WEBVTT 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:46.000 It'll give folks a few minutes to come in. 00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:57.000 Cornelia, I have that we are at UXProd 2271. 00:03:57.000 --> 00:04:00.000 Does that jive with what you have on… 00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:21.000 The spreadsheet… 00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:24.000 Okay, great. 00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:27.000 Um… 00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:34.000 I think I am gonna try the, um, AI Companion today. I think that it actually generates a meeting summary. 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:39.000 I've been doing, um… 00:04:39.000 --> 00:04:45.000 I've been… I went back and did a bunch of AI meeting summaries for… 00:04:45.000 --> 00:04:47.000 prior, I think that… 00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:51.000 I don't know if you have to turn it on in order to get an 00:04:51.000 --> 00:04:54.000 a summary at the end of the meeting. 00:04:54.000 --> 00:04:58.000 curious if anyone has used that feature before. 00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:00.000 Um… 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:05.000 We've used it before, and you have to put it on. Yes, but you did. 00:05:05.000 --> 00:05:08.000 I did. I turned it on, but if we… if you… 00:05:08.000 --> 00:05:09.000 If you turn it on, does it then… 00:05:09.000 --> 00:05:11.000 Yeah. 00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:13.000 Um, generate the… 00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:16.000 summary at the end of the meeting automatically? 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:19.000 We had that sent to us by Peter Murray. 00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:21.000 Oh, right, Peter got it. 00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:26.000 But it must generate it if we turn it on. Is that what happened, Cornelia, that you remember? Okay. 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:27.000 Yes, yes, as far as I remember. 00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:33.000 All right, we'll see if that works. The way… so, just so folks know, the way… I have not been doing 00:05:33.000 --> 00:05:39.000 these meetings, because we're documenting everything that we're deciding in 00:05:39.000 --> 00:05:42.000 Um, in the spreadsheet, and then also in JIRA. 00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:46.000 But our regular meetings, we have been… 00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:53.000 um… I started using… Tom had been using a local version of Copilot, 00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:56.000 When he was doing it, I started… 00:05:56.000 --> 00:05:58.000 Um, using… 00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:01.000 Um, Gemini. 00:06:01.000 --> 00:06:06.000 An institutional version of Gemini, which means that the… 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:09.000 Transcript does not go to train the model, it just gets… 00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:11.000 Um, analyzed locally. 00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:17.000 So, don't worry about the notes. So, I did them back to where we 00:06:17.000 --> 00:06:28.000 We're caught up at this point. So, um, I can continue to do them in Gemini. I did not want to do them in Gemini if it was just going to the cloud, so… 00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:32.000 Um, and I will… we'll talk about it, um, and I'll give folks a chance to… 00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:36.000 respond at Monday's meeting, um, when we have a 00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:40.000 larger, um, contingent, hopefully. 00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:49.000 So, welcome everyone, nice to see you all. Um, today we're gonna keep making our way through these remaining 00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:52.000 Jira tickets, which is, uh, we're getting close to. 00:06:52.000 --> 00:06:56.000 Um… I think this is our last… 00:06:56.000 --> 00:06:58.000 group of them. 00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:00.000 Uh, so we probably have… 00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:03.000 two or three more meetings worth, but hopefully we will 00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:05.000 get through them. 00:07:05.000 --> 00:07:09.000 Um… Cornelia is going to… 00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:12.000 keep up on the spreadsheet, and I will… 00:07:12.000 --> 00:07:17.000 be sharing my screen, and we are up to 22. 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:23.000 71. Any, um… 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:25.000 Announcements or anything before… 00:07:25.000 --> 00:07:32.000 Um, we get started. 00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:43.000 Alright. I will share my screen. 00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:48.000 And I will make it a little bit bigger… 00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:50.000 Alright, um… 00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:56.000 Is that big enough? People read it okay? 00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:01.000 Alright, 2271. Use effective copy number. 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:08.000 in loans and related in-app reports. 00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:16.000 Uh, let's see… 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:19.000 Well, did we look at… 00:08:19.000 --> 00:08:23.000 I don't even know if we have looked at 2170. Let's just take a quick peek. 00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:25.000 Look at that… 00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:29.000 Something tells me that's inventory. 00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:30.000 So we probably did. 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:33.000 Oh, yeah, we probably did not. 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:36.000 It's interesting, all the things that are… 00:08:36.000 --> 00:08:39.000 It is open, and all the things that are… 00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:43.000 It's referring to are all closed, presumably done. 00:08:43.000 --> 00:08:46.000 Um… 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:49.000 Hmm. Interesting. 00:08:49.000 --> 00:08:54.000 So this one is just about storing it. 00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:01.000 It was split off from… 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:07.000 So where is this supposed to be stored? Because it's already doing this… 00:09:07.000 --> 00:09:12.000 I wonder if this was one that was completed but never closed. 