Evergreen

Bug #1849212
Comment #13

Comment 13 for bug 1849212

Revision history for this message

Jane Sandberg (sandbergja) wrote on 2020-09-07:

#13

Thanks for the good feedback, Beth. I've updated the branch (as well as the test server) with the following:

* Course materials: totally agree about defaults in the brief records. I presented the default values more clearly (as the default selections in the dropdown).
* User roles: I don't think they need to be required either! I made them optional.
* Terms: The owning library now defaults to the workstation library.

I did not change these:

* Terms: I agree about the field order. Unfortunately, that will depend on bug 1857351.
* Course materials grid editing: I hadn't thought about changing URIs there! I don't think I'd be able to address it before the feature freeze, but would be happy to write up a separate bug report for it if this pull request is merged. Would we only want to be able to change URIs for brief records? It seems like changing URIs for existing electronic resources could be potentially tricky (handling records with multiple URIs, changing located URIs for other libraries, etc.)

And here are my answers to your questions:

* Brief records: We were thinking of brief records mainly for online resources. A future enhancement might be to add a convenient workflow for reserves staff to create brief records for physical items in the reserves collection (e.g. instructor-owned copies) without needing to work with MARC. That being said, there's nothing stopping reserves workers from attaching some call numbers and items to the records they create in this tab.
* Course materials grid editing: not letting staff edit temporary attributes here was intentional. During initial discussions, we thought that having layers upon layers of temporary item attributes would lead to confusion, so staff are not permitted to edit the temporary attributes while they are active.

And one question for you:

* Course materials grid editing: you're right, staff currently can't edit much (the course it's attached to, the relationship "Required", "optional", etc.) Would it make sense to remove this Edit option for now until it is more powerful? Or is there value in these edit actions?

Thanks for the good feedback, Beth.  I've updated the branch (as well as the test server) with the following:

* Course materials: totally agree about defaults in the brief records.  I presented the default values more clearly (as the default selections in the dropdown).
* User roles: I don't think they need to be required either!  I made them optional.
* Terms: The owning library now defaults to the workstation library.

I did not change these:

* Terms: I agree about the field order.  Unfortunately, that will depend on bug 1857351.
* Course materials grid editing: I hadn't thought about changing URIs there!  I don't think I'd be able to address it before the feature freeze, but would be happy to write up a separate bug report for it if this pull request is merged.  Would we only want to be able to change URIs for brief records?  It seems like changing URIs for existing electronic resources could be potentially tricky (handling records with multiple URIs, changing located URIs for other libraries, etc.)

And here are my answers to your questions:

* Brief records: We were thinking of brief records mainly for online resources.  A future enhancement might be to add a convenient workflow for reserves staff to create brief records for physical items in the reserves collection (e.g. instructor-owned copies) without needing to work with MARC.  That being said, there's nothing stopping reserves workers from attaching some call numbers and items to the records they create in this tab.
* Course materials grid editing: not letting staff edit temporary attributes here was intentional.  During initial discussions, we thought that having layers upon layers of temporary item attributes would lead to confusion, so staff are not permitted to edit the temporary attributes while they are active.

And one question for you:

* Course materials grid editing: you're right, staff currently can't edit much (the course it's attached to, the relationship "Required", "optional", etc.)  Would it make sense to remove this Edit option for now until it is more powerful?  Or is there value in these edit actions?