Proposal for webstaff UI: Hide fields in copy editor, rather than disabling them

[Jane Sandberg]

Current behavior in the copy editor for the web staff client is to allow users to disable certain fields, rather than hiding them outright (which was the XUL client's behavior). This LP bug is intended to start a discussion about changing that behavior back to hiding unwanted elements (old XUL client behavior).

Pro: ability to reduce clutter on a regularly used, visually overwhelming screen.

Con (per miker): requires a rewrite of the editor, or there will be visual "holes"
Con (per miker): hiding data from users that, even if rarely used, may affect circ, etc.

Possible compromise: adding a collapsed "hidden fields" area in an out-of-the-way location on this screen that could be expanded to troubleshoot those occasional bizarre questions related to data in these fields.

[Kathy Lussier (klussier)]

I support hiding the unneeded fields. In our case, we usually are hiding fields that never, ever get used by the library. Things like circ as type (our circ policies are based on circ mods), floating, and quality. Fields that are rarely used still remain visible.

Another compromise might be to implement something similar to the patron editor where there is a toggle to display suggested and all fields. An added benefit to this method is it provides consistency between the two interfaces.

I also wanted to add a note that I another thing we miss is the ability to configure these settings for the entire org unit. In the web client, these settings are stored for the workstation, which requires each cataloger to make sure they are configured correctly.

[Bill Erickson (berick)]

+1 to hiding

[Elaine Hardy (ehardy)]

I like the idea of a collapsed "hidden fields" area. It reminds user the fields are there without cluttering the editor

[Bill Erickson (berick)]

Somewhat related to this, we've had requests locally to move the "Working Items" grid to the bottom of the page, below the attribute edit section.

This allows both the attributes section and the grid to expand and fill the horizontal space. It also improves the work flow where reviewing the contents of the Working Items grid is the last step before saving, i.e. after you have already scrolled down to modify attributes.

I'm curious how others feel about this? Would make sense to work on both together if so.

[Tiffany Little (tslittle)]

I'm not an everyday cataloger anymore, but fwiw I like the idea of moving "Working Items" below the attribute edit section so it fills out horizontally. It's always seemed very squished where it's currently at.

[Andrea Neiman (aneiman)]

Also not an everyday cataloger anymore, but +1 to this for the same reasons Tiffany stated. Especially on smaller screens the display is very crowded.

[Elaine Hardy (ehardy)]

+1

[Bill Erickson (berick)]

Thanks for the input, all. Here's a branch which does both plus release notes:

https://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/berick/lp1716473-copy-edit-hide-defaults

1. Hide disabled fields, allowing space to be reclaimed by other fields.
2. Move the working items grid to the bottom of the page.

[Geoff Sams (gsams)]

I have tested this code and consent to signing off on it with my name, Geoff Sams and my email address, <email address hidden>.

[Michele Morgan (mmorgan)]

I also planned to signoff on this, but noticed a few problems with the labels on the fields. Signoff branch pushed with an additional commit to fix field labels. If I should incorporate Geoff's signoff in my branch, I will be happy to do that. Signoff branch is at:

https://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/mmorgan/lp1716473-field-label-tweaks-and-signoff

[Bill Erickson (berick)]

Thanks Geoff, Thanks Michele.

I have added Geoff's sign offs to the first 2 commits. I have confirmed and signed off on Michele's fixup commit.

Merged to master for 3.3.