00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:27.000 If you scroll back down to the linked issues, what's down there? 00:09:27.000 --> 00:09:29.000 It's this one that… 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:33.000 Yeah. 00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:37.000 I don't understand how store effective copy number is different than 00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:39.000 Oh, it's the call number piece. 00:09:39.000 --> 00:09:42.000 That is stored, that is… 00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:47.000 This one is, um, is done. 00:09:47.000 --> 00:09:50.000 But they haven't… they're not… 00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:52.000 storing the… 00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:56.000 effective copy number? 00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:02.000 In the item record, that seems… isn't it part of the call number? 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:10.000 The effective call number, or maybe not? 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:11.000 Um… 00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:15.000 I thought it was. 00:10:15.000 --> 00:10:19.000 I would have thought it was, too. 00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:23.000 Who is… oh, Kate! 00:10:23.000 --> 00:10:25.000 Um… 00:10:25.000 --> 00:10:31.000 It doesn't look like this is on any… 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:32.000 schedule. 00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:38.000 This is an old ticket, too. 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:42.000 So right now, the copy number… this one looks like it is… 00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:47.000 I mean, it's actually marked as blocked. 00:10:47.000 --> 00:10:56.000 So, I don't know if it needs further refinement, or if we can just flag this one, but it looks like it needs to be… 00:10:56.000 --> 00:11:01.000 I mean, look at how old this one is, like, iris. Um… 00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:05.000 It looks like we would need to check in with… 00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:16.000 metadata management, inventory folks to figure out what's going on with that other one. 00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:19.000 Is it sup… hmm… 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:25.000 Can someone look and see if it's in the effective call number? Because I actually thought 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:27.000 But isn't it the last digit of the effective call number? 00:11:27.000 --> 00:11:30.000 Yeah, copy number is an effective call number. Here's a… 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:34.000 Here's a page that says that. 00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:37.000 Okay. 00:11:37.000 --> 00:11:41.000 So this sounds like it needs to be a separate 00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:45.000 field, but if it's already part of the effective call number… 00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:48.000 then… does that make this not… 00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:52.000 necessary or redundant. 00:11:52.000 --> 00:11:57.000 Well, and… I'm trying to jump into check, but, like, 00:11:57.000 --> 00:12:03.000 Holdings record doesn't have a copy number field, does it? 00:12:03.000 --> 00:12:04.000 You know, Cindy Idol Parker. 00:12:04.000 --> 00:12:05.000 It shouldn't, no, it should be in the item only. 00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:07.000 Yeah, so the effective… 00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:09.000 Copy number is always going to be that. 00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:15.000 item copy number, so I don't… I don't understand. 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:17.000 Yeah, um… 00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:19.000 It feels like it's already… 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:22.000 like, it's already there. 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:30.000 Because it said, like, where do you want it? You want it anywhere, the effective call number string displays in the users loan, so… 00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:32.000 It's always… 00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:34.000 And in transit… 00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:43.000 As long as the effective call number is being displayed, the copy number is part of that. 00:12:43.000 --> 00:12:51.000 So I'm wondering if we don't need this anymore. 00:12:51.000 --> 00:12:54.000 Any… 00:12:54.000 --> 00:13:02.000 We could probably check if the effective call number is on all these reports mentioned. 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:06.000 Otherwise can be closed. 00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:10.000 Okay, will you put a note in the spreadsheet, um… 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:11.000 To check, and I won't drag everyone through it now, but yeah, I think that… 00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:15.000 Yes. 00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:20.000 If it's true that the effective call number is in these reports, which usually… 00:13:20.000 --> 00:13:26.000 is, um… 00:13:26.000 --> 00:13:32.000 then… and it certainly is, like, in the lists. 00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:34.000 When you're running a list, you can get the effective call number. 00:13:34.000 --> 00:13:38.000 Um, then I think it seems like this is redundant. 00:13:38.000 --> 00:13:41.000 Because it was already taken care of. 00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:45.000 And could potentially be closed. 00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:47.000 And potentially, this one… 00:13:47.000 --> 00:13:53.000 could also be closed if that 00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:56.000 is already stored. 00:13:56.000 --> 00:14:05.000 I mean, there is a copy number on the item record, obviously, and this… if this is effective copy numbers, part of the effective call number, then you might not 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:09.000 They might not need that either. 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:14.000 I think this might actually be re… 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:18.000 This might be worded wrong, I think it's supposed to be used effective call number. 00:14:18.000 --> 00:14:35.000 in loans and related after ports. 00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:36.000 Copy number. 00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:41.000 Not a voice store effective copy number says there were split tickets. One was to call number prefix and suffix and the other one was for copy number to be part of the effective call number. 