@Cult staff met with Filip to discuss the UX proposal. Filip stated in the course of his discussion with @Cult, four major issues arose that need to be resolved before development can begin on this proposal.
@Cult will do a write up of the out standing questions, and send out to the group to get feedback and discuss all together during this meeting.
Tiziana shared the screen displaying the UX design proposed. This table is an attempt to encapsulate the discussion:
Issue
Priority
More information needed?
Fixed Filter or Sensitive Filter
Low
Not at the moment
Left navigation: Search Fields
High
Yes. The MARCcat Group needs to define what will appear in this drop down menu. (Or, isn't this decided in the Institution settings? - Lisa's question)
Left navigation: Type of search
High
MARCcat group needs to establish what these will be (and what the expect outcomes will be? - Do we need this now? - Lisa's questions)
Filter categories
High
What categories and subcategories would the MARCcat group like to see here?
Locating Duplicate Records - The displayed drop down menu would call and "AND" logic to help libraries identify potential duplicate records, setting their own criteria for what that may be.
Low
Lisa will send Tiziana examples of what her institutions considers duplicate records that are currently in their catalog.
Search Settings Screen
High
This will be set at the institution level, not at a single user level. The group agreed it should function this way.
Application of a sophisticated logic, one that will enable fixed field positional tags to be used.
Low
@Cult will need a list of all of the possible positions and tags that may be needed
Search retrieving both bibliographic and authority records
High
This is already accounted for in the UI designs:
The group is in agreement that this is a good feature.
Results List: Is this enough information? Would we want to see in the results list (second pane), the list of bibliographic MARC fields that were retrieved? Note, they will be seen in the third pane.
The results list is good the way it is. There is no need to see the bibliographic fields in the Results pane when they are being shown in the third display pane.
