Date
Attendees
- Andrea Loigman
- Cate Boerema (Deactivated)
- Catherine Smith
- Donna Minor
- Elizabeth Chenette
- Emma Boettcher
- Jana Freytag
- Mark Canney
- Rameka Barnes
- Sharon Wiles-Young
- Kim Ammons
- Emma Boettcher
- Kimie Kester
- Andy Horbal
- Cheryl Malmborg
- David Bottorff
- David Larsen
- Kai Sprenger
- Kelly Drake
- Susan Ponischil
- Magda Zacharska
- mey
Discussion Items
...
Functional Area
...
Product Owner
...
Decision Reached
...
Comments
...
| Time | Item | Who | Description | Goals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 min | Housekeeping | Andrea Loigman |
|
| ||||
| 5min | Check-in | Emma Boettcher | Check-in volume | How many items are likely to be checked in during a given session? |
| 45min | Requests | Cate Boerema (Deactivated) | Delivery requests | At the requests re-ranking meeting, we discussed possibly coming up with a very simple delivery request design that could meet go-live requirements for institutions that need it. In particular, we discussed: |
| ||||||||||
| 10min | Inventory | Cate Boerema (Deactivated) | RA needs for Inventory |
- An RA view of inventory data was discussed at folio face-to-face meeting and rough UXPROD was created: https://issues.folio.org/browse/UXPROD-1742
- Let's discuss the feature as a group, clarifying use cases and getting a sense of priority
- Goal is to have a good handle on use cases and maybe even enough information to get a first mockup assembled
Meeting Outcomes
| ||||||||||||
| 10min | Request queue page with reordering | Cate Boerema (Deactivated) | Request queue page with reordering |
|
Meeting Outcomes
Functional Area | Product Owner | Planned Release (if known) | Decision Reached | Comments | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inventory features for RA | Q3, Q4 and beyond |
| ||||||||||
| Delivery requests | Cate Boerema (Deactivated) | Q4, if approved in MVP proposal |
| |||||||||
| Request queue reordering | Q4, if approved in MVP proposal |
|
Notes
Emma Boettcher - Check-in volume:
Quick question about anonymizing loans: for a user (read: staff member) checking in items at a service point, what would be the upper limit of the number of items they’d be checking in during a session? Cheryl Malmborg: at UChicago, potentially hundreds. Andrea: at Duke at the end of a term, several hundred. Emma asks if a 1,000 would be a reasonable number to use to define the upper limit (not for official purposes, but just to get an idea of the scale). Consensus = yes.
Cate Boerema - Delivery requests:
Cate is gathering requirements for features that were ranked highly, one of which was delivery requests. Not all institutions do this, but it will be a go-live requirements for those that do. Cate created a notes document to get conversation started. To test current state, Cate created a request on an available item and selected fulfillment option delivery, then selected home address type for delivery and saved request. Page request was created and item status was set to paged, just like it was supposed to. Unfortunately, things started to go awry at this point: it seems that when you select delivery, routing behaves as though there is no request for the item and tries to route it back to its home location. Cate asked if the following constituted the ideal state: when an item is checked in at any service point, “Route for Delivery” modal displays in FOLIO, item is checked out and changed to “Closed - Filled,” delivery slip is printed, and an “on its way” notice is set to patron. Group confirms that this is accurate.
Currently, all requests can be filled by “hold shelf” or “delivery.” Multiple addresses can be entered as delivery options. Andrea: how do we limit options that patrons can select? Don’t want to deliver to people’s homes, except in special cases such as people who are disabled. What is desired is an equivalent to “Default Service Point” feature used for hold shelf. Currently at Duke ability to receive deliveries is determined by patron type (e.g. faculty can receive deliveries) and delivery location is logically extrapolated from their status (in case of faculty, for instance, delivery location is based on department affiliation). Cate will work on incorporating default address feature into delivery option.
Cate Boerema - RA needs for Inventory
Question: how much are RA folks weighing in on rankings for inventory features? If we have granular UXPRODs that can be ranked at the institution level, does that work for this group, or should a separate process be developed?
Group indicated that situation varied by institution. At Five Colleges, for instance, RA is not part of Implementation Team. Duke and UChicago are involved in ranking, though.
Cate will forward emails from Charlotte to RA mailing list so that members can go in and comment on whether or not things are needed for MVP.
Discussion of UXPROD-1923: Implement material type category. Right now just a flat list. Would be nice if it could be organized hierarchically in settings, which would improve search and filter view. Question: how important is hierarchical display (not an easy fix)? Consensus that it would be good, but probably isn’t MVP. Similar issue and priority with location.
Brief discussion of UXPROD-1924: Andrea shared a link to the associated JIRA (https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-1924) for this issue and noted that you can navigated to any JIRA by changing the number at the end of the URL.
Cate shared a link to sign up for the FOLIO-RA mailing list: https://ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org.
Cate Boerema - Request queue reordering
Cate demoed rag-and-drop re-sorting of request queues, which the group liked. Consensus that we would want to limit which users have this ability: anyone who has access to circ should only be allowed to view the queue, but only some people should be able to edit it. Cate will talk to the developers about this.
Group confirmed that no one can think of any instance in which a hold should be prioritized ahead of a recall (re-sorting is only possible within these two categories, not across them).