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:42.000 Which it seems like it is. 00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:45.000 So… That's why it says copy number, because that was split from the prefix and suffix. 00:14:45.000 --> 00:14:50.000 It was split out, right, from this other… oh, it's not here anymore. 00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:54.000 Who was on the other one, yeah. I think that's right. 00:14:54.000 --> 00:15:00.000 Alright, well, I'll take a look at those reports and see, because it does feel like it is redundant. 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:04.000 For that, it's really old, and we don't… we didn't miss it anyways. 00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:07.000 Right, yes, it's from 2019. 00:15:07.000 --> 00:15:13.000 Alright, oh, why did you go all the way to the top? Alright, let me try that again. 00:15:13.000 --> 00:15:16.000 Uh… let's see… 00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:19.000 It is not clicking where I'm clicking. Okay. 00:15:19.000 --> 00:15:21.000 It doesn't want you to open that one. 00:15:21.000 --> 00:15:29.000 It does not. Check… improve styling, okay. Check out failures, improved styling. 00:15:29.000 --> 00:15:31.000 Um, this is a very brief ticket. 00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:42.000 Current error message structure does not allow for front-end to style them and call attention to important text. 00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:45.000 see this one as, uh… 00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:46.000 An example… 00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:52.000 I'm not sure… I'm not sure how much styling you want to add to this, because the screen readers' inaccessibility. 00:15:52.000 --> 00:15:54.000 Yeah, okay. 00:15:54.000 --> 00:15:55.000 Is there an image? 00:15:55.000 --> 00:15:56.000 Well, but you could have Symantec. 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:00.000 you know, features in HTML, right? That would… 00:16:00.000 --> 00:16:01.000 Or, like… 00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:02.000 benefit both. 00:16:02.000 --> 00:16:03.000 bold and… right. 00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:06.000 You know. 00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:16.000 So, in this case… 00:16:16.000 --> 00:16:19.000 So it's basically… 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:22.000 bolding. 00:16:22.000 --> 00:16:25.000 This feels like… 00:16:25.000 --> 00:16:28.000 There is styling in modals. 00:16:28.000 --> 00:16:29.000 Yeah. 00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:33.000 like, there are definitely bolded items, so I'm wondering if this is already… 00:16:33.000 --> 00:16:36.000 been done. 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:41.000 We might have been done in a different ticket. 00:16:41.000 --> 00:16:43.000 But you're right, there is, because, um… 00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:44.000 Yeah. 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:49.000 There's definitely styling, because the status is definitely highlighted in some of them. 00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:56.000 um… I don't feel like this is not been done at all. 00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:00.000 I think this is another one we have to look at. 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:01.000 Cornelia and C. 00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:03.000 Because I've… 00:17:03.000 --> 00:17:06.000 I know that there's definitely bolded… 00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:11.000 information in pop-up, in modals, when you're checking things in and out. 00:17:11.000 --> 00:17:13.000 Maybe it's just in checkout, 00:17:13.000 --> 00:17:17.000 check out specifically? 00:17:17.000 --> 00:17:20.000 I think we would have to look at that. 00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:21.000 But yeah, put it… 00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:27.000 So maybe it was forgotten for special case, or maybe not. Maybe the stickers. 00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:38.000 I mean, this is very generic, and looks like there's this one ticket for any… a specific example, but that looks like the only… 00:17:38.000 --> 00:17:41.000 only one, and maybe this has already been done in other… 00:17:41.000 --> 00:17:44.000 This one is also a very old. 00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:47.000 ticket back to 2020. 00:17:47.000 --> 00:17:56.000 Dima would probably know if this was done or not, or how the front-end styling is done. I do know that the error messages that popped up are using a common dialog box. 00:17:56.000 --> 00:18:04.000 And a combined dialog box, they did that when there's multiple blocks on a patron account or a checkout. 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:05.000 Okay. 00:18:05.000 --> 00:18:10.000 So they're using, like, the common dialogues. This might have been rolled into that, because I… you're right, I do know there is styling. 00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:21.000 It might also have been, and it's not flushed out here, that they want something on the back end that identifies what needs to be styled, and maybe it's all on the front end now, or… yeah, who knows? 00:18:21.000 --> 00:18:27.000 Yeah, it does say that the structure on the back end doesn't allow for the front end to be styled. 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:28.000 But I'm curious, like you said, does it… 00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:30.000 Yeah. 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:37.000 Are they all controlled by the same styling? Like, whenever a dialogue box comes up, bold the item status, bold, like, 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:40.000 You know what I mean? 00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:41.000 Yeah. 00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:47.000 Because they can't be doing these one at a time, every different message that comes up. There's gotta be some standard… 00:18:47.000 --> 00:18:48.000 pop-up, I would think. 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:55.000 Yeah, there's templates that they use, um, that they apply, because you need it for internationalization. 00:18:55.000 --> 00:18:56.000 Right. 00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:00.000 Because the text around the components portfolio needs to be… 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:04.000 Right. Okay, just make a note, if… 00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:05.000 Yeah, let's test it, and we'll see, because it feels like this could 00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:08.000 This can be tested relatively quickly. Yes. 00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:12.000 could potentially be, um, closed. 