Ctrl + p ? (‘g’ in english)
#: ../gramps/gui/glade/editname.glade:189
#: ../gramps/gui/glade/editperson.glade:132
msgid “_Given:”
msgstr “_Prénom :”
Ctrl + n ? (‘s’ in english)
#: ../gramps/gui/glade/editperson.glade:446
msgid “_Surname:”
msgstr “_Nom de famille :”
I only use few shortcuts but thanks for these ones
Désolé pour ma réponse en français
Bonsoir Patrice
you only have to stroke the key five times
rien à ajouter, tout est dit 
search for Beruck notation on this Discourse
Merci pour ce lien, je ne connaissais pas cette numérotation
Mais par expérience, je n’utilise pas de numérotation « en dur », une nouvelle génération apparaît, une erreur de recherche .. et tout est à refaire
Pour moi, c’est au logiciel de calculer la numérotation et à s’adapter !
D’autre part, je ne disais pas que ce champ était inutile, je me demandais seulement s’il avait la visibilité qui devait être la sienne
Je n’ai aucune compétence artistique, graphique ou d’ergonomie mais n’étant pas non plus œnologue je sais dire si un vin me plaît ou pas
Donc de façon plus générale, mon avis sur la question est le suivant :
pour les habitués, l’ergonomie compte peu ou pas
Cliquer 10 fois, là ou une fois serait suffisante, n’est pas embêtant car l’habitué se sert du logiciel tous les jours et sait par cœur comment contourner les difficultés
Il est même assez amusant ( cad humain) de constater qu’on a tendance (moi le premier) à excuser, voire à trouver des explications plus ou moins fumeuses à des manques ou défauts du logiciel dont on a l’habitude.
J’ai même vu des logiciels vraiment mal foutus que le peu d’utilisateurs qui avaient vraiment galéré pour le maîtriser, trouvaient toute idée de « vulgarisation » inutile ,
Et enfin, l’excuse du désespoir (je l’ai entendu maintes fois, et j’avoue l’avoir utilisée en tant que commercial quand je sentais que j’avais perdu faute d’argument) : mais monsieur, mon produit il se mérite !
Par expérience, le produit en question disparaitra à court ou moyen terme (érosion naturelle si pas de renouvellement)
pour les novices
Maintenant, tout va très (trop) vite !
A priori, plus personne ne se donne encore le temps de lire une doc (ou d’apprendre des raccourcis clavier)
On essaie une version démo, on saisit quelques individus exemples et on se fait une idée (forcément subjective basée sur l’interface, et quelques essais)
Si (et seulement si) l’impression a été globalement positive, on creuse alors les fonctionnalités, ..
Pour avoir un retour « objectif » il faudrait revoir en détail la vidéo d’unboxing, et relever toutes les hésitations du novice (champ patronyme, lieux, validation ..)
Si je me rappelle bien, le « professeur » se lâche à un moment sur l’ergonomie de Gramps, ne sachant comment justifier un bouton valider « invisible » car au milieu de la fenêtre
Et enfin, en conclusion (je suis trop verbeux, je sais) :
Voir mon monologue précédent
Je pensais aux novices (voire aux non encore utilisateurs Gramps), les raccourcis clavier sont plus pour les habitués je pense
Bonjour,
@105rn Peut être avez vous fait le choix de laisser tomber “Gramps” le trouvant “Gramps : Inhumainement compliqué” comme je l’ai lu sur ce blog https://www.genealogiepratique.fr/gramps-vos-avis/
Auquel cas rien ne sert de lire ce qui suit …
D’ici quelques semaines faisant parti d’un mini cercle de généalogie je vais essayer de parler de Gramps et de son utilisation…
La documentation étant très dense je les invite a télécharger ce document qui est évoqué dans ce fil de discussion https://www.geneanet.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=868906 rédigé par cgpcadmin (cercle généalogique du pas de caux peut être …???) d’après un premier document rédigé en 2015 M Thierry Houx
Un autre lien intéressant sur le lieux https://www.histoiredeserignan.fr/genealogie/telechargements/#gramps-lieux
Que je n’ai pas utilisé car il faut l’importer avant toute chose et puis je préfère faire recherche au fil de l’eau avec geoportail + wikipèdia
Juste pour info
Bonjour @bjc49
Merci, pour les liens vers la doc et les lieux
C’est amusant, car je dois bientôt moi aussi faire une « présentation » dans mon club de généalogie
Les adhérents (plus de retraités que d’actifs ) ont pour la plupart Généatique (il n’y a que quelques Heredis dont moi) et sont, à ma connaissance, tous sous windows.
