[Evergreen-acq] Settings on Load MARC Order Records
jamundson at cwmars.org
Thu May 27 13:49:08 EDT 2021
Thanks for the discussion today, Tiffany!
We absolutely NEED the "Load Items for Imported Records" checkbox. A good
portion of our libraries do not use the PO/Fund/EDI portion of
Acquisitions, so this is how they get their on-order items into the
catalog. This would not be possible without the checkbox.
I would also vote to keep the "Activate PO" box, as well. I never recommend
using this option, but some EDI libraries like submitting their order in
I believe someone mentioned having "Defaults" like in the Cataloging
Holdings Editor where the user would be able to decide which fields to
display. I think that would be very beneficial for this screen,
because which fields used here vary by library and network. That could be
future development, though.
John Amundson | Library Applications Supervisor | CW MARS
jamundson at cwmars.org | 508-755-3323 x322 <%28508%29%20755-3323>
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 1:37 PM Tiffany Little <tlittle at georgialibraries.org>
> Hi everyone,
> I was so glad to "see" everyone at the AIG meeting this morning! I thought
> it was a really good discussion; if only we had 2 hours to talk instead of
> one. :D
> When we were talking about the Angular Load MARC Order Records page, I
> found it interesting that several people said that they don't need and
> don't want to show the Activate PO and/or the Load Items for Imported
> Records ticky boxes.
> Does anyone actually use these options? Considering the discussion about
> the pitfalls you can fall into when using them, is there a reason to keep
> them at all?
> I'm not proposing to remove them from the Angularized page right now--I am
> fully on board with the "just get it out of Dojo first!" philosophy--but I
> think these page redesigns present a good opportunity to talk about whether
> we should keep things or not. (See: our discussion on selection lists a few
> months ago.)
> I think a lot of times we think about features that we *don't* have that
> we need, but every once in a while it's good to revisit what we *do* have
> and see if we *should* have it. :) With a beast like Acquisitions, it's
> great that there's so much flexibility, but we've talked about how that can
> be really confusing for new users. So if none of our current users are
> using these features, maybe they should be removed to streamline Acq a
> little more for the benefit of both current users as well as users to come.
> Having said all that, I'm not pushing for it either way. I'm just
> interested in discussion about it.
> Tiffany Little, PINES Services Specialist: Acquisitions
> Georgia Public Library Service | University System of Georgia
> 2872 Woodcock Blvd, Suite 250 l Atlanta, GA 30341
> (470) 512-1454 | tlittle at georgialibraries.org
> <tmccanna at georgialibraries.org>
> Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org/> for stories of Georgia
> libraries making an impact in our communities.
> Evergreen-acq mailing list
> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Evergreen-acq