00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:21.000 Um, so if it's already taken care of, then we can close this one. 00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:24.000 All right, make phone a repeatable field with type labels. 00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:26.000 So, phone… 00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:31.000 Numbers… um… 00:19:31.000 --> 00:19:38.000 I think this relates back to when we were talking about allowing folio to have multiple message 00:19:38.000 --> 00:19:44.000 avenues, like, you could have print email, text message… 00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:48.000 Yeah, I thought text messaging was still on the… 00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:49.000 thing, but… 00:19:49.000 --> 00:19:50.000 It keeps popping up. 00:19:50.000 --> 00:19:53.000 But there… but they're already… 00:19:53.000 --> 00:19:58.000 We have two fixed fields, though, phone and mobile phone. 00:19:58.000 --> 00:20:01.000 So, I don't know that we need this. 00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:02.000 to… 00:20:02.000 --> 00:20:06.000 What about facts? 00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:20.000 Actually, it's probably, I don't know if this ticket is about it. But, um… No, sorry. I was thinking about email. 00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:21.000 Yeah, I mean, right now there's email, phone, 00:20:21.000 --> 00:20:24.000 Sorry, no. 00:20:24.000 --> 00:20:29.000 and mobile phone are the three fields, I think, in that chunk of the user record. 00:20:29.000 --> 00:20:32.000 So, 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:38.000 I think this sounds like a different way of approaching… 00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:44.000 having a more flexible way of doing it, but I think we already have… 00:20:44.000 --> 00:20:47.000 two phone fields, and one of them is labeled mobile. 00:20:47.000 --> 00:20:51.000 So if we do, I hope we do eventually, 00:20:51.000 --> 00:20:53.000 enable SMS messaging. 00:20:53.000 --> 00:20:56.000 that… it… 00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:00.000 there's a mobile phone field that could be used. 00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:01.000 Yeah. I mean… 00:21:01.000 --> 00:21:05.000 I think this is not necessarily needed, but… 00:21:05.000 --> 00:21:07.000 It's a nice to have. 00:21:07.000 --> 00:21:13.000 a lot of applications where you're storing user data allow for multiple 00:21:13.000 --> 00:21:18.000 phone types, like, you have a home phone number, office phone number, mobile phone number, 00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:21.000 like, emergency contact, like… 00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:22.000 Right. 00:21:22.000 --> 00:21:23.000 like, 50 different phone numbers. Um… 00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:29.000 Right. But we don't… is there a use case for that, though? 00:21:29.000 --> 00:21:30.000 Not… I… 00:21:30.000 --> 00:21:37.000 Like, in the case of this, like, what are we… what is our goal here? Like, if the goal is to enable 00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:45.000 text messaging, we have to have one field that allows a place for the mobile phone to be designated. 00:21:45.000 --> 00:21:46.000 Um… I don't know. 00:21:46.000 --> 00:21:53.000 Exactly. I think the only place where this would be more useful… 00:21:53.000 --> 00:22:04.000 for… let me run around it. Um, for higher education, I don't think it's necessary because, you're right, like, we only need a contact phone number, and then we need a cell phone number, because we have other avenues to get people's phone numbers. 00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:09.000 But I'd be interested to see what public libraries 00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:18.000 private institutions would think, because they may need to or want to store more phone numbers. 00:22:18.000 --> 00:22:24.000 Was this about recording the carrier for the phones? 00:22:24.000 --> 00:22:30.000 Because I do remember at my old library when we did have SMS, we did have to put in the carrier. 00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:32.000 Ugh. 00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:35.000 I don't see if it, um… 00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:36.000 Oh yeah, it does say request carrier. 00:22:36.000 --> 00:22:37.000 Yeah, it does… he's right, it does say… 00:22:37.000 --> 00:22:48.000 And then like 30 30 carriers did not allow like we could not send from certain carriers. 00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:49.000 Yeah. 00:22:49.000 --> 00:22:50.000 Like, AT&T's T-Mobile, whatever. 00:22:50.000 --> 00:23:03.000 But I for me, it seems it's more along like you need a home phone, work phone, whatever. 00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:04.000 Right. 00:23:04.000 --> 00:23:08.000 Parents' phone… 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:12.000 Yeah, I don't know about the carrier aspect of it. 00:23:12.000 --> 00:23:13.000 When I redid it… Yeah. 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:17.000 And how the messaging would work. It's… I mean, the technology has developed so… 00:23:17.000 --> 00:23:18.000 Yeah. 00:23:18.000 --> 00:23:20.000 far beyond where basic 00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:23.000 messaging used to be, like, 00:23:23.000 --> 00:23:32.000 You used to need to know the carrier, and some systems still have it because certain carriers had restrictions around 00:23:32.000 --> 00:23:33.000 Mm-hmm. 00:23:33.000 --> 00:23:35.000 text message versus SMS message, but then also, you could… 00:23:35.000 --> 00:23:42.000 cheat. Uh, some carriers like AT&T, I think Verizon actually had an email address. 00:23:42.000 --> 00:23:50.000 that everyone's cell phone had. So, like, your would be your number at… 00:23:50.000 --> 00:23:51.000 Yeah. 00:23:51.000 --> 00:23:52.000 AT&T.sms.something like that. Um, so you could cheat, send a message that way. 00:23:52.000 --> 00:23:55.000 And not use an SMS gateway, but… 00:23:55.000 --> 00:23:56.000 Right. 00:23:56.000 --> 00:23:58.000 I don't think it's needed anymore, but that'd be a dev question. 