Ma présentation aura donc pour objet les logiciels en réseau (ou sur le net selon les décisions du club), j’ai trouvé à priori 2 candidats : webtrees et Gramps, chacun ayant ses avantages et inconvénients
Dans l’utilisation prévue au club, l’avantage de Gramps serait la possibilité (que je n’ai pas essayée) de synchro entre une version web (qui serait la base commune) et des versions desktops,
Par contre, à votre place, je ne ferais pas une présentation avec la doc, trop rebutant, rien ne vaudrait une présentation type « unboxing » de Patrice mais s’attendre à des réflexions sur l’interface
Personnellement, mon logiciel actuel me plaît bien mais il n’est malheureusement pas multi-utilisateurs (donc il faut partager son temps de jeu avec ma femme et jongler avec des fichiers,..)
J’hésite donc pour l’instant entre webtrees (très facile à installer sur un NAS) et Gramps !
Je n’ai pas (encore) abandonné Gramps car
J’ai regardé le post sur genealogie pratique
Je trouve les commentaires très instructifs, et les partage peu ou prou
Et il m’est apparu une évidence : les avis positifs proviennent de « linuxiens » et ceux négatifs de « windowsiens » et votre avatar ne dément pas cette constatation !
J’y vois plusieurs raisons (basées sûrement sur des stéréotypes et donc probablement fausses)
Mais ce n’est pas inéluctable : dans d’autres domaines, des open-sources gratuits ont réussi en quelques années à prouver le contraire : https://www.blender.org/
Alors qu’il y a très certainement moins de passionnés de 3D que de généalogie
Pour résumer
Merci
Bertrand
Hi 105rn,
Thanks for your thoughtful reflections — I agree, there’s a lot that could be improved in Gramps, especially around interface and onboarding. But I’d like to gently challenge one recurring comparison I’ve seen: putting Gramps side-by-side with something like Blender.
It’s simply not a fair or meaningful comparison.
Blender is a multi-million euro project with full-time developers, a professional design team, and major sponsors like NVIDIA, AMD, and Epic Games — who not only fund development but also contribute their own engineers and infrastructure.
Its GUI is the product of a design-first philosophy backed by industrial-grade resources.
They currently have more than 30 paid full-time developers — you can find them here: Grants — Blender Development Fund .
Gramps, on the other hand, is a volunteer-driven tool built by a small group of passionate contributors, often working in their spare time.
Its development is shaped by a data-first philosophy, prioritizing semantic depth and genealogical flexibility over visual polish.
The interface will of course reflect that — not because people don’t care, but because the project operates under radically different constraints.
It’s a bit like comparing ReactOS to Fedora — both are open-source operating systems, but only one has enterprise-grade support, paid developers, and institutional infrastructure behind it.
So yes, critique is welcome — and necessary.
I’m one of those who regularly speak up for change. But comparing Gramps to Blender is like comparing the cockpit of an Airbus A350 to the dashboard of a tractor.
Both have buttons and screens, but they serve fundamentally different purposes, operate in different ecosystems, and are built with vastly different resources.
And I’m quite confident: if two or three major European or US companies or research institutions were to sponsor Gramps in a similar way (Blender’s fund now exceeds €3 million annually), offering financial support and perhaps even developer time, one of the very first things the project would do is hire one — maybe even two or more — full-time GUI developers.
The need is clear; both the developers and the community know it.
It is one of the topics that are most often up for debates and discussion.
What’s missing is the kind of structural backing Blender enjoys.
Let’s keep pushing for better UX in Gramps — but let’s also calibrate our expectations to the reality of open-source development with limited funds.
Note: This text was translated from Norwegian to English, structured and adapted for English-language flow by Microsoft Copilot, based on my original Norwegian drafts, instructions, and manual edits following translation.
Hello,
I completely agree with you; today, the comparison is indeed unrealistic!
But that wasn’t always the case.
I remember trying Blender several years ago (because it was free, compared to 3DS max, maya,..) : it was awful, volunteer programmers were making programs that were never finished or maintained (which is normal, everyone has their own life). The interface was completely incoherent (and 3D software has far more “buttons” than genealogy software).
Blender’s strength lies in having defined its priorities, structuring its development to appear “serious” and thus attract:
And the tractor became a Boeing 
Bertrand
In addition:
Blender donors are not benevolent patrons without ulterior motives:
Blender can serve as a modeling tool for game platforms, 3D learning software, etc.
