[UX-337] UX: Two new Patron Blocks tables needed in Settings>Users Created: 01/Oct/19 Updated: 06/Mar/20 Resolved: 14/Oct/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | User Experience Design |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None |
| Type: | Story | Priority: | TBD |
| Reporter: | Holly Mistlebauer | Assignee: | Kimie Kester |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | feesfines | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sprint: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Hi Kimie! We need two new patron blocks tables to be added to Settings>Users in a new section called Patron Blocks (as shown in attachment Settings-Users.JPG). The two new tables are... |
| Comments |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 10/Oct/19 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer Since there are so few fields for the Patron Block Actions, what would you think of using a more simplified model like this: |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 10/Oct/19 ] |
|
Also for Patron blocks limits, could we use a simplified model? |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 10/Oct/19 ] |
|
Kimie Kester: These both look great. There is one issue. The list of Patron Groups (Faculty, Staff, etc.) actually comes from the Patron Groups table for the institution. I was thinking the user would pick a Patron Group that hadn't been set up yet from a drop down menu, then enter the info. Maybe something like this... |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 10/Oct/19 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer I was thinking that the system would put the full list of patron groups from the patron groups table for the institution in the third pane. So in my example the institution has four. Then each one defaults to zeros. If you want to enter values you can go into each one and set the values. If you leave the values at zero then it shows that you haven't yet set it up. The third pane of options is like a drop down menu. Since the patron group can only be used once, I thought this could be a simple way to do it. |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 10/Oct/19 ] |
|
Kimie Kester, I don't think this will work. The app won't know the difference between a setting that is still at the default and a setting that has purposely been set to 0. If there are settings at zero, the process will think the default is zero. Let's say a patron is checking out a book. The process will check to see which blocks are set to block Borrowing for the institution (all of the blocks are defaulted to "No" initially). Let's say all 6 have been set to "Yes." The process will then check the limits for the appropriate Patron Group against what the patron actually has, such as how many overdues they have, how many items they have checked out, etc. If the patron is a NYS Resident and the settings are still at the defaults, no NYS Resident will be able to check out anything because all of the limits will be 0. Am I making sense? |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer I am attaching an updated example. So actually I am now realizing that I think the default would be empty. This means nothing has been set. If the user wants to set something for the patron group, then they enter a value which could be anything including zero. The third pane would still include all patron groups from the patron group table for the institution but if the entry field is empty nothing has been set for that particular patron group. |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
Kimie Kester: So if the field is blank, it means the library hasn't set the values so we will ignore it. Works for me. Thanks! |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
Yes Holly Mistlebauer That is what I was thinking! |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
This means whenever a new Patron Group is added we need to also create a new one of these and when a patron group is deleted we need to delete this entry...seems odd but I'll see what the devs think... |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
I just noticed an error with the blocked actions mockup... Sorry I didn't notice this earlier... |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer I just updated the Patron block actions. On Limits, I was thinking that whenever a new patron group is added it would then show up in the third pane with an option to fill in the fields if desired. If a patron group is deleted from the Patron groups CRUD then it would get deleted from here. But you can't even delete a patron group if it is in use by one or more records. Let me know what the Devs say about this approach. Thanks! |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
Kimie Kester: I am writing up the user story for the Actions settings. I just realized that nothing on the page should be required. A library may not even want to block anything for the situation. Sorry for my confusion. Thanks! |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 11/Oct/19 ] |
|
Ok, np. Actions mock is updated. Do you still want a default message to show in the "Message to be displayed" field? |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 14/Oct/19 ] |
|
@Kimie: No, let's leave it blank for now. Thanks! |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 14/Oct/19 ] |
|
Thanks! |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 15/Oct/19 ] |
|
Ok Holly Mistlebauer I removed the message from the actions mock. |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 15/Oct/19 ] |
|
Looks great! Thanks much! |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 16/Dec/19 ] |
|
Hi Kimie. I met with the Core: Functional team today for them to get started on the development of this. They had many questions and concerns. First of all, they didn't like the two table concept. It seemed confusing to them. They also didn't like that we are using a yes/no pull-down for the selection of block actions here, but used check boxes within manual patron blocks. Then they wondered why the automated patron blocks aren't in with Patron Groups since they are entered by Patron Group. When I met with Duke to go over Automated Patron Blocks, they mentioned wanting to be able to set the block actions by patron group rather than just having one for all patron groups. Duke isn't implementing in 2020, so we decided to not worry about that for now. Well, if we have to change this anyway, we might as well do it the way we ultimately need to do. I have worked up two mock-ups:
|
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 16/Dec/19 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer Thanks for mulling this over with me this afternoon. Attached is an idea I came up with following our chat. Let me know if you think it captures what we talked about: Patron-group-blocks.png |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 16/Dec/19 ] |
|
Kimie, this looks excellent! Thanks so much! My only concern is the name of the "Actions" section. I am thinking perhaps it should be named "Actions to block" to make it clearer. To match up, perhaps "Limits" could be called "Limits to impose"? Thoughts? Another option is to change the checkmark text to "Block borrowing", "Block renewals" and "Block requests," Thoughts? |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 17/Dec/19 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer I changed the language on the screen. I wasn't sure about the word impose though. Take a look and see what you think of the updates. Also, I recently updated a Settings screen for eHoldings because Khalilah asked me to move the "Save" button to the bottom. There is an initiative to do this but it hasn't happened in a lot of places yet so I included the new placement on Patron-group-blocks.png |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 17/Dec/19 ] |
|
Hi Holly Mistlebauer Do you want to go back to this for now and possibly use the word Thresholds instead of Actions? Cate had used the word Thresholds which I thought sounded good when seen with "Limits". |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 18/Dec/19 ] |
|
Kimie Kester: I was going to suggest exactly that! To me "Thresholds" and "Limits" mean the same thing. I would rather see "Conditions" and "Limits." Thoughts? |
| Comment by Kimie Kester [ 18/Dec/19 ] |
|
Thanks Holly Mistlebauer That is a good point about the labels. I am posting updated mocks and removing the other various renditions that I had made. Thanks! |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 18/Dec/19 ] |
|
Thanks much! I'll let you know how it goes... |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 19/Dec/19 ] |
|
The designs as they are now have been approved! Thanks! |