Let's pursue enhanced user experience via the Primo list with an enhancement request to modernise the other purchase request form that already has authentication, but is clunky to use.

https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308176-primo/suggestions/48761180-modernize-purchase-request-from-customisation

We are still very keen on this idea, and would point to Stacey's comment that the Alma Purchase Request form (which it seems we are all aware of and using) is clunky and not a modern design.

Could this not be an optional feature to enable authentication on the Rialto form? Why does it not align with initiatives? Our Rialto implementation manager strongly pushed us towards the Rialto form, and we received little support with Alma purchase request configuration when we stated we required requesters to be signed in. It seems to me it enhances Rialto to provide the option to have the form authenticated?

What is the reasoning behind having a form that's designed not to require authentication? As long as it's like that, it's not usable for us in Primo VE.

Hello All - I just added 3 votes to this idea. I'll follow up with the Joint ELUNA and IGeLU Rialto PWG to see if there are any updates.

Thanks,

Ryan Edwards
Rialto Liaison
ELUNA Steering Committee

Thanks for commenting Katherine. This idea is now over a year old, and like you would not like this to disappear. Since there is so much interest from the community it would be great if Ex Libris decided to progress this and not just wait to see what happens with the next round of NERS.

Is this Idea under review yet? I've noticed other Ideas with similar amounts of votes have been put into under review.

It was a big topic of discussion on the Rialto mailing list around the NERS time and seems like a pain point for most of the community. Would be good to hear from Ex Libris about how viable this would be.

Related NERS request: 9026 is not in the 2024 cycle of voting. Fingers crossed it might get develped sooner, but if not perhaps we get to vote on this in 2025.

Thanks Laura. To explain a bit about our use case. We use the Alma built in purchase request form for our students to suggest books and we use the Rialto purchase request form for our staff who want to request books be ordered. On the Rialto form we have extra fields that we wouldn't want to bother students with. For example: Research/Teaching, Module Code, Semester, Textbook/Core reading. So it would be very useful for us to have the option to add authentication to the Rialto form (and for those who don't want authentication they can leave switched off).

There is already a purchase request form built into Alma that requires authentication. The web form, as I understand it, was specifically designed to create an option that does not require authentication.

It would be very welcome for this Rialto version Purchase Request form to have a configuration option to require authentication and allow to show only to specific user groups.
Optional configuration would support those sites who currently use this feature without authentication, while also expanding potential use to sites who do need it to be authenticated.
The flow-on benefits for authentication would be to associate the requests to the Alma user account, just as is done for the Primo Purchase Request form.
We currently use the Primo version Purchase Request form, but it's notably less unattractive than the Rialto form, and a bit of a clunky workflow via Citation Linker.
But it allows for us to show it only to specific authenticated staff and student user groups by Display Logic Rules, as embedded within the GetIt, and is a nicely streamlined workflow overall for staff processing.
We can't use the Main Menu direct link option as our institution requires a standard header, and even if we could it does not allow to show only to specific user groups accounts.

I need to go and free up some votes, but for now I'll add that I definitely support this change as well. We wouldn't be able to use the function if it doesn't require authentication by requesters.