[Ruth Frasur]

Emerald is working with EG-IN on this project.

[Ruth Frasur]

The bootstrap OPAC developed by Chris Burton includes a date picker that alleviates this issue.

[Ruth Frasur]

I honestly forgot all about hours in the OPAC until our statewide mobile app was released and we realized that we probably should update those to reflect our actual hours. Submitting a ticket to fix the issue isn’t the worst thing in the world, but it makes sense, especially in an era where libraries may be moving forward and backward through opening phases with differing hours, to let local accounts with appropriate permissions make those changes instead.

[Ruth Frasur]

Please check whether this bug is still valid in the OPAC refresh. https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1778972

[Ruth Frasur]

This LP ticket references desired behavior regarding split hours and other atypical schedules.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1396764

[Ruth Frasur]

This has been particularly desirable as we begin to see libraries reopen w/ hours different from the pre-Covid era. As part of this, it would also be desirable for libraries to have the ability to designate more than one open time-span on a given day of the week.

[Ruth Frasur]

They would have to check things in to clear the status. Backdating it doesn’t stop any notifications that might go out indicating that an item is overdue. It also doesn’t remove that item from a circulating status in a patron’s “My Account.” From the patron side, that circulation is over when they return it. It needs to be reflect that way in the ILS as soon as possible to cut down on those panicked calls and emails that a lot of libraries are getting right now. “I returned that two days ago. Why is it still showing as checked out?” And even if items are backdated and any accrued fines, however minuscule, are automatically renewed, there is potential for a patron to have fines showing in their “My Account” between when they return something and that item is checked in with backdating.

[Ruth Frasur]

I’ve added a LP ticket for this. You can view here.

[Ruth Frasur]

This is something that was talked about during the ECDI meetings. I’ll also be unstickying (yep, I just made that word up) this post soon. There is some redundancy…or could be. The general consensus is that this where the initial spitballing for an idea should happen as well as any messy conversation. It could include already established LP tickets, but doesn’t necessarily. Once there seems to a level of consensus or we’re moving into a voting phase, this would be the place to provide some seed/background information to populate the ideas boards. Of course, this has worked backwards at this point, with the ideas board initially seeding the forum.

This will allow anyone with a site account to participate with the forum. Then, the ideas board gets more locked down with only voting members able to submit ideas/vote for priorities.

It’s also conceivable, and something I noticed as I was inputting the ideas as topics, that some could be merged back into the ideas page with multiple topics representing one idea…or one possible project (there are a number of related ideas/topics that could be My Account enhancement, search enhanced, etc.).

So, going forward, will be forum-spitball-begin-requirements > forum-discussion + idea-vote/add_heat > forum-discussion/idea-vote/add_heat + LP-ticket/requirements-to-community

[Ruth Frasur]

Legacy reply from Elizabeth Thomsen – I agree that the search shown at the top of the search results page should match the search just performed, with the search type, format and scope all set correctly. But I don’t think the search type information should be in the search box itself, just in the dropdown. If anything other than the search terms end up in that box, it makes it harder for the user to enter a new search term. So rather than look like have this in the search box: identifier|isbn:9780062436634 I think it would be better to just have the dropdown for ISBN and just the isbn in the search box itself.

Putting search types in the search box is a messy habit the catalog has — you see it if you search as keyword and then change the search type to title and then subject, etc., and the search box ends up looking like this: https://bit.ly/messysearch

[Author]

Posts