Thanks for your input. Actually, both Family Tree Maker and the online system been redesigned in the past few years, and they are 95% in common now, and the differences don't make logical sense, nor do the differences flow from their historical use.
For example, I have used Family Tree Maker software for over 15 years. There used to be a dedicated field for nicknames, and finding someone by nickname was actually pretty easy. In Family Tree Maker 2012, that dedicated field was done away with, and replaced with a fact-based field known as "Also Known As". The online version of public/private family trees was also developed using a fact-based paradigm, and it also has the "Also Known As" fact type. So it would be inaccurate to assume that Family Tree Maker 2012's use of the "AKA" field flows from the history of how Family Tree Maker was developed.
So, your explanation as to why they are different doesn't satisfy, in my opinion.
However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to ask you to define the two different purposes that the online family trees and the PC-based, Family Tree Maker family trees were developed to serve. I see a common purpose: They were both developed to document a person's family tree. They were both developed to share that information. They were both developed to organize facts, and both developed to document sources of information.
It would be great news if they are trying to bring them more into alignment, as the recent re-design of Family Tree Maker 2012's approach to information and Ancestry.com's public/private tree paradigm for information handling are probably 95% common right now as it is. When I upgraded to Family Tree Maker 2012, I had to re-cast most of my source citations, because they began to show up as "unlinked" to sources, simply because the description field in the source citation was left blank when the file was being ported from Family Tree Maker 2006. I think they could have thought this through a little better, because a lot of times you don't want your source citation to give any additional information than the source. They say the description field in the source citation is so that you can provide the page number or other clarifying data in the source. But if the source itself was a 1-page letter, or a telephone conversation, you don't want to create 3 dozen different source citations; it is simply sufficient to reference the source. That's the one beef I have with the new paradigm for sources and source citations.
I actually like the online system's capabilities. But I wish that online stories didn't download as .htm files. And I wish that FTM stories didn't upload as .rtf files. Let's standadize, for crying out loud. Who wants to use different formats just because you happened to add a story online one day rather than adding it from within FTM?
It's time to eliminate the anomalies. They only add to headaches.
For example, I have used Family Tree Maker software for over 15 years. There used to be a dedicated field for nicknames, and finding someone by nickname was actually pretty easy. In Family Tree Maker 2012, that dedicated field was done away with, and replaced with a fact-based field known as "Also Known As". The online version of public/private family trees was also developed using a fact-based paradigm, and it also has the "Also Known As" fact type. So it would be inaccurate to assume that Family Tree Maker 2012's use of the "AKA" field flows from the history of how Family Tree Maker was developed.
So, your explanation as to why they are different doesn't satisfy, in my opinion.
However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to ask you to define the two different purposes that the online family trees and the PC-based, Family Tree Maker family trees were developed to serve. I see a common purpose: They were both developed to document a person's family tree. They were both developed to share that information. They were both developed to organize facts, and both developed to document sources of information.
It would be great news if they are trying to bring them more into alignment, as the recent re-design of Family Tree Maker 2012's approach to information and Ancestry.com's public/private tree paradigm for information handling are probably 95% common right now as it is. When I upgraded to Family Tree Maker 2012, I had to re-cast most of my source citations, because they began to show up as "unlinked" to sources, simply because the description field in the source citation was left blank when the file was being ported from Family Tree Maker 2006. I think they could have thought this through a little better, because a lot of times you don't want your source citation to give any additional information than the source. They say the description field in the source citation is so that you can provide the page number or other clarifying data in the source. But if the source itself was a 1-page letter, or a telephone conversation, you don't want to create 3 dozen different source citations; it is simply sufficient to reference the source. That's the one beef I have with the new paradigm for sources and source citations.
I actually like the online system's capabilities. But I wish that online stories didn't download as .htm files. And I wish that FTM stories didn't upload as .rtf files. Let's standadize, for crying out loud. Who wants to use different formats just because you happened to add a story online one day rather than adding it from within FTM?
It's time to eliminate the anomalies. They only add to headaches.