00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:02.000 I think that it's not… that's not sort of how… 00:24:02.000 --> 00:24:06.000 Um, yeah, it says right here that it does already allow for it. 00:24:06.000 --> 00:24:07.000 Um… 00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:14.000 Yeah. We do have different address types, so maybe it was meant like the addresses are styled that you can. 00:24:14.000 --> 00:24:15.000 Yeah. 00:24:15.000 --> 00:24:17.000 choose twin home and work and whatever you want. 00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:20.000 Yeah, I mean, I think it would need to be… 00:24:20.000 --> 00:24:22.000 pretty far down the list of… 00:24:22.000 --> 00:24:26.000 Beyond what… I mean, the capability, what we have right now, 00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:30.000 has probably enough to support text messaging. 00:24:30.000 --> 00:24:32.000 It doesn't… it's true, it doesn't have 00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:36.000 capability to support more than two phone numbers. 00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:39.000 Um, but… 00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:43.000 I don't know if we want to keep it. 00:24:43.000 --> 00:24:58.000 for our old system, the approach was a totally different one. It was not one or two entries for the patron itself, but having this type of address fields, like you could add a work address. 00:24:58.000 --> 00:25:15.000 a home address, a parent's address, and for each, you could add an email and a phone number, and that approach, for me, would make more sense, because it would be connected to some kind of. 00:25:15.000 --> 00:25:16.000 Right. 00:25:16.000 --> 00:25:20.000 Already existing address type, but… That's a totally different approach. 00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:25.000 Yeah, Anya, our old system did that as well. The phone number was tied to… 00:25:25.000 --> 00:25:28.000 the type of contact was sort of like… 00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:36.000 And tied to dates, like your home during these dates, or whatever. 00:25:36.000 --> 00:25:37.000 Yeah, I would say. 00:25:37.000 --> 00:25:38.000 But it seems a bit out of date with mobile phones. Yeah. 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:39.000 Yeah. 00:25:39.000 --> 00:25:42.000 Well, are people comfortable with… 00:25:42.000 --> 00:25:44.000 proposing to close it now. Again, these go… 00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:52.000 if… if this comes up again, it's gonna… I mean, it's literally one sentence. It's gonna need to be rewritten anyway. 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:55.000 If this is gonna be any fir- go any further. 00:25:55.000 --> 00:26:03.000 I say kill it. 00:26:03.000 --> 00:26:04.000 That's good. 00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:05.000 I mean I mean, there is there is a team working on SMS messaging right now. Aren't they? So maybe. 00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:08.000 That's exciting. 00:26:08.000 --> 00:26:12.000 Because staff did, she edited a lot of those tickets. 00:26:12.000 --> 00:26:13.000 Yeah, right. You know somebody's doing something. 00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:16.000 Yeah. Yes. 00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:21.000 Um, yeah, I mean, if they need more than what they have, that's gonna come back. 00:26:21.000 --> 00:26:22.000 to user management, so… 00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:25.000 Yes. 00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:28.000 Alright, let's close it, and we'll see if anybody… 00:26:28.000 --> 00:26:31.000 speaks up for it. 00:26:31.000 --> 00:26:33.000 Oh, no. 00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:39.000 Sorry, my brain is just going in 15 different directions today. When you said that, I just went to wedding vows. Speak now and forever hold your peace. 00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:42.000 Exactly. 00:26:42.000 --> 00:26:49.000 Alright, prioritizing needed for… uh-oh, is this a three-part item statement? 00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:50.000 It is. 00:26:50.000 --> 00:26:52.000 Ugh, I kill it. 00:26:52.000 --> 00:26:57.000 Well, we're rethinking… I mean, is 3-part item state… 00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:01.000 dead in the water, or what is… where are we at with that, would you say, Tom? 00:27:01.000 --> 00:27:06.000 Um, I say we kill it. Uh, no, um, I have to get… 00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:11.000 And talked to Laura Daniels. Um, me and her were going to… 00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:15.000 doing spin-off group from, um… 00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:17.000 uh, cross app. 00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:18.000 Yeah. 00:27:18.000 --> 00:27:21.000 And look at the pain points of current item status and that. 00:27:21.000 --> 00:27:30.000 either way, like, the way item state func… the whole idea behind 3-part item state, the way it was designed, is probably going to get tossed out the window and redesigned. 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:33.000 Which is why this needed for is not… 00:27:33.000 --> 00:27:34.000 Yeah. 00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:36.000 this isn't gonna be relevant, yeah. 00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:39.000 Yeah, instead of, like, 3 parts, I was thinking 2 parts. 00:27:39.000 --> 00:27:43.000 Right. 00:27:43.000 --> 00:27:47.000 Okay, so do we think… 00:27:47.000 --> 00:27:50.000 this can be closed, as it is. 00:27:50.000 --> 00:27:53.000 Yeah, I say kill it. 00:27:53.000 --> 00:27:55.000 Because even if it does get… 00:27:55.000 --> 00:28:03.000 Even if it does get put together with… I mean, it gets rewritten, I think, 00:28:03.000 --> 00:28:08.000 Uh, or the whole thing is gonna have to be rewritten, so needed for might not even be a thing. 00:28:08.000 --> 00:28:12.000 Yeah, I think it was, um… 00:28:12.000 --> 00:28:17.000 I think the new… the state that I was thinking of keeping was process. 00:28:17.000 --> 00:28:21.000 Yeah. 00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:24.000 Which is sort of what it… what the process is that it's… 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:25.000 Yes. 00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:28.000 in, like, reserve process, or binding, or… 00:28:28.000 --> 00:28:29.000 Whatever. 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:31.000 Exactly, exactly. 00:28:31.000 --> 00:28:38.000 And it kind of combines the new idea behind item estates is it kind of combined the other two, because you had needed four, and you had process, and… 00:28:38.000 --> 00:28:39.000 need it for results. 00:28:39.000 --> 00:28:40.000 it's really just one, like… 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:43.000 Yeah, exactly, exactly. That's exactly it. 00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:44.000 Alright. 00:28:44.000 --> 00:28:49.000 And basically, it would be an extra state that could have multiple steps to it. 00:28:49.000 --> 00:28:50.000 Right. 00:28:50.000 --> 00:28:55.000 Which is what the other one was supposed to do, so it cleans up the item record slightly. 