User experience testing that we conducted showed that most users prefer to place resource sharing requests via the resource sharing request form in Primo. Users also expressed frustration with some aspects of the form including the format of the fields. They also expected that the Library could add notices relevant to the resource sharing service to this page.

The current options for configuring this form do not allow us to meet the expectations of our users. We would like to have more options for customising the page the form is on and the form itself. Specifically we would like :
1)The ability to customise the format and appearance of the page (e.g. the width of form fields, the positioning of the radial buttons)
2)The ability to add a notice or message to the form (this is crucial to communicate important information about the service to our users)
3)The ability to add custom fields to the form

Configuring Alma to deliver an exclusively off-campus service in response to the Coronavirus pandemic included the extension of due dates for us. We were thankful for the 'Bulk Change Due Dates' functionality, which we were able to use to push back the due dates of a majority of items on loan (until 1 June in the first instance for us). We encountered problems though when it came to any items borrowed by patrons whose records were due to expire before that date. The items wouldn't go beyond the patrons' expiry dates, which under normal circumstances would be exactly how we would have Alma work, but in this situation was inconvenient and required us to do a manual workaround. Likewise, the due dates of any items on loan that had been recalled due to policy (e.g. having reached the end of the maximum renewal period) or requests were not extended, so again we had to deal with those separately.

Recognising that the way Bulk Change Due Dates works currently is suitable for Alma users probably a majority of the time, could tick-box options such as 'Disregard patron record expiry dates' and 'Include recalled items' be added to that screen please?

There are lots of tables in the Alma UI that come up which can be sorted by a couple of the column heads but not others. For example in Letters Configuration, you can sort by "Letter" or "Description," but not by "Enabled," "Channel," or "Retention Period." Being able to sort by column headings is a basic function of a table.

In the example above, it would be helpful to be able to see only those letters that are enabled, or to sort so that all the email letters are grouped together and all the SMS letters are separate from them.

So much of what we do in Alma is arranged in tables like this, so it would be great if they could be made more user friendly.

Hello.

I'm testing the new layout of Alma. https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/ProductDocumentation/010AlmaOnlineHelp(English)/010GettingStarted/050AlmaUserInterface%E2%80%93GeneralInformation/045UsabilityImprovements/LayoutImprovements

One major change is that the Main Menu (with the Alma functional areas: Acq, Resources, Fulfillment,...) is now on the left side. The Alma Configuration Menu is also on the left side.

It can be difficult to visually distinguish between the Main Menu and the Configuration Menu. (Please see "Alma new layout, Main Menu vs Config Menu.png")

For example, I think I'm in the Alma Main Menu so I click on Resources to Manage Import Profiles. But I'm actually in the Configuration Menu so when I click on Resources I go to Resource Management settings.

Is there a way to better distinguish (with distinct colors or maybe a large gear icon at the top of the Configuration menu) when the user is in the Alma Main Menu versus Alma Configuration?

The current/old layout clearly indicates that the user is in Alma Configuration. (See "Alma old layout, Config Menu.png")

Thank you.

-Marcus

In Alma task lists ...

• Electronic resources - activation - unassigned (Electronic Resource Activation Task List)


• Order Lines - review - unassigned (Purchase Order Lines in Review)


• Invoices - review - unassigned (In Review Invoices)

... there is only a row action ("..." button) to start the "Assign to" dialog which opens a pop-up window where you can select a user. Our colleagues are not satisfied with this cumbersome assignment functionality.

The missing functionalities are:
(1) a one-click "Assign to me" button
(2) a bulk functionality for "Assign to" and "Assign to me" (it is already possible to mark several records in the task list but you can only change the Status with a bulk action)

It would be very useful to be able to take a set of titles, and convert it into a set of inventory attached to those titles. Specifically, I would like to create a Portfolio set from a set of Electronic Titles. I have regular need to move groups of portfolios from one local e-collection to another. I have only a list of ISBNs to start with, which I use to create an itemized Electronic Titles set. However, moving portfolios requires a Portfolio set, which can only be created with Portfolio IDs. It is very cumbersome to arrive at the appropriate list of Portfolio IDs when starting with ISBNs: create the title set; use a publishing profile to publish the title set with inventory enrichment to include the portfolio ID number (export job options do not export the portfolio ID); extract the Portfolio IDs from the published file; upload those Portfolio IDs into an itemized portfolio set.

By extension, it should be possible to also create a set of Physical Items from a Physical Titles set, and a set of Digital Files from a set of Digital Titles, as creating itemized set for these invetory types are similaryly limited by what identifiers are accepted.

A borrowing article request is stopped for local ownership when the library has an electronic database that may have coverage for the journal.

Currently, the borrowing locate local ownership check does not check the year, volume, or issue in the article request to determine if the library has access to this specific year in the database. The borrowing locate does not check for embargo status.

Because the citation year is not checked for local ownership, requests are stopped from being automatically sent to lending libraries that have the article. Library staff must spend time checking if their library has access to the specific year in their electronic databases.

In Alma Configuration> Fulfillment> General>Other Settings the rsuresolverlocate can be used to check a lending library’s electronic coverage.

An additional Customer Parameter should be added to allow a borrowing library to check their own library’s database coverage information. If a request is for an article that is not within the database coverage or is in an embargo the request should be sent to the lending library without staff mediation. Requests that are found in the library’s database should be kept in the Ready to be sent status for staff to review.

This was entered as NERS enhancement request 7052.

Thanks

The list of material types used across our consortium is very long. Even though we have turned off those that we don't use, we still have a list of about 65. For most of our libraries, this is overkill, as locations like our Chemistry library only use 4 or 5 at most. Catalogers have to use the full list, which increases the chance of confusion or clicking on the wrong thing for even straightforward cataloging. I want to be able to restrict the material types that can be used at any particular library. This was a feature of another ILS that I used and was quite helpful to reduce errors.