Deborah Fitchett
My feedback
59 results found
-
69 votesDeborah Fitchett supported this idea ·
-
30 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Deborah Fitchett supported this idea · -
29 votes
Changing the status back from Accepted. Please continue to vote on the idea as your votes will help us prioritize the development. Thank you.
Deborah Fitchett supported this idea · -
20 votes
Some of this has already been implemented in the new UI:
Citations: instructors can no longer set specific visibility dates per item.
Sections: Sections can still be hidden/display according to the section date. No changes are planned.
Lists: List dates will not impact the list visibility starting with the May 2024 release.
Deborah Fitchett supported this idea · -
253 votes
Dear colleagues,
We are pleased to let you know that we have accepted your request to add the fields:
* data type
* section type
to the Counter master reports data in analytics.
All the best,
Shoshana
Deborah Fitchett supported this idea · -
84 votesDeborah Fitchett supported this idea ·
-
5 votesDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Deborah Fitchett commentedThis (especially #1) would be really useful for us too, since if a course changes hands frequently (some courses are particular hot potatoes) the list of course owners just keeps building up year on year. Lots of our courses have long lists of owners, many of whom have left the university.
When we purge user data, eventually they're only represented in the list by their old staff ID number so at least they no longer get emailed - but then we've got no way to remove all their courses in bulk (since they no longer have a user record), and instead have to go individually into each course.
-
269 votesDeborah Fitchett supported this idea ·
-
2 votesDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
37 votesDeborah Fitchett supported this idea ·
-
9 votesDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
9 votesDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
3 votesDeborah Fitchett supported this idea ·Deborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
10 votesDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
1 voteDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Deborah Fitchett commentedIdeally it wouldn't be a fixed number of start/end pages - there'd just be an open-ended option to add a new pair. There's always one lecturer who needs to copy pages 3, 17, 20-21, 78, 101, 128, and 142-144 of a textbook. I expect this would involve a bit of re-architecturing, but it makes the most sense to cover the full range of potential use cases.
-
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Deborah Fitchett commentedWe're planning to move to VE (as Ex Libris seem to be strongly encouraging it!) too and would hate to lose this function when we do.
An error occurred while saving the comment Deborah Fitchett commentedThis would also help with a use case we have: We're harvesting from a small OAI feed that can't supply 'delete' data, so we have to run regular delete-and-reload pipes. Obviously for this case we have to set the date back to before the repository began every time we run it.
Deborah Fitchett supported this idea · -
3 votesDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
-
1 voteDeborah Fitchett shared this idea ·
(Cf https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/45168622-restrict-tags-to-specific-material-types)
Our use case: we have some questions set up that result in:
* question 1 - tags to put physical books on short loan
* question 2 - tags to request more licenses/restrict downloads of ebooks
Currently we display these to lecturers but don't let them edit them later, even though it would be useful for them to do so if they change their mind. This is because if we enable editing of these tags, they appear as options on all material types, which adds clutter and confusion. So instead we have to turn off the option entirely, and if they want to take something off 2-hour loan they have to email / use the Discuss feature instead of simply removing the tag.