00:28:55.000 --> 00:28:57.000 Gotcha. 00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:00.000 Alright, this is a notification… 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:14.000 When recently ordered item they are interested in is available. 00:29:14.000 --> 00:29:18.000 Oh, so… 00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:21.000 Oh, this was mentioned by 5 colleges. 00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:23.000 So, you know, don't know anything about it properly. 00:29:23.000 --> 00:29:30.000 Well, I mean, this is a July 10th, let's see, July 10th when? Uh, 2020, Cornelia. 00:29:30.000 --> 00:29:31.000 No, I don't remember this specific… 00:29:31.000 --> 00:29:32.000 Yeah. 00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:37.000 And it was also in resource management, not resource access. 00:29:37.000 --> 00:29:38.000 Um, this… 00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:48.000 Oh, okay. So this is about about you. I don't something is on order, but I don't want to request it. But I do want to know when it's available. 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:49.000 Oh. 00:29:49.000 --> 00:29:55.000 Yeah, so this is funny, because for the longest time, we have always had on our order form, like, notify me. 00:29:55.000 --> 00:30:01.000 There is no such thing, there has never, ever been in any system we've had a notification when something is available. 00:30:01.000 --> 00:30:08.000 What Notify means is we put it on hold for you. So if you just want to be notified, you can't be. It's not actually a thing. 00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:11.000 Um… 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:12.000 So… 00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:13.000 I think that… is there… 00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:14.000 Oh. 00:30:14.000 --> 00:30:18.000 Is there a way, and perhaps this could be reworked, is there a way 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:23.000 Yeah, I guess there's… how could you? Never mind. 00:30:23.000 --> 00:30:28.000 As I said, is there a way of having a request for something that's on order? 00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:29.000 Yes. 00:30:29.000 --> 00:30:32.000 But if it's a more… yeah, they would have to have an item record. 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:39.000 Yeah, so when it's ordered, as soon as it's on order, it can be requested. 00:30:39.000 --> 00:30:44.000 But it has to have an item, because you can't place a request without it. So the request happens, you just can't… 00:30:44.000 --> 00:30:48.000 be notified without requesting it. That's what this is about. 00:30:48.000 --> 00:30:55.000 I think, yeah, I think we need to let this one go, because we have not ever been able to do it, and I don't… 00:30:55.000 --> 00:31:02.000 Um… yeah, see, if I recall, 5 colleges did distinguish between putting a request on it, 00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:03.000 Um… 00:31:03.000 --> 00:31:14.000 Yeah, and Aaron is saying that she thought it was from, uh, like, a catalog means to see her, so I… this almost also feels like a workaround. If that's the case, this feels like a workaround for the whole… 00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:16.000 like, 3 per item status. 00:31:16.000 --> 00:31:20.000 Yeah. 00:31:20.000 --> 00:31:21.000 But it's not… 00:31:21.000 --> 00:31:28.000 So from from a patron's view, I think this is interesting, but it sounds way too complicated to put it in for you. 00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:29.000 Yeah. 00:31:29.000 --> 00:31:30.000 Yeah, I know, which is why we've never had it. 00:31:30.000 --> 00:31:31.000 Yeah. 00:31:31.000 --> 00:31:32.000 And why distinguish. 00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:38.000 We finally just changed the wording on our order form and said… changed it from notify me, which was a lie, 00:31:38.000 --> 00:31:40.000 to place it on hold. 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:43.000 So, notify is no longer an option. 00:31:43.000 --> 00:31:45.000 I say kill it. 00:31:45.000 --> 00:31:46.000 What? Well, because some people don't want it, they just want to know… I guess because… 00:31:46.000 --> 00:31:52.000 And why distinguish from the… 00:31:52.000 --> 00:31:54.000 I think this is a dated… 00:31:54.000 --> 00:31:58.000 and quaint idea. It used to be… 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:03.000 at Amherst, we had many, many faculty who were responsible for building the collection. 00:32:03.000 --> 00:32:09.000 They would just go through catalogs, they would order books. We had really robust ordering from our faculty. 00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:14.000 They didn't want… they were building the collection. They didn't need to see all the books. 00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:15.000 Sounds like a nightmare. 00:32:15.000 --> 00:32:17.000 they just… whatever. So, they didn't necessarily want to get them. 00:32:17.000 --> 00:32:20.000 This is… this doesn't happen anymore. So, it's… 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:23.000 I think it should just be closed. 00:32:23.000 --> 00:32:25.000 I like that. 00:32:25.000 --> 00:32:26.000 We have… we have not kept any of these open so far, I just want to let you know. It's very exciting. 00:32:26.000 --> 00:32:31.000 Okay. 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:39.000 I also, like, I would say I also argue that it's not part of Access Services, that that should be part of collection development and ordering. 00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:40.000 That should be part of their response. 00:32:40.000 --> 00:32:43.000 Yeah, but we're in charge of notices. 00:32:43.000 --> 00:32:54.000 We don't have to be. 00:32:54.000 --> 00:32:55.000 Yeah. 00:32:55.000 --> 00:32:56.000 Isn't that something for discovery? Like… Push it over there. 00:32:56.000 --> 00:32:59.000 Yeah, exactly. 00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:02.000 Alright, um… 00:33:02.000 --> 00:33:03.000 Go ahead. 00:33:03.000 --> 00:33:05.000 So, sorry, Katie, what do you mean by it happens in public libraries? 00:33:05.000 --> 00:33:15.000 Oh, the people will request a book being out of a collection, but they just want to be notified and not a whole place. It happened a lot. 00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:16.000 Hmm… 00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:25.000 Um, and I think it's kind of the same idea that they think it should be added to the co-election, you know, it's like something missing from the collection that we should have. 00:33:25.000 --> 00:33:28.000 But not that they necessarily wanted. 