I’m not sure we should be looking for donors only within university research institutions, but rather where there is money in the world of genealogy…
Bertrand
Blender didn’t get polished until after the big sponsorships were signed — sorry, but your timeline is a little off course here. As I wrote: get a major university, a research lab, or anyone else with serious funding who doesn’t want to control the project to sponsor Gramps with a few full-time GUI designers/developers, and the interface will improve — no question.
You should also remember that even back 20–25 years ago, Blender had a way bigger active user base than Gramps active user base is today.
But if you read the old forums, you’ll find endless complaints about the GUI, the rendering engine, data loss, and so on. And even when it became open source in 2002, it already had a background in a relatively large animation company — it started as commercial software.
And no, the tractor never became a Boeing — it still has plenty of problems. So maybe it became more of an Aeroflot thing.
And just to be absolutely clear: it’s not logically sound to compare Blender and Gramps.
They operate in entirely different worlds.
Blender lives in the 3D and animation ecosystem — a domain with massive economic gravity, global interest, and a flood of aspiring professionals chasing high-paying roles in animation, VFX, and 3D modeling.
In addition, most of Blender’s developers and users are graphic creative souls — not a bunch of people more interested in digging through old dusty archives…
Genealogy, by contrast, is not a money-driven field. Outside of the three or four major commercial platforms profiting from people’s desire to trace their roots, it’s a niche domain sustained largely by volunteers, researchers, and hobbyists. The economic incentives simply aren’t comparable — and that’s precisely why Gramps needs support from institutions that value cultural infrastructure over commercial return.
Gramps never started as commercial software going open-source by crowdfunding. It’s important to remember that we’re talking about a very niche tool — and in this niche, the big money often funds Gramps’ “competitors”.
The best way to stay independent in a research-driven field is to seek sponsorships from non-commercial institutions or NGOs: universities, research labs, libraries, etc.
It would be fantastic if someone could get, say, the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media (RRCHNM) or Knight Lab at Northwestern University interested in Gramps.
Or maybe some French colleagues could get the European ARCHE project involved — perhaps via Fondation des Sciences du Patrimoine?
—
Note: As before, this text was translated from Norwegian to English, and structured for English-language flow by Microsoft Copilot, based on my original Norwegian drafts, instructions, and manual edits following translation. I also used Copilot to help identify some of the factual project names I had read about but couldn’t recall precisely.
Good evening,
It’s true that Blender’s interface (which will never be perfect) has been greatly improved since donations started coming in.
It’s often difficult to pinpoint the origin of a virtuous cycle, but I can’t imagine large companies donating to software that doesn’t inspire confidence.
Given my age, I now trust chatGPT more than my memory and asked it to give me the history.
But in fact, you’re right, Blender started as commercial software, so the comparison might not be entirely appropriate.I apologize !
However, I still wish Gramps the same success.
I asked chatgpt how many amateur genealogists there were, and what market that represented:
Bertrand
Yes, but that’s because some companies have been allowed to charge big money for sources and archives that should be — and in most cases are — public domain.
They’re essentially monetizing convenience: taking payment for easy access to information that most of those 84 million people could have obtained for free.
That doesn’t make genealogy a money-driven field — not in the way film, animated media, or 3D construction work are.
Those domains are built around massive commercial ecosystems; genealogy, by contrast, is sustained largely by cultural interest and volunteer effort.
And just to clarify: the “84 million people” figure appears to stem from a 2012 discussion thread on Genealogy StackExchange, not from a peer-reviewed source or industry report.
Likewise, the “several billion dollars” market estimate refers to the commercial genealogy sector — including DNA testing, subscription platforms, and archival services — not to the open-source or academic genealogy space.
For example, the Polaris Market Research that you mention, projects the global genealogy products and services market to reach $13.56 billion by 2034, but that includes everything from commercial DNA kits to paid access to digitized records.
So yes, there’s money in genealogy — but it’s concentrated in a few commercial platforms. The broader field, especially tools like Gramps, operates outside that economy and will never gain access to it without abandoning its open-source and open-data mentality.
That’s precisely why institutional sponsorship — not market competition — is the most viable path forward for sponsorships in this genre. It’s about preserving history and cultural heritage, and ensuring that data and information don’t get locked behind paywalls or proprietary systems.
A good example is Reclaim the Records, a nonprofit activist group in the U.S. that uses Freedom of Information laws to liberate genealogical records from government agencies and archives.
They’ve successfully reclaimed over sixty million records so far, digitized them, and made them freely available online — without paywalls, usage restrictions, or licensing traps.
