[OPEN-ILS-DEV] [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] browser staff feedback request / integration

[Bill Erickson]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Jeff Davis <jdavis at sitka.bclibraries.ca>wrote:

> On 2014-04-04 09:37AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> > +1 for the reasons that folks have already mentioned.  My main caveat
> > is to try to anticipate and avoid situations where folks would not
> > only have to switch from browser to XUL often, but would also need to
> > maintain a lot of context while doing so.
> >
> > As a contrived example, if v1 of the web-based circulation interface
> > let you do everything except register patrons, switching to the staff
> > client to add a new patron, then switching back to the browser to scan
> > their barcode and check out their first items wouldn't be ideal, but
> > it wouldn't be difficult or slow to make the transition.  This is
> > because the only thing needed to maintain the context during the
> > transition is scanning a patron barcode.
> >
> > Conversely, as another contrived example, if v1 of web-based circ
> > required that you jump to the XUL staff client during a checkout
> > session to add a pre-cat, that would be more disruptive, as it
> > scatters the overall workflow of "check out a bunch of items" across
> > two interfaces, and raises questions like whether the patron would end
> > up with two checkout receipts.
>
> I think this caveat is pretty important.  Ideally, no individual
> workflow would require switching between the XUL client and the browser.
> In Galen's first example, switching isn't too much of a problem because
> you are also switching between conceptually distinct workflows (and
> indeed between different interfaces within the existing XUL client).  As
> Dan suggested earlier, if development focuses on "fleshing out modules
> on a workflow-by-workflow basis as much as possible," we'll mitigate a
> lot of the pain in having multiple clients.



Agreed on "fleshing out modules on a workflow-by-workflow basis as much as
possible".  This is one area where user testing early in the process can
really pay off.

So, I think it's safe to say we have a consensus on avoiding the XUL/mixed
integration path entirely.  From a development perspective, this is
certainly a relief.

-b

-- 
Bill Erickson
| Senior Software Developer
| phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: berick at esilibrary.com
| web: http://esilibrary.com
| Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20140407/10a16f02/attachment.htm>