WebPac Implementation Team : Meeting Minutes

4/19/2001

Present

  • Mark Mounts
  • Bill Ghezzi
  • Reinhart Sonnenburg
  • Norma Pellerin
  • Jennifer Nelson
  • Rebecca Lee
  • Paul Merchant
  • Jennifer Merrill (recorder)

Minutes

The minutes of the December 7, 2000 and April 12, 2001 meetings were approved.

Announcements

Jennifer Merrill and Becca (among others) will be attending the Innovative Users Group annual meeting in May.  If there are enhancements that the group would like delivered in person, please have them to Jennifer by May 12.  One possible enhancement was a group of general suggestions that the Help Group has about being able to customize results pages in order to better guide the user as to what they might want to do next.

This is Jennifer Nelson's last meeting.  She was thanked for her efforts on this committee.

The co-chairs will give a 10 minute demonstration of the new library catalog at the Council on Libraries meeting today.

To Frame or Not to Frame

While cataloging our RLG Eureka resources, Bill discovered that they don't open correctly from Innopac within the frame.  Bill recommended that we eliminate the frame.  The group agreed after some discussion.  We will send in an enhancement request to Innovative to suggest that they provide us an option to specify that URLs should open in a separate window. This is because there is still some concern within the team about users being logged in and not realizing this when they go off to another site.

Report of the Patron Initiated Features subgroup

Becca gave an overview of the report and then asked us to focus on some particular recommendations.  The STATUS messages provoked a lively discussion which had to be continued in the next meeting.

Nobody liked CHECK SHELF, but didn't have a better suggestion.  NOT CHECKED OUT would be preferable but it doesn't fit the character limit and the abbreviations aren't pretty.

REPL ORDERED was also not favored because it was felt that the patron would assume that the piece was coming soon when sometimes this just means that the bibliographer wants a copy purchased even if nobody has it for sale.  The group recommends using MISSING in this case.

Bill G. raised a concern about how the status message that shows to the public is also the translation of the code that staff will see in staff mode (in places in the system where the translation shows rather than the code).  He wanted to be sure that Collection Services folks were OK with this.  One question is who will keep track of what the codes meant before we change their meanings?  Becca and Jennifer will draft a message to CSDH about our proposed messages and the implications for staff.

The Request Rule file is used in the Automatic Holds Processing function.  Becca is working with Innovative to set this up.  She has discovered that it is not possible to make rules based on our current location code scheme and so she is only using the new location codes on the table.  How does this fit in with the locations project?