2021-09-28 Meeting notes

• Question:  Does it make to remove case sensitivity for acquisition units? Ie. should law, LAW or Law always be considered the same name?

Dennis

• Wants to confirm before we make any changes, 
• Right now, when you create Acq units, go to settings, acq units. 
• Every name needs to be unique. At the moment the system is not case sensitive.  The back end allows it. In bugfest, there are some that are duplicates because of the case sensitive issue.  LAW. Law, law - should not be three different things. 
• From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:05 PM Definitely think these should *not* be case-sensitive
• From Susan Martin to Everyone:  12:05 PM +1
• From Peter Sbrzesny to Everyone:  12:06 PM +1
• Ann-Marie, the list does not alphabetize, we will have a fix for that at some point. 
• Dennis: We can confirm that we will enforce case insensitivity, the system will ignore capital letters. 

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:11 PM I haven't had to use it enough to provide UI feedback

From Suzanne Mangrum to Everyone:  12:12 PM It's the same format as adding invoice lines...I'm getting used to it.
But it would also be nice to have it in the action menu.

From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone:  12:13 PM
And related to this, please recall our previous discussion about a possible streamlined pathway when a library has chosen to limit their tenant to 1 POL per order.  The split between PO and POL is frustrating.

Dennis: I have engaged some UX people. There has been work done on hierarchical lists in search results.  We have talked about applying this to the orders app. I am exploring the possibility of having a single search area for orders and order lines. We'd be showing orders and order lines in the same area. Streamlining the relationship between orders and order lines. 

From Kristin Martin to Everyone:  12:16 PM Maybe it was "add another line" after saving a line.

Dennis: The manually add pieces for receiving for check box was another area commented on. That data point is critical and changes the way receiving happens. Someone made note that the box feels hidden. Do other people feel that way? Is it not clear what the impact is?

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:17 PM Agree it is not clear

Dung-Lan: Clarification on the box

Dennis: Its about receiving the quantity of things you are buying.  It's mostly used for ongoing orders. 

From Tracy Patton to Everyone:  12:18 PM I have always wished Manually add pieces was more prominent.

Dennis:  To be able to add or remove pieces, you must have this box checked. 

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:22 PM Or for Packages?

Dennis: When you check the 'is package' box for the pol, it automatically checks the box for add manually. 

From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone:  12:23 PM FOLIO seems to set the checkbox automatically if you select a package

From Dung-Lan Chen to Everyone:  12:24 PM Makes sense!

Sara Colglazier: Thanks for the explanation, and the box now makes sense! To answer your question, I don't think it's clear, and the box needs to be more prominent. 

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:25 PM Agreed that this is such an important part of the order that it needs to be more prominent and its use needs to be made more clear

Dennis: If this box is checked, you can manually add pieces. If it's not checked, the system will do it for you. 

Dennis: The name of this box/field needs to change. It's not really intuitive. Sara, what did I say that clarified this for you? Is there a label that would make this more clear? That wouldn't confuse other workflows you are trying to work on? 

Sara: Maybe a prompt? receiving more that your ordering? Can you add an i for an information button. 

Dennis: It does have one, 

Sara: Maybe make it a hint, to use this if you are ordering more than one. 

Dennis: Maybe there is a way to guide the user through this. A check box is very passive. Maybe we can make this more a part of the workflow to create the order line.  We need a creation wizard.  If it were possible to associate it with an order type, and be confident that users would always be happy with that workflow, then we might explore that. Is it possible you might have a one time order you would check this box for?

• Yes. 

From Kristin Martin to Everyone:  12:33 PM How about a talking paperclip?

From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone:  12:34 PM
We have a "create inventory" dropdown where we choose how to interact with inventory, so maybe a "Create receiving" dropdown?

From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  12:34 PM I definitely thinks that would help move us in the right direction

From Kristin Martin to Everyone:  12:35 PM I think as long as it's easy to specify values when batch creating orders, or through templates.

Sara Colglazier: The term 'manual' is used a lot and can get confusing. 

Anne-Marie: If you were doing something in Batch, you wouldn't be picking different values? They would all be the same?

Kristin Martin: I think that's right. The most common use for this will be with periodicals. Maybe use a template for periodicals with this box checked so you don't have to remember. 

From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) to Everyone:  12:39 PM Maybe for the info: This lets you create pieces to receive beyond your actual POL quantity.

Dennis: Another item on the list - The location of the inventory creation pull down in the POL can easily be missed.  Do y'all need this more prominent? Or just more detail about what they do?

Kristin Martin: I think once we get matching resolved, it'll be less confusing. 

Dennis: It says "create inventory", but it could create or match. 

Virginia: Duke isn't in production yet, so this is based off our testing. My experience with pol creation, is there are so many fields. many we don't use, it's easy to get confused on what we need to use. Maybe make the fields that most people will need, make them more prominent, it's to easy to skip important stuff. 

Dennis: It would be helpful to have some way of highlighting fields that have logic build around them. 

Susan Martin: Can you have a wizard that is an option, but more advanced people can choose to skip it? Some places you can turn the wizard on/off.

Virginia Martin: Agree with Susan 

From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone:  12:48 PM
As a baby step, maybe the "Create inventory" label could be changed to "Inventory interactions" - that's what this feature is already called in Settings > Orders

Dennis: Next bullet: Cannot create POL with cost of $0. It is a bug. It will be fixed.  It worked in Juniper. The bug is in the current code, what will be Kiwi. 

Location quantity not populated from order template in POL. This has been resolved. 

51 minute mark - Dennis demo's the error. 

There was a comment about locations seeming random. That's because it's a subtle switch from location to holdings. This drop down isn't populated with locations. It's a list of holdings this instance has already. When you choose from this dropdown you are choosing a holdings. 

From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone:  12:54 PM effective location

Dennis: Is it confusing that it's changing from actual location name to select holdings? 

Kristin: we were a little confused when we were testing. 

Dennis:  there's lots more feedback to go through from this but there are also some questions about acquisition method, a new sort of kind of acquisition method that I wanted to discuss about identifying purchase orders as consortia purchases. And I've created a wiki page for that, that I want to review.  So would be like adding a detail to the order that identifies as a, as a consortium purchase or like a group purchase a joint purchase something like that.  I've created a new UX prod. For instance, display acquisition information on instance, so there already was one for item.  But this has been kind of on our docket to discuss this for a while. I've created the UX prod just to try and start to collect some rankings so if you're if this is really important to there's at least a feature that you can rank and obviously want to discuss it here as a group like what order information we want to see on instance. Is it going to be exactly the same as what we display on the holding or what we display on the item doesn't need to be different so that's on the list of things to discuss as well.