This kind of work highlights the core issue: genealogy thrives when data is open, accessible, and culturally protected — not when it’s monetized or siloed.
That’s why Gramps and similar tools need backing from institutions that value public knowledge over commercial return.
And more broadly: the fact that many people spend money on a hobby doesn’t automatically make the field itself “money-driven.”
Millions of people spend money on gardening, amateur astronomy, or model trains — but those aren’t industries structured around profit-maximizing development cycles.
Genealogy, in its open and academic forms, belongs in that category.
It’s a domain of cultural memory, not commercial momentum.
—
Note: As before, this text was translated from Norwegian to English, and structured for English-language flow by Microsoft Copilot, based on my original Norwegian drafts, instructions, and manual edits following translation. I also used Copilot to help identify some of the numbers and some of the factual project names I had read about but couldn’t recall precisely.
Hello StoltHD
First of all, today wasn’t a good day for me (I didn’t work because I had to attend a friend’s funeral this morning and go to the hospital this afternoon for tests), and my comments may have come across as more biting than intended. Please excuse me.
The figures taken from chatGPT’s reply are worth what they’re worth and aren’t important in themselves.
My only intention was to show that genealogy is an evolving field (people no longer want to simply list dates and places from °x+) and a developing one (it takes money to grow).
Which is a good thing, because what doesn’t grow is doomed to disappear.
I think some reasoning is too simplistic:
Free and open-source software is good, commercial software is bad
Technicians and programmers are good, salespeople are bad
I think we need to find a balance in everything
I don’t like Darktable, so I pay for Lightroom
OpenOffice suits me, I don’t have MS Office
I learned about Zotero and Obsidian ( ;-), so I’m not going to look for a paid solution
I use Wikipedia, so I give them a few dollars every time they ask for it
Otherwise, Windows and macOS wouldn’t exist anymore, there would only be Linux (and the reason isn’t just marketing)
I don’t share your idealistic and purist view of hobbies.
I’ve pursued (and still pursue) many hobbies: aquariums, photography, horseback riding, model railroading, philately, genealogy…
All of them cost me money, and behind each of these hobbies, companies have developed with the aim of maximizing profits.
Even non-profit organizations have needs to survive and thrive.
Is it the responsibility of public authorities to fund all these associations (including those of sheep’s cheese label collectors, which also have a cultural aspect)?
Who will determine which ones deserve it and which don’t?
Are those that aren’t subsidized doomed to fail?
I’m not sure that access to genealogical resources is the same in all countries.
In France, millions/billions of documents (kilometers and kilometers of shelving in each department) are available (if their condition allows) free of charge in reading rooms.
Therefore, there is only the cost of getting there (which isn’t necessarily negligible if it’s far away).
The Mormons, and then public funding, made it possible to put some of them (mainly civil registration records) online.
Some unscrupulous commercial companies have made the effort (paid people to do it) to index these documents.
Personally, I prefer to pay an annual subscription to Filae (or another service) to benefit from this indexing, saving me from having to reread these millions of records (my time also has a “cost”) for each search.
On the other hand, I don’t agree to give my data to a commercial company that might resell it.
Here again, we need to find a balance!
Are institutional bodies meant to subsidize “personal” genealogy software as a form of cultural preservation?
If so, why Gramps rather than another program? (Gramps boasts some unique features on paper; does it highlight them? Are they sufficient to compensate for its shortcomings?)
Does Gramps guarantee long-term support for its users (does it adhere to the only de facto standard in this field for import/export)?
When I read this forum (compared to other genealogy forums), I find that the percentage of questions related to genealogy (how to find/process specific information, etc.) is very low compared to those about problems or programming.
And the answers are inevitably of the same type, therefore incomprehensible to the average person! Reading too quickly, one might think they were on a programming forum.
Again, I don’t know the context, the history, or the « current state » of Gramps.
If, as I hope, Gramps attracts more and more genealogists, meets their needs, and makes them happy without looking down on them if they don’t know OOP, then… forget all my pointless questions and let’s discuss more interesting genealogy topics.
Have fun and carpe diem!
Bertrand
At this point, all you do is coming up with new strawman arguments just to defend your own viewpoints, so I have no interest in spending more time on this. But for the sake of clarity, let me dismantle each of your assumptions one by one.
I never claimed those numbers were important – you introduced the 84 million figure and the billion-dollar market. I simply pointed out that the sources were informal and that the numbers refer to the commercial genealogy sector, not to open-source or academic tools like Gramps. Responding to your claims is not the same as promoting them.
