I twill be helpful to illustrate the full workflow.
Today when searching for an item then relinking through the item editor a search screen come up and not the external search
Lately we have consider the following general improvement to the staff search: ability to choose a saved query as a base for a new search (indicate a set can be used as pre defined query).
The user will be able to define the pre defined saved query he will see in the drop down in the search box and chose the criteria to start with.
For each relevant type you can define relevant query (saved as set) either library or campus. effcorse you can use all other fields.
Do you think it will address the use case you describe?
I would like to better understand the different use cases. For example: should it also be for compuse level? Are there other predefined scope that you would prefer to have?
What is the use case in which you need to update the alternative call number in bulk? Our assumption is that you update all the items with the same call number.
How many items will you usually update in this use case?
Can you share your list of conditions you are using today?
Do you think you will need to group them together to a higher level or you always will want to see this granularity?
You also raise an issue of exporting the condition from the staff search.
Do you have other facets that are not exported? is this the only one?
We would like to better understand each use case
I understand there are several use cases:
1) As a librarian I rarely create items and it will helpful to have an existing record as a base.
Q: Having templates for items will help this use case?
2) I need to update several items with the same information. The user has simple permission.
Q: Do the items are in front of the user? Can he use the update by item scanning? what are the usually fields you are interested in updating? creating a set and applying the change via job will help?
3) A group of items (e.g. jornal) that are similar and you would like to update them as a sequence
Q: how you will distinguish them? how many items you would like to update at once? what are the usually field you want for compare and for update?
In the case of comparing several records which fields would you use?
How many fields are needed in order to have good distinguish between them?
If you had an excel with all these fields and then you can update the relevant ones for each record will it help?
The suggested idea will be considered as part of the UX project initiative
The ability to quickly switch between the repository seach and eidting of a Bib or holding is part of the MD Editor improved UX ("always on" feature).
The ability to switch from physical item editing back to the repository search is requiring a differnet functionality.
We are considering to add to the activity center th eability to go back to a search result with specifc creteria given for facets and other. It might also include the ability to focus on the last record selected.
What do you think about this approuch?
Due to security needs we can't increase the timeout period.
It is possible to consider adding warning message enough time before expiration that will enable you to reset the timeout counting
Today it is possible to copy multiple fields in the Alma Metadata Editor.
All possible actions can be found in the online help:
"Copy (Ctrl+C) Copies the selected text - To copy multiple fields simultaneously, press Ctrl and select all the fields to be copied."
Currently Alma is working on mobile devices. We might look in the future according to the users community needs to widen the support
The menu issue you mentioned is planned to be handled in the coming release.
I suggest if you encounter additional issues to use the regular route for receiving support. For example the drop down.
These issues are related to the responsiveness ability and are across different type of devices.
Thank you for your feedback.
Alma can work on mobile. The recommended way is to use it horizontal position. The resolution you mentioned are relevant for PC.
First we would like to make sure we understand the use case.
See our attached document in which we reproduce the workflow we believe you describe .
Is you main issue that when a record is open in the metadata editor with several 5XX , 6XX or 7XX fields they must be in numerical order so that a cataloger can quickly find specific fields?
If this is not the case then where exactly does it bother you that the fields within each 5XX , 6XX or 7XX group are not in numerical order?
Can you provide screen shots illustrating the outcome?
Can you illustrate the desire result? It will help to better understand the improvement you are looking for.