work that needs to be done in this area such as online databases providing better source citations. I talk about this in my previous post about Jumping Curves. So you see, the future is not so hard to see.

Another area that I want to point out is the Genealogical Proof Standard which was also created in 1997 by the Board for Certification of Genealogists. Other than its use in the certification process, you don’t hear much about it. But this standard is useful to researchers of all levels to help them get as close to the truth as possible. At some point genealogy software designers and developers will realize this and incorporate it into future genealogy software.

There are probably many more examples of ideas, technology, and methodology that exists today that will help us better see the future of genealogy software.

What things should be added to this list?

As a genealogy community, I hope we aren’t thinking:

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not ours, to see

Share your thoughts as the future is ours to see.  I hope that is not hard to see.