Angular Catalog: Exclude Electronic Resources Checkbox missing

Bug #1885767 reported by Jennifer Pringle
20
This bug affects 4 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Evergreen
Fix Released
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

Evergreen 3.5

The experimental catalogue currently doesn't have the checkbox for excluding electronic results from your search results.

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

I'm wondering if this is a widely and commonly used feature.

I'm also wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to add a default Search Format that equates to "Not Electronic" instead of having a dedicated input for a specific search format filter arrangement.

Revision history for this message
Galen Charlton (gmc) wrote :

As a data point, I spot-checked a few of our customers that have the checkbox enabled and found that for one of them, 6.6% of their search results retrievals used that option, while another used it 1.4% of the time. So, while it's not commonly used, it may be serving a purpose. Of course, the way that the pandemic may be changing people's preferred and available formats is a confounding factor.

Another factor: since we're talking about the Angular catalog, we've now entered a world where we don't necessarily need to optimize for patron preferences but should optimize for staff use cases.

Revision history for this message
Galen Charlton (gmc) wrote :

See also bug 1519055 for the history of the checkbox.

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

We have librarians who have reported annoyance at getting electronic resources mixed with their hardcopies in the search results. The addition of the "Exclude electronic resources" box pacified them. We will get grief if that box disappears.

Bill Erickson (berick)
Changed in evergreen:
assignee: nobody → Bill Erickson (berick)
milestone: none → 3.6-beta
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Bill Erickson (berick) wrote :

Branch pushed:

https://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/berick/lp1885767-staffcat-exclude-electronic

The option may be turned on in the new staff catalog Preferences page. A new workstation setting is provided to store the value.

tags: added: pullrequest
Changed in evergreen:
assignee: Bill Erickson (berick) → nobody
Changed in evergreen:
importance: Undecided → Medium
milestone: 3.6-beta → 3.6-beta2
Revision history for this message
Mary Llewellyn (mllewell) wrote :

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

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

The Exclude Electronic Resources checkbox displays as expected when that option is turned on or off in the Catalog Preferences page. With the checkbox set to display, checking and unchecking the box does not automatically re-execute the search as it does in the current catalog. It would be preferable to re-execute the search without the additional click on the Search button.

Changed in evergreen:
assignee: nobody → Christine Morgan (cmorgan-z)
assignee: Christine Morgan (cmorgan-z) → nobody
Revision history for this message
Galen Charlton (gmc) wrote :

Pushed to master for inclusion in 3.6-beta2. Thanks, Bill and Mary!

I'm not convinced that a new workstation setting was really necessary, but c'est la vie.

Regarding Christine's point about the checkbox not automatically re-running the search, none of those checkboxes do that in the Angular staff catalog search, in contrast to the public catalog, where toggling checkboxes does re-run the search. It's worth a separate LP to discuss whether there's a broad desire for re-run-on-toggle in the Angular staff catalog.

Changed in evergreen:
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
Changed in evergreen:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
Ryan Eby (aadl-ubuntu) wrote :

Note: The 1237.data.staffcat-exclude-electronic.sql was created and released but is not referenced in any version-upgrade file (and I couldn't find note of it in 3.6x release notes) so will likely be missing from some installs.

Revision history for this message
Michele Morgan (mmorgan) wrote :

Noting that the issue in comment #9 is documented in bug 1920826.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

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