Previously (up to 5.0), Gramps laid out spouses at the same level of ancestry (ie side by side). This layout is shown on the Gramps wiki. Now (v 5.1.2), spouses are placed either above (towards ancestors) or below (towards descendants) each other. The attached image shows the same tree done with Gramps 5.0 and 5.1. The graph done with 5.0 has spouses side by side. The graph done with 5.1 has spouses offset or misplaced.
How can I use subgraphs to keep spouses together, without having them misplaced? Currently, I have to go back to version 5.0 to do relationship graphs. I would rather use the current version of Gramps. (Last year, I raised bug 11494 on this.)
Relationship Graph was revised between Gramps 5.0 and 5.1 to add an invisible line linking parents. This extra line pulls the position of boxes to different places to minimize the crossing of connections. See the sample image in the beginning of this thread.
Keep the āinvisble line connects parentsā feature
Does anyone like the new functionality? Should we just revert it or
keep it as an option?
Pull suggests āmore compactā and ābeautifulā graphs.
Based on the (admittedly limited) exposure Iāve had to the newer version,
Iād agree that more compact is true. In Peterās example, the new layout
is not, IMO, beautiful(1).
Undoubtedly, some will like the new version. So, an option to select
which version, maybe?
I use the relationship graphs quite a bit, especially for explaining large trees or complex relationships to people who are not genealogists. When used with filters, the relationship graph can be very effective up to 700 or 800 people.
It is not clear how the change in #733 was an improvement. Sometimes it gives a more compact graph, and sometimes not. In my experience, it always results in the same or more crossings, and is more difficult to read. In particular, it makes it difficult to distinguish between parents and children in a family. The attached example is the same graph done with the two different versions. I find the old 5.0 version much more clear and easy to understand.
Definitely the old functionality should be restored.
Whether the āinvisible linesā feature should be retained as an option is debatable. The disadvantage with this is that it makes Gramps just that bit more complex for the user, which erodes usability. If this feature is to be retained, there should first be a clear case for the benefit that it brings. It needs to be a clear and real benefit that outweighs the cost in terms of complexity in the user interface.
