web client: Move Place Orders button to the record summary

Bug #1670448 reported by Kathy Lussier
26
This bug affects 4 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Evergreen
Fix Released
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

Evergreen version: 2.12

The View/Place Orders option in the current web client is located in the Actions menu of the Holdings View tab. Our preference is to move it out of this actions menu and to place it in the record summary where we currently have options to Add Volumes, Add to Bucket and to perform various "Mark For" actions.

We would like to move it for the following reasons:

- Staff users are rarely on the Holdings View tab when they decide to order a title. Staff need to see 1) bibliographic information and 2) their current holdings information when deciding if they are on the correct record for their order. Both pieces of information are more easily found in the OPAC view.

- In general, I think it would be good to set a precedent that Actions menus appearing above a grid only include actions that can be performed on the items listed in that grid. Most of the Holdings View action items are indeed for actions you would perform after selecting items in the grid. The View/Place Orders action is one of two actions there that is not being performed on the volumes/copies listed in the Holdings View. This action is performed on the actual bib record.

- If we keep this action where it is, we will probably need to adjust the code recently merged from bug 1539089 so that we don't grey out the menu on the Holdings View tab. As it stands, a volume or copy will need to be selected in order to use the View/Place Orders action.

On my screen, with a resolution of 1366 x 768, there appears to be plenty of room to add another button in the record summary without crowding other screen elements. However, if I change my resolution to 1024 x 768, we start to see a second row of buttons.

My recommendation is that we display the additional button, but also provide some responsive design here for cases when staff's display is set at a smaller resolution (under 1280?). When the screen gets small enough, those actions can be bundled under an 'Actions' button, similar to the 'Mark For' button we already see in the record summary.

The reason I don't recommend that we start off with that 'Actions' button is because it's critical to our cataloging staff that the 'Add Volumes' remain as accessible as possible. They are performing this action repeatedly throughout the course of the day as they add new items to the collection. If we incorporate some responsive design into this display, we can balance easy access to important actions with a cleaner display in those cases where screen space is an issue.

Revision history for this message
Mary Llewellyn (mllewell) wrote :

I agree. Having the View/Place orders menu choice to the Holdings View is counter-intuitive. Acquisitions librarians who are used to this function are looking at the OPAC view. There would be no reason for them to be on the Holdings View if they don't have any items yet.

Revision history for this message
Christine Burns (christine-burns) wrote :

Related bug to be considered

https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1486209

When creating purchase order using "view/place order", a new tab is created with each title added.

Selection from Catalogue
Actions for this record --> View/Place orders
New tab opens
Desired = We would prefer if the view/place order interface opened in the same tab

Revision history for this message
Christine Morgan (cmorgan-z) wrote :

Working branch at:

http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/cmorgan/lp1670448_place_orders_button_on_record_summary

This commit removes the View/Place Orders option from the menu in Holdings View and adds a View/Place Orders button to the Record Summary screen.

tags: added: pullrequest
Changed in evergreen:
assignee: nobody → Josh Stompro (u-launchpad-stompro-org)
Revision history for this message
Josh Stompro (u-launchpad-stompro-org) wrote :

I think this change makes sense and agree with all the points that Kathy made.

The only issue I saw was with how the new button forces the col-md-4 div to display the buttons in two rows, which adds wasted white space when I view the page at 1235 pixels wide. There seems to be plenty of space to make the col-md-4 wider and place those buttons on the same line. But I'm not a web designer, and I don't know what all the ramifications of that change might be for various devices/screen sizes. Changing col-md-8 and col-md-4 to a 50% split seems to help in my case, maybe with a text-align: right for col-md-4 if we want those buttons to always be on the right side.

When my browser width is over 1618 then the 33% width of col-md-4 allows the buttons to be on one row. So it looks like the width range is 975 to 1617 roughly where the buttons display on two lines.

Another way is to get rid of the widths on col-md-8 and col-md-4 and set col-md-4 to float:right.

I'm not sure what the best usability method is for this UI, to have it float:right so it is always on the right side of the screen for larger screens or to have it next to the col-md-8 div for larger screens.

I don't think this patch should be held up by my display nitpicking though.

Signoff Branch - user/stompro/lp1670448_place_orders_button_on_record_summary_signoff
http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/stompro/lp1670448_place_orders_button_on_record_summary_signoff

Changed in evergreen:
assignee: Josh Stompro (u-launchpad-stompro-org) → nobody
status: New → Confirmed
tags: added: signedoff
Revision history for this message
Kathy Lussier (klussier) wrote :

I agree with your points Josh. In looking at this page, it seems like there is a lot more space we could be utilizing here to make space for these buttons. I also wanted to add a note that a serials button is added to this area of the screen in the current working/collab/gmcharlt/webstaff-serials

Revision history for this message
Bill Erickson (berick) wrote :

Is it time to add an Actions drop-down on the record summary page? Looks like we'll be adding Delete and Undelete actions at some point, too, and maybe more.

Revision history for this message
Kathy Lussier (klussier) wrote :

I don't have a problem with adding an Actions menu here, but we have concerns about putting the 'Add Volumes' action under a menu. For catalogers, that action is performed repeatedly through the day, and we try to reduce clicks as much as possible in the cataloging process. The serials option is actually a menu too, with menu items to go to Quick Receive, Manage Subscriptions, and Manage MFHDs. It seems to stand well on its own too.

Delete and Undelete actions are already available in MARC Edit, which I think is a reasonable place since one could argue that deleting / undeleting is a form of editing the record.

Maybe we could have:

Add Volumes (separate because it is a repetitive, high-use action for those who need to use it.)
Mark For: (menu)
Serials (menu)
Other Actions - menu that includes Add to Bucket, View / Place Order and anything new that needs to be added. It looks like many of the current items in the actions menu are covered through the tabbed records views or through one of the other menus, but there may be new things we want to add here at some time.

Revision history for this message
Bill Erickson (berick) wrote :

Thanks Kathy. Your plan sounds good to me. I could also imagine merging the Serials and Other Actions menus down the road, but I have no strong opinion there.

We'll still need to address the spacing of the buttons/menus along the top right. +1 to Josh's 50/50 split on the buttons row and having the right buttons float right (in a bootstrap recommended way). The .pull-right BS class is deprecated, but it still works (with the buttons/menus in a container div) and we're using it all over the browser client. I see no harm in using it since we'll be doing a search/replace on 'pull-right' when we upgrade to BS 4.

Revision history for this message
Christine Morgan (cmorgan-z) wrote :

Kathy's plan sounds good to me too. While it does not reduce the number of clicks required to add an order, it does not increase them either.

Kathy Lussier (klussier)
Changed in evergreen:
assignee: nobody → Kathy Lussier (klussier)
Revision history for this message
Kathy Lussier (klussier) wrote :

Thanks all! I've signed off on the commit from Christine and added a new commit that rearranges the space as described in the previous comments. New working branch at:
http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/kmlussier/lp1670448_place_orders_button_on_record_summary

Bill Erickson (berick)
Changed in evergreen:
assignee: Kathy Lussier (klussier) → Bill Erickson (berick)
milestone: none → 3.0-alpha
Revision history for this message
Bill Erickson (berick) wrote :

Confirmed new menu looks and acts as expected. Thanks, everyone! Merged to master.

Changed in evergreen:
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
assignee: Bill Erickson (berick) → nobody
Changed in evergreen:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.