Erin Nettifee
My feedback
37 results found
-
288 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This was part of the CERV cycle in 2025, but did not make it to the final list.
During the analysis, 3 possible approaches were discussed, each has a different estimation and effort:
Option 1: New dedicated process type
- It will be possible to mark specific items as "unavailable", similarly to the way it is possible to mark them as "missing"
- Items marked as "unavailable" will be considered as "not in place"
- The new "unavailable" option will appear as a possible process type in all the places where there is a list of process types, including configuration options such as Fulfillment Unit Rules
Option 2: Mark a location as "unavailable"
- It will be possible to mark a location as "unavailable"
- All items in this location will be considered as "not in place"
- The difference from option 1 is that when an item…
An error occurred while saving the comment -
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
This sounds like a bug that Ex Libris should fix without people having to vote for it here.
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
Jorge, it would really be helpful to be more specific about what you actually want to be able to do with the integration. For those who are not familiar with Ignite LMS, it looks like it's a somewhat standard integration of AI tools. If what you want is for *Canvas* to be able to do things, then it's not a Leganto improvement, if that makes sense.
-
1 voteErin Nettifee
shared this idea
·
-
37 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
186 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
123 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
42 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
This is a no brainer (and frankly a bug / tech debt, not a new feature that we should have to vote for.) If you have an integrated tool in NDE, it should follow the NDE theming.
-
99 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
Duke has similar use cases as to the other commenters, but I do think it might be helpful to include with this the option to choose whether or not a particular statistical category displays, configurable from Configuration > Users. E.g., if you have a "patron type" statistical category that is used in fulfillment rules, it displays, but if you have something that's more of a reporting field, you wouldn't necessarily also have to have it show up.
That way, libraries that have many statistical categories can customize what shows up on the screen.
-
7 votesErin Nettifee
shared this idea
·
-
93 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
This is a painful issue for Duke Libraries (adopting Primo for May 2026) and we're a bit flabbergasted that it has not yet been addressed.
Erin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
135 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesErin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
You can do this with a fulfillment rule that matches on "In Process" for requesting and then a TOU that does not allow requesting - however, that would then apply to all work orders, not just some types of work orders.
-
50 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
Duke would support this. This is a feature gap and inconsistency with other areas in Alma and Analytics that needs to be resolved, even if the community does not have enough votes to surface it in the rankings.
Erin Nettifee
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesErin Nettifee
shared this idea
·
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
I've added this to the enhancements portal (with a more broad reading of just adding the parameter information in general, as Analytics is also missing things like the service desk for a circulation role.)
Erin Nettifee
shared this idea
·
-
144 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Erin Nettifee
commented
Thank you for the suggestion/reminder, Patricia - I have written this up as a CERV submission as well. The link there is https://enhancements.exlibrisusers.org/ideas/AENH-I-36298
Erin Nettifee
shared this idea
·
-
35 votesErin Nettifee
shared this idea
·
Duke is deeply feeling the pain of this currently, as we are preparing to reopen a library that has been under renovation. The items at that library that are off site are in a work order, but the items that have remained onsite in secondary / temporary locations are having to now move around, and the requirement of having a work order in place to make them unavailable is adding a ton of extra work and confusion. I strongly urge Ex Libris to prioritize implementing a solution to this problem.