조재완
My feedback
22 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
6 votes
-
10 votes
-
40 votes
Thank you for your suggestion. The Rialto team is reviewing this idea to determine how it might fit into our future plans. We cannot provide a timeline for these ideas, but be sure to check back often and vote for the ideas you support to receive status and comment updates.
Best,
Amy Copeland
Senior Product Manager
-
56 votes
-
93 votes
-
244 votes
-
328 votes
-
428 votes
Thank you for the suggested idea.
After reading it carefully, I understand that the main pain point here is the removal/fix of items already received.
To be more specific, the description of already received items should be updated to reflect the new pattern.
- Is this understanding correct?
- How often such change happens?
- Can you please add examples of the existing description and the needed update?
- Can the 'Update items using Excel load' CloudApp be utilized for fixing the description? see https://developers.exlibrisgroup.com/appcenter/item-updater-by-excel/
Thanks for the collaboration,
Tamar Fuches
Alma product
-
325 votes
-
805 votes
Thanks for the examples - we will review them and discuss our options.
Best,
Tamar
-
279 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…
-
102 votes
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for raising this idea.
This idea is related to another one - https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173/suggestions/48370850, which 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…
-
212 votes
-
178 votes
-
209 votes
-
449 votes
-
589 votes
-
154 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment I really want it desperately. Please make it!
-
89 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Very good idea!
I wholeheartedly agree with the proposed enhancement for the 'Records Customization' feature in Alma.
The current functionality, which only allows for the configuration of field visibility and order, is indeed a limitation. The ability to customize the internal structure of each field according to institutional needs would be a significant step forward, greatly enhancing the flexibility of data presentation.
The example of the 'Creator' and 'Imprint' information being combined into a single field is a perfect illustration of this issue. This often forces institutions to display unnecessary information. Separating them into individual elements that can be independently selected and displayed would allow for much more efficient operations, enabling each institution to align the display with its specific bibliographic policies.
I strongly believe this is a crucial enhancement that would significantly increase the utility of the Alma system. Thank you for making this excellent suggestion.