I never said commercial software is bad – I use plenty of paid tools. I’ve paid for DxO and On1, and I use them alongside open-source tools like Darktable, LightZone, and digiKam. I’ve had paid licenses for Affinity before Canva made their suite free. I use both MS Office and LibreOffice, depending on the task. I work with Gephi, Cytoscape, and Tulip, but also Obsidian and Aeon Timeline – and yes, I use Zettlr and Foam for VS Code. I use Krita and Inkscape just as much as Affinity, and I paid for Lightroom until Adobe switched to a subscription model. I’ve paid for Legacy for two decades, and I still use Gramps. I choose tools based on functionality, not ideology.
I never said all hobbies should be subsidized – I argued that tools preserving public data and cultural heritage deserve institutional support. That’s a far cry from suggesting that aquarium clubs or cheese label collectors should get government funding. You’re conflating public-interest infrastructure with niche hobbies, which is intellectually dishonest.
I never claimed Gramps is perfect – I’ve repeatedly acknowledged its limitations. But its value lies in its open data philosophy and its role in resisting the enclosure of public records behind paywalls. That’s why I support it. If you want to discuss how it can improve usability or outreach, I’m all for it. But dismissing its relevance because it’s not polished enough for casual users misses the point entirely.
I never said open-source equals open-data – You seem to think I’m conflating software licensing with archival access. I’m not. I support open-source tools because they align with the principle of open data – not because they are the same thing. Public archives should be accessible regardless of the software used to reach them. That’s why I’ll never pay for Ancestris or MyHeritage, but I’ll gladly use FamilySearch or dig directly into U.S. archives.
So no – I’m not a purist, and I’m not idealistic.
I’m pragmatic.
I use what works, I pay for what’s worth paying for, and I defend the principle that public data should remain public.
If you want to have a serious discussion about how to improve access, usability, or outreach in genealogy tools, I’m open to that. But if you keep misrepresenting my position just to score rhetorical points, I’m out.
I’m truly sorry if I gave you the impression that I was trying to misrepresent your ideas, which I respect (and largely share).
That was absolutely not my intention, and I apologize if it came across that way.
I must not be very good at writing (in English), so I understand your decision and leave you free to continue the discussion or not.
Bertrand
Gramps has a policy of supporting other open source projects where possible.
I was approached by FamilySearch a few months ago to discuss the possibility of some sort of integration or collaboration. If there is interest I can pursue this further. I’ll start a separate topic for this.
Even native English speakers can write forum posts that can be misinterpreted. It must be more difficult when your first language isn’t English. Your posts seemed fine to me.
I ask everyone to not be quick to jump to conclusions. Most people on the forum are reasonable and not looking for an argument.
Again, I didn’t mean to be offensive.
I have a bad habit of not giving “my” answer to “my” questions, leaving room for a conclusion that isn’t necessarily mine.
For examples:
When I mentioned the number of genealogists and what this hobby represents,
I was thinking:
a) If a €10 donation were requested from each user (as Wikipedia does) to improve the
software, would that help Gramps?
b) Given the sums involved, could one or more of the large companies that profit from genealogy make a donation to Gramps (as Blender benefited from donations from large companies in its field) for cooperation ?
Speaking of Blender, I seem to recall that for several years they received funding to pay a programmer for a specific project (from an non 3D company, I don’t remember if it was Google or not…).
And finally, StoltHD, several of my remarks weren’t directed at your comments but at what I’ve read elsewhere on this forum, and I should have specified that.
Bertrand
I’m sure many Gramps users would find a sync with FamilySearch important – it’s been mentioned a few times here in the forum before. Personally, there are still other features I find more useful for my own workflow… but it’s definitely a function I would use, especially if it could also pull in proper citations and source images.
That said, I still personally want a solution for CSL and the use of CSL-JSON or BibTeX files to sync source references, main/sub-events, and location-based events – which would be more applicable to my needs. But I’ve already said my piece about that earlier.
I genuinely believe that support for CSL and structured citation/event syncing would strengthen Gramps significantly in the long run – especially for users working with academic or documentation-heavy genealogy. That includes syncing with bibliographic tools like Zotero, JabRef, BibTeX in LaTeX workflows, or even commercial tools like Citavi.
And if there’s ever a vote among Gramps users regarding the FamilySearch integration or collaboration, I would definitely vote yes for it.
Although I use FamilySearch in my research, I’m finding many of their records are missing important elements such as age or associated persons, which Ancestry and Find My Past include. So likely I would not use/need such a feature. It likely would not match my workflow either. (How I cut and paste the record into gramps). Just my 2 cents…..
