On 29/12/14 21:24, Richard Smith wrote: %>< > You can't unless you have whatever lookup > table The National Archives uses internally. Obviously that's fine if > you use The National Archives' website (and pay £3.30 to view it), but > what if you use another provider like Ancestry.com? If they haven't > transcribed the name well enough to find it %>< > > Obviously moaning here isn't going to change how The National Archive > index their wills, but perhaps I can draw attention to the fact that > simply citing PROB 11/308/246 is pretty unsatisfactory, even if > accompanied by the testator's name, David Urry. (For this particular > will, I've submitted a correction to Ancestry's transcription so > hopefully it will now turn up in a search.) Where at all possible, also > include the page or quire number, or better, both. Why not write to them telling them the sort of information available to you (I haven't Ancestry here so I don't know what they provide you with) and asking them how, starting from that, and using their online site only, they would go about finding the correct will? Because you and I both know that unless a developer has a good understanding of the user's point of view there's a good chance that the resulting application will be cutter rap. If they're put in the position of thinking about the problem from the user's point of view they may be able to use that lookup table to translate what you've got into what you need. My view is that the best way to test a program or web site would be a team of three, one of the developers, a user who is reasonably knowledgeable about the domain the application covers and an invigilator. The user has a set of tasks to be accomplished. The user is only allowed to ask and the developer to answer questions of the form "Where does it tell me...?". The nominal role of the invigilator is to enforce that rule. The real role is to stop the other two coming to blows. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk