Chris Jones
My feedback
40 results found
-
202 votes
We are considering adding a field to the course record in Alma, reportable in Analytics, for the faculty/school. It could be used for reporting purposes but not for discovery purposes. In other words, you would be able to pull list usage by faculty/school, but end users would not be able to browse by faculty/school. Would it still be helpful?
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
An update here would be useful (also admin may need to review/remove some spammy comments from last year)
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
It would be useful to understand more about how the LTI tool was registered in this instance, and what user/course ids are passed to work with. IF not supported by Field Normalization or custom ids in the LTI, would it perhaps need a reverse look up by user id of the courses they are associated with? If no course in Alma unsure how would work.
-
5 votesChris Jones
shared this idea
·
-
15 votesChris Jones
shared this idea
·
-
107 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
Is this a function specific to the front-end, or intended for Students/Instructors/Library staff? Was wondering whether the Reading List Bulk Update Job in Alma with the Export to PDF could also serve as a basis to bulk export, although makes more sense front end with multiple selections from Find lists/My Lists etc
-
0 votesChris Jones
shared this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
I thought there was a "detach from repository" option in the Reading List Citation Update Task job? Have you been ale to try that? Admittedly having reports in place to point to the metadata deletions would be necessary I suppose.
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
Is there any developer scope for a Cloud app which might assist with this at all?
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
Hi, this Idea describes a problem common to many institutions. Even if it is not a frequent event, when it does occur it is highly inconvenient to library staff and can frustrate the provision of efficient customer service to patrons. The manual re-issuing from one account to another (especially if over 20 loans/a single page etc) provides opportunities for errors to creep in, so it would be a very beneficial addition to the Fulfillment options to staff in the Manage Patron Services view. This is something we would hoped to have seen by now.
-
0 votesChris Jones
shared this idea
·
-
0 votesChris Jones
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteChris Jones
shared this idea
·
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
By way of further explanation, case 05327094 explains "When a request is canceled, it moves from one Oracle table (active requests) to another (Requests history). In any Oracle table, the creator is the one that 'created' the entry in this table, so when a request is moved to the request history table, the creator is not the user that created the request but the one that moved the request to the history table".
This is extremely unsatisfactory as it rewrites the history of the request in terms.
Completely support this idea. Lack of documentation around this (and after extensive work on Requests analytics when released in 2014) is not great. -
77 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
This is still an issue. It would be nice to be able to set some mandatory fields in the customization rather than having to set mandatory only at Book or Article level. We lose much time and cancel requests which lack basic information which would not be submitted in the first place is the custmization allowed making the form mandatory (admittedly this may need some qualification for Books versus Journal.
-
99 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
Anything to reduce the number of clicks here will help.
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
Agree, but possibly some flexibility needed here. There are occasionally situations where the only access is print (perhaps unlikely, but does happen), and we might still want to leave an article citation (although an instructor would not be able to handle this easily themselves).
Manual locate (August 21 release) perhaps provides an alternative here (as appears on citation whether located or not.
Disabling uresolver/detaching from repository and hiding links allow management of other aspects (except LibKey discovery downloads - remove DOI).
Does the manual locate just present the same problem for you in this situation? -
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
This would be a useful Idea to get an update on because in 2019 the Leganto NERS request 6265 - "Automatically checking if a newer edition exists" was successful in terms of votes, but was ultimately deferred while Ex Libris continued to work on a solution. Ex Libris refunded the 12 complexity points allocated to this request which probably needs a reliable API or availability push service from somewhere which did not seem to be readily available at the time.
Something like OCLC's now defunct xISBN was suggested, or something providing book in print data perhaps (ProQuest/Railto sources??).
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
Is this another way of trying to define a hierarchy for Academic Departments? Am wondering how it differs from:
https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/395697-leganto/suggestions/19835518-academic-departments-add-field-for-faculty-schoo in practice - if need provision to group Academic Departments in additional ways. -
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.
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
It would be good to know how many customers have avoided the "recalculate" option in the Course Loader at Rollover for the reason you give here - as to not applying the Course Reserves Automatic Statuses. We found recalculate to be unusable for the reason you give, opting for copy regardless.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Chris Jones
commented
Agree with being optional. We do use it a lot (and folks without enrolment data loads might need to as a catch-all) but the flexibility makes sense. Fixes on the stickiness of the My Lists for Library staff based on VLE/CMS/LMS roles have also been improved in last few releases so less chance of the 'My lists of doom' 100+ lists happening for anyone.
I wonder whether any more specific info on the VLE involved and therefore the preview/access likely to be used could be added to refine the options? (will browsing users see anything as a different LTI role?
-
3 votesChris Jones
shared this idea
·
Hi, apologies for delay in commentiing - yes it would still very much be useful. I suppose there will be a few aspects to consider:
1. At the most basic, a category-type analytics field which allowed groups of depts to be associated with a custom category might work for many folks and give flexibility on dashboards for example, assuming Depts>Schools or Depts-Faculty type models.
2. However there will be 'ontological oddities'; some folks have more precise needs with (dept>school>Faculty) equivalents - not suggesting the Academic Institution Internal Structure Ontology (AIISO) is a good fit, but flags some of the known issues.
3. slightly slippery slope would be other course analytics people want to/could capture (more practically useful than hours for example!)- which would be useful for admin/level of study, mode of attendance (Distance learning, part-time, and am sure many other issues.
Would be with a survey or discussion to pick out workarounds people adopt now (searchable Ids and Section ID fields being used for 'structural' organisational information.