00:33:28.000 --> 00:33:31.000 So… yeah, but it… 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:32.000 It's… 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:33.000 I mean… 00:33:33.000 --> 00:33:45.000 So then, I would argue, why do they need to know that it came in, right? Like, I would have argued that for our own faculty as well, right? 00:33:45.000 --> 00:33:46.000 Yeah. 00:33:46.000 --> 00:33:47.000 Because… because they're interested, but don't need it right now and in the first place, so wonder if others let it first and don't hold it up and maybe check it out later. 00:33:47.000 --> 00:33:52.000 Because that way, if it's never purchased it, yeah, as I said, that way, if it never purchased, they can come to the library and complain that, why did you not purchase this item? 00:33:52.000 --> 00:33:56.000 Or why did it take you 6 months to purchase a signup? 00:33:56.000 --> 00:33:57.000 Right. 00:33:57.000 --> 00:34:07.000 I… I don't think it's necessary. Like, I… like Susan said, there's no ILS that would have… that had that functionality that I'm aware of. 00:34:07.000 --> 00:34:08.000 Yeah. 00:34:08.000 --> 00:34:09.000 Yeah. 00:34:09.000 --> 00:34:10.000 So, yeah, I think it's… 00:34:10.000 --> 00:34:15.000 it would be way complicated, and not a high priority. 00:34:15.000 --> 00:34:20.000 That was gonna be my next question, Katie, was whether your library that you had this happen at 00:34:20.000 --> 00:34:24.000 actually could fulfill this, other than, like, someone emailing them. 00:34:24.000 --> 00:34:27.000 Manually. 00:34:27.000 --> 00:34:32.000 Yeah, that's what we did. You know, I had a spreadsheet and contact the person, so… 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:35.000 Yeah. 00:34:35.000 --> 00:34:41.000 Alright, um, this one looks like, Olga, one that you all looked at for reserves. 00:34:41.000 --> 00:34:45.000 After an item has been associated with a course, 00:34:45.000 --> 00:34:49.000 sync item and inventory data. Oh yeah, we definitely… 00:34:49.000 --> 00:34:51.000 This… 00:34:51.000 --> 00:34:53.000 has been a problem. 00:34:53.000 --> 00:34:59.000 from the beginning, that the way that courses was developed 00:34:59.000 --> 00:35:02.000 was that when you attach 00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:06.000 Um… an item to a course. 00:35:06.000 --> 00:35:11.000 it is a one-time grab of that data, and there's not a live connection between 00:35:11.000 --> 00:35:17.000 It's not just pointing to the UUID, for example, and pulling in that data. 00:35:17.000 --> 00:35:21.000 And it has various implications down the road. 00:35:21.000 --> 00:35:23.000 So I think this one… 00:35:23.000 --> 00:35:28.000 Probably needs further refinement? 00:35:28.000 --> 00:35:29.000 Yeah. 00:35:29.000 --> 00:35:30.000 I would think… I don't… it doesn't have very much in it. 00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:31.000 It does have… It does have a development team now. 00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:34.000 Probably. 00:35:34.000 --> 00:35:36.000 Oh. 00:35:36.000 --> 00:35:38.000 Wow. Well… 00:35:38.000 --> 00:35:46.000 when we looked at it, none of us had enough expertise to refine it, so… 00:35:46.000 --> 00:35:48.000 But it does date back to when it was very first… 00:35:48.000 --> 00:35:51.000 Um, when courses was built, so… 00:35:51.000 --> 00:35:54.000 Yes, it's mentioning PubSub. 00:35:54.000 --> 00:35:55.000 Yeah, right. So, it's gotta be refined. 00:35:55.000 --> 00:35:57.000 Yes. 00:35:57.000 --> 00:36:03.000 Yeah, I think this is still a desired functionality on the courses side, it just… it needs refinement. 00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:04.000 All right. 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:07.000 Mm-hmm. I think it was even on our priority list, of course. 00:36:07.000 --> 00:36:11.000 Yeah, yeah, it may very well have been. 00:36:11.000 --> 00:36:13.000 Um, hey, we kept one! Look at that. 00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:15.000 You broke your streak. 00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:19.000 Item status, check in… yeah, I did… 00:36:19.000 --> 00:36:24.000 Um, check-in, customized behavior in the check-in app. 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:25.000 No. 00:36:25.000 --> 00:36:27.000 No. We… 00:36:27.000 --> 00:36:35.000 Okay, wait. 00:36:35.000 --> 00:36:37.000 I think this is back to the three-part item status, isn't it? 00:36:37.000 --> 00:36:44.000 Okay… 00:36:44.000 --> 00:36:56.000 Well, we already know that certain items statuses cannot be checked out. 00:36:56.000 --> 00:37:00.000 Yeah, this is… this is customized item statuses. 00:37:00.000 --> 00:37:03.000 No. Can we just say no? 00:37:03.000 --> 00:37:04.000 Yeah. 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:15.000 But isn't, isn't this… Isn't this something already done like for some item statuses to get a modal that this is declared lost, and you can check it. 00:37:15.000 --> 00:37:16.000 Oh… 00:37:16.000 --> 00:37:19.000 When you check it in, or is that what it means? 00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:21.000 No, look, it's saying it wants to customize how these different item statuses behave, 00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:25.000 Oh, oh dear! Yeah. 00:37:25.000 --> 00:37:29.000 library, I want it to be special. 00:37:29.000 --> 00:37:30.000 Everyone wants a special youth treat. 00:37:30.000 --> 00:37:31.000 Ah, okay. 00:37:31.000 --> 00:37:35.000 But I think that… isn't that opposite the whole definition of the item status? 00:37:35.000 --> 00:37:38.000 That's what loan types are for! Do I sound like a broken record? 00:37:38.000 --> 00:37:43.000 No, you are correct. 00:37:43.000 --> 00:37:44.000 I do understand the use case, but again, 00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:46.000 No, I mean, I get the use case. 00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:50.000 You should have a loan type that is restricted. 00:37:50.000 --> 00:37:54.000 Or whatever, you don't have to call it restricted, but… 00:37:54.000 --> 00:37:57.000 non-circulating, or… 00:37:57.000 --> 00:37:58.000 Um… because that is what… 00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:01.000 Nice. 00:38:01.000 --> 00:38:05.000 That is how circulation rules and loan types. 00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:10.000 are designed to work, not items statuses. 00:38:10.000 --> 00:38:23.000 So we've drawn… I would argue that Riftron should not that you should not have to change the loan type on withdrawn items, and that they should not check out with other warning. But yeah, it's, uh… 00:38:23.000 --> 00:38:25.000 Right, but that is a… 00:38:25.000 --> 00:38:26.000 Oops, I didn't mean to edit that. Um… 00:38:26.000 --> 00:38:28.000 Not that important. 