Date

Jul 10, 2024

Homework

Please try to do the homework, but you are still more than welcome to attend even if you don’t have time!

Before this meeting, please review and add ratings to . Please see 2024-06-26 Meeting notes: Reflection on PO meeting for more details.

Housekeeping

Convener and notes: @Tara Barnett

Recording: https://recordings.openlibraryfoundation.org/folio/app-interaction-group-wednesdays/2024-07-10T12:00/

2024 Meeting and topic calendar

Participants

@Martina Schildt@Tara Barnett@Kristin Martin @Laura E Daniels @Owen Stephens @Lloyd Chittenden @Heather McMillan @Kimberly Pamplin

Goals

Prioritize the list of cross app tickets so that we can discuss them with the POs.

Discussion topics

Time	Item	Presenter	Notes

Time	Item	Presenter	Notes
5 min	Announcements	@Martina Schildt	Tara is now assisting as the co-convener of the cross-app SIG. From now on, please add yourself under participants.
55 min	Cross App Issue Prioritization	All	Background: We were asked to prioritize our list of issues (high/medium/low), then invite the POs to this meeting (or attend theirs). The POs will decide how to act on these issues, what system to prioritize them in/by, and decide on a mechanism to review them moving forward. We look at a list of issues coming from a dashboard of all issues that have "the cross-app label" (`crossapp`). During our meeting, it becomes apparent that we are not the only ones using this label. We decide to choose a new label unique to the SIG so we can differentiate our issues moving forward. Some of the issues on this list will not receive our SIG label. For another time: what types of issues are in our purview? Not all issues that include data moving across apps are necessarily in our wheelhouse. We have a sense that we want to own issues that relate to FOLIO being ‘cohesive’ or ‘consistent’ but not those where data is simply required in multiple apps. We note that originally cross-app SIG may have been intended to include ALL cross app and app interaction functionality. Is that still our purpose? We agree to define the scope of this SIG and what issues we follow at a later date. We wonder: how do we promote or champion the decisions and work we have done? POs have a hard time knowing whether or not something has previously been discussed. This causes inconsistencies to creep in. Should this be handled by UX Guidelines? Who keeps those up to date? We hope this is something our PO liaison will be able to do. However, annoying folks with our self-promotion is not the move. Could we ask that POs ask themselves if something has been done before, so that we can better serve as a resource without being annoying? Our process is to go line by line, issue by issue, and ask folks if there is a champion for the issue. Our original rankings are not ‘votes’--we all judged the issues by different criteria, and these are just a starting point for our discussion. The rankings below represent our consensus. Some of the considerations we came back to repeatedly: How much time did we already spend on it? Does it affect the value of FOLIO for potential users? Does it negatively affect current users' experience of FOLIO? Is it falling through the cracks because no one owns it? Is FOLIO likely to diverge in ways that would affect the above if we do not reach consensus first? There are “Closed” issues on our list. We included these because some of the Closed issues represent that the investigation or analysis has been completed, but the conversation never resulted in the needed tickets being filed in the relevant module/project areas. For example, UI mockups may have been made and consensus may have been reached, but the actual work to implement the solution was never completed. We made it through half the issues (all issues with Open and Closed statuses).

Rankings, part 1 (see also )

UXPROD-4670: Make receiving data available through RTAC for Unbound issuesIn Review: Out of Scope, Refer to Relevant PO
- There’s significant variation across the community (since this depends on your discovery layer) and we think it’s unlikely that we’ll find consensus.
- We wonder if this is really cross-app in nature. We don’t think this has been discussed by this group. We plan to remove our label from this one and refer it to the relevant PO.
UXPROD-4506: UI changes to "save" buttonOpen: Medium
- We discussed this issue at length and it would be ideal to see this through.
- This is not functionally crucial to any users we can think of. While users would like consistency, in individual SIGs other features are ranked higher.
- Hygiene is not by its nature particularly urgent. We do worry that choosing not to attend to hygiene will lead FOLIO to diverge yet further. ERM SIG may prefer another design.
- This is not an impediment to potential users of FOLIO--it does not affect the value of FOLIO.
UXPROD-3159: User Permission Management UI Improvements (Show perm metadata)Open: High
- We spent several sessions on this topic. Permissions by their nature seem to fall to the Cross App SIG. While they appear in Users, they come from and affect all apps. There is no Permissions PO.
- Many people ranked this high because managing permissions is challenging for their own institution and their peers. Updating permissions is very challenging.
- This topic may need to be broken down further.
UXPROD-1647: Theme: Ability to maintain relationships between other apps when holdings/items are movedOpen: High
- This issue is broadly accepted as high priority--it affects data integrity. It affects user experience and the value of FOLIO as a whole. We consider whether we are the owners of this because the solution is technical and requires an overarching solution (which has been agreed upon, but not uniformly implemented, it sounds like). On one level, this is really about how data stays in sync in FOLIO. Acquisitions-Inventory integrity is of particular interest to the group. This specific issue has been outstanding for some time. For a variety of reasons, we’d like to follow and advocate for this type of issue.
- We discussed this previously at a working group: Cross-app data synchronization working group and this has been discussed a technical council: DR-000004 - Cross application data sync proposal
PERF-217: Performance testing: how long does the elastic search indexing/implementation take when doing larger data importsOpen: No preference
- This issue had no champions. No one attending felt particularly strongly about it.
PERF-216: Performance testing: How long does it take to propagate a record change in Inventory to mod-search?Open: No preference
- This issue had no champions. No one attending felt particularly strongly about it.
FOLIO-3742: Printing in FOLIO | cross-appOpen: Low
- We believe this is important, but at least in this group, we don’t hear about it that often. We think this should be low on our list but not dropped.
UXPROD-4626: Update new field in inventory Item with Piece "Display Summary" field dataClosed: REALLY CLOSED
- We don’t think we labeled this, and either way, it is fully closed.
UXPROD-4242: Allow independent acquisitions unit for ordering and receiving Closed: REALLY CLOSED
- We don’t think we labeled this, and either way, it is fully closed.
UXPROD-961: Allow Inventory Instances to generate purchase order and purchase order linesClosed: REALLY CLOSED
- This is closed for real. No more work here.
UX-528: Sort cards in a customisable orderClosed: REALLY CLOSED (captured fully by ERM SIG)
- We believe that a UX design was captured and agreed to for a generalized implementation of cards. This is currently only used by ERM apps. The work that is remaining to implement the desired solution has been captured by the relevant apps--nothing further for us to follow up on.
- We do wonder--how can we promote issues like this, where a solution has been formed, so that POs don’t reinvent the wheel?
STCOM-1041: Spike: Modal (non-form) accessibility | Default focus to the primary action button Closed: REALLY CLOSED
- Almost certainly done. This is a stripes issue.
STCOM-1021: SPIKE: feature: freeze MCL columnsClosed: Low
- We discussed this significantly. It is closed because the investigation is complete and it is now possible to freeze columns, but it has not been implemented in individual apps, which may mean that further needed tickets were not filed.
ERM-1857: mod orders when invoked from mod-agreements returns only 10 results when many more are expectedClosed: REALLY CLOSED
- Probably not ours, and actually finished.

Action items

Choose a new label for the cross app SIG to use and apply it to all the issues that are really ‘ours’ (crossAppSIG?) Tara thinks: We might want an additional ‘current’ cross app label so we can access both our history and our current concerns.

Set a meeting to re-scope the SIG--what is our current charge, and what issues should we be investing our efforts in?

App Interaction SIG

2024-07-10 Meeting notes: Prioritize the Cross App Tickets