mcorby
My feedback
7 results found
-
79 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
49 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
-
63 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
-
326 votesmcorby
shared this idea
·
-
10 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
-
78 votesmcorby
supported this idea
·
-
30 votesmcorby
shared this idea
·
Having the option to make large numbers of items unavailable would be extremely useful. Usually we need to make batches of items unavailable because the items are in a physical location where the items are truly unavailable (possibly due to a building renovation). Another reason is that items are awaiting decisions to be withdrawn or transferred to a different location.
I would like to see the Unavailable option work the SAME as the Missing status. I can easily toggle an item from Missing to not Missing, and I would like to do the same with Unavailable. I can easily use Jobs to make items missing or not missing, and I would like to do the same with an Unavailable status.
There are a variety of reasons for why we make items missing. It is up to the library to determine the "behind-the-scenes" reasons why an item is missing. The same would be true for any library. The library would make decisions internally as to why they would use an Unavailable status.
I find Work Orders extremely clumsy to use. It is hard to get Work Orders applied, and even harder to get Work Orders removed. It always seems to take multiple clicks/scans.
When an item is made missing, it has a Process type of Missing. Why can't there be a process for Unavailable? On the Primo side, Missing items show to the public as Not available - Missing. Why can't Unavailable items just show to the public as "Not available?”