Kevin M. Randall
My feedback
14 results found
-
303 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall
commented
This is a feature that should NEVER have been part of the system, and I cannot imagine what the developers were thinking when they created it. It absolutely MUST be removed. The only fields in which this kind of feature makes sense are those in which the data come from a controlled vocabulary, not transcriptions from the resource.
Kevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
63 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall
commented
We have certain categories of items to which we do not assign barcodes, and since these cannot be scanned, it appears that the ONLY way to change the process type for these items is to edit each individual item record one by one. The ability to change process type by a batch job would save a ***LOT*** of work. Specifically, idea #1 in Eric's idea would solve this particular problem.
Kevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
56 votesKevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
26 votesKevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
337 votes
Dear all, we are currently working on a design concept for a new form interface option for cataloging, which will make it easier to navigate long fields and subfields - we will take this request into account as part of this design. See our "Form Editing for MARC 21 Bibliographic Records" roadmap plans for more information: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Materials/010Roadmap/Alma_Roadmap_Highlights_(2024-2025)/Metadata_Management#Form_Editing_for_MARC_21_Bibliographic_Records
Kevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
218 votes
Dear all, since this idea combines various very different enhancement requests for Alma's normalization rules infrastructure, we are unable to add these to our roadmap at this time. This may change as we get more information on prioritization and needs. In the meantime, we suggest opening dedicated ideas for specific enhancements you would like to promote.
Kevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
284 votes
We are considering incorporating the idea and effect both templates and rules editing permission
Kevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
122 votes
Dear all,
As part of the new UX of the All Titles search, it will be possible to view the bibliographic record in the details pane of the record (on the right side of the screen or in full view), and navigate between the records in the search using up/down arrow buttons as well as by selecting another record in the search list (on the left side or the screen).
Kevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Kevin M. Randall
commented
It is already possible to move the item records to either a different holdings record on the same bib ("Change Holdings" button) or a holdings record on a different bib ("Relink to another Bib" button).
-
162 votesKevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
55 votesKevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesKevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
95 votesKevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
-
67 votesKevin M. Randall
supported this idea
·
It seems that recently the 310 field has been added to the group of fields that get automatic pop-up assistance--with the additional "benefit" of having the MDE give a warning upon save if the cataloger-input data in 310 doesn't match whatever vocabulary that Alma is trying to control the field with. 310 is NOT a controlled field, it is FREE TEXT. We have catalogers here wondering why "Semiannual" (a preferred term since forever) in the 310 is now giving a warning...