Make "Physical Item Condition Field" options configurable
The new feature "Physical Item Condition Field" was a good idea.
However, the condition options should be completely configurable. Currently the only options are:
Brittle
Damaged
Deteriorating
Fragile
The current condition options seem extremely similar to each other.
Each institution should be able to completely configure this field, including hiding the field entirely, adding/removing options, hiding/displaying options, renaming/relabelling, reordering the options.
As of February 2024, libraries can now configure the list of physical conditions that can be selected to describe the item in the physical item condition field.
-
Can you share your list of conditions you are using today?
Do you think you will need to group them together to a higher level or you always will want to see this granularity?You also raise an issue of exporting the condition from the staff search.
Do you have other facets that are not exported? is this the only one? -
Sunshine Carter commented
Thanks for the notes Alasdair. Indeed, any improvements made by EL should be discussed with interested libraries to make sure the improvements are, in fact, improvements!
-
Alasdair MacDonald commented
This may have some applications, but it does also have a few shortcomings in its present form.
I have tried a few things with Alma today and while the physical condition may be added to the advanced search criteria, this facet of the item is not included in the export to Excel. I don't know if this might be possible in analytics, but it's a shame that you cannot export a defined set of items then sort as a whole to look for items in need of attention.
Along with setting the vocabulary, our Special Collections team also suggested that being able to record the date when the conservation status was noted would be important also. The only option for this would be to add an internal note, which is basically a duplication of effort.