Comment 4 for bug 1528912

And I think this is why we currently have this action in two different menus - because in some libraries it makes more sense to put it in cataloging and in others it makes more sense to put it in circulation.

I don't feel strongly about either location, but I would like to raise the question of whether it is necessary to remove every instance of redundancy in the web client menus. I agree that eliminating redundancy can simplify the client and reduce clutter in the interface. However, we can also think of it as offering multiple points of access to a function that is used by different departments in a library.

Some people will naturally gravitate to cataloging while performing this function while others will jump to circulation. Yes, we can train people, but if it is a function that a particular staff member rarely performs, they will inevitably spend time poking around trying to find the right menu.

In his article on reducing redundancy, Jakob Nielsen speaks to the idea of appropriately using redundancy to offer alternative navigation paths. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/reduce-redundancydecrease-duplicated-design-decisions/

The idea is that there are always a few items in a web application that could fall within a few categories and that the application shouldn't force the user to take just one path to get there. I think there are a handful of actions that fall within this category: replace barcode, search the catalog & item status are ones that immediately come to mind.