00:38:28.000 --> 00:38:32.000 That should be, though, a… 00:38:32.000 --> 00:38:40.000 I mean, we could argue that that's a function, and all withdrawn item statuses should function that way, not that 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:44.000 is… because what this sounds like it's doing is that it's saying, 00:38:44.000 --> 00:38:49.000 We want to do something other than what the item status is designed by the system to do. 00:38:49.000 --> 00:38:58.000 I would agree with you that withdrawn should not circulate, and maybe it doesn't, I don't… 00:38:58.000 --> 00:38:59.000 Maybe they just changed at some time since since the thing. Yeah. 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:03.000 It does say it allows checkout with a warning, so maybe, I don't know, who knows? 00:39:03.000 --> 00:39:05.000 But I'm not sure. 00:39:05.000 --> 00:39:13.000 Right. But I still don't know whether or not I would agree that we should be able to customize 00:39:13.000 --> 00:39:15.000 the behavior. 00:39:15.000 --> 00:39:16.000 I don't know. 00:39:16.000 --> 00:39:30.000 I would agree on this. I think it makes more problems than solve. This seems like a holdover for some of our Sierra libraries relied on statuses. And that was okay if it's never checked out, but the same thing, if somebody checked out overwrote it, the status defaults back to available. 00:39:30.000 --> 00:39:39.000 And to remember to change it back to the status to check it back in, and it's much simpler just to resolve that behavior with the loan rules rather than by statuses. 00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:47.000 Doesn't this sound redundant, Scott, to what we were talking about, like, just a few weeks ago? 00:39:47.000 --> 00:39:48.000 Aaron? 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:50.000 Yeah, it does. 00:39:50.000 --> 00:40:00.000 I think this might go back… I guess I don't know how old this ticket is, but we… at MSU, we were using restricted status. 00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:14.000 for our non-circulating items, and it was causing problems, because when you check them in the… the status clears and becomes available, but the reason we did that had to do with EDS. Like, we had to do it that way. 00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:27.000 We couldn't use a loan rule, but it's since been fixed. So just recently, like 2 weeks ago, we went through, and we are no longer using restricted status. 00:40:27.000 --> 00:40:33.000 Everything with a restricted status is now available, and we have a loan type that is non-circulating. 00:40:33.000 --> 00:40:39.000 But the the reason we did that was because of the EDS problem. So. 00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:40.000 Yeah, yeah. 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:41.000 Yep. 00:40:41.000 --> 00:40:44.000 since that's been resolved, we've been able to change. 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:47.000 our workflow to match what it really should be. 00:40:47.000 --> 00:40:53.000 Oh, that's great. It was… you're right, Erin, it was a restriction on what could be displayed in EDS. 00:40:53.000 --> 00:40:54.000 And if you wanted the… that, sort of, 00:40:54.000 --> 00:40:56.000 Yes. 00:40:56.000 --> 00:40:59.000 loan type to display, it did not. 00:40:59.000 --> 00:41:02.000 So you had to… but, as you say, 00:41:02.000 --> 00:41:03.000 the status was showing. 00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:04.000 Yes. 00:41:04.000 --> 00:41:07.000 So, now you have the option… 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:11.000 of including the loan type. That's great. 00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:13.000 So… 00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:19.000 Are folks good with proposing that this get closed as… 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:23.000 not… no longer a viable… 00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:24.000 option. 00:41:24.000 --> 00:41:30.000 I would say mark it, um, do it, mark us close, because, like, um, again, 00:41:30.000 --> 00:41:33.000 Um… 00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:41.000 why did I want to say Debra? Oh my god, my brain is fried today. Um, Laura and I was going to talk about pain points in inventory around… 00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:47.000 Um, the three-part item status, but the other one I was talking about was item statuses in general. 00:41:47.000 --> 00:41:51.000 And what sort of customization we do need, and what people expect, so… 00:41:51.000 --> 00:41:56.000 It's all gonna be a new work. 00:41:56.000 --> 00:41:59.000 All right. 00:41:59.000 --> 00:42:03.000 And we will have a chance, other people will have a chance to look at… 00:42:03.000 --> 00:42:06.000 our closure, our proposed closures, which… 00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:09.000 I need to send those out soon. We have… we're gonna have a… 00:42:09.000 --> 00:42:17.000 a chunk, because I don't think I've sent out the Valaris ones yet. 00:42:17.000 --> 00:42:24.000 Alright, record scans in check-in app, even if check-in is not confirmed. 00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:30.000 If you scanned in… 00:42:30.000 --> 00:42:38.000 Okay. 00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:39.000 Why? 00:42:39.000 --> 00:42:42.000 Why? No! Right! 00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:43.000 So you want to log that a… 00:42:43.000 --> 00:42:44.000 Exactly. Yeah. 00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:52.000 You want to log that a barcode was scanned, even if no transaction takes place? 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:55.000 I… this seems… 00:42:55.000 --> 00:42:58.000 Hmm. 00:42:58.000 --> 00:43:02.000 This seems really… not only just really hard to execute on, 00:43:02.000 --> 00:43:06.000 But… again, why… I'm sort of thinking… 00:43:06.000 --> 00:43:08.000 It would be a UI-only… 00:43:08.000 --> 00:43:17.000 solution, more than likely. Like, you would have to… you could capture the item information and put it into the table on the UI, but once that UI is closed, it's gone. 00:43:17.000 --> 00:43:21.000 But I… I don't… 00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:25.000 I'm not sure why. Like, um… 00:43:25.000 --> 00:43:29.000 I'm not sure how this would be useful. 00:43:29.000 --> 00:43:30.000 Unless if you… 00:43:30.000 --> 00:43:46.000 That is exactly my question. So why is there any use case in there? Why this might be useful? Because I think of dozens and dozens and dozens of entries in the circle giving me no… 00:43:46.000 --> 00:43:56.000 creating a lot of data load. So what's… what's the use case for this kind of… of record? 00:43:56.000 --> 00:43:58.000 Yeah. 00:43:58.000 --> 00:43:59.000 Yeah, Katie? 00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:01.000 It… it probably doesn't happen often. Yeah. 00:44:01.000 --> 00:44:06.000 Um, I think it's either maybe they… their staff 00:44:06.000 --> 00:44:09.000 clicks cancel a lot, or some kind of… 00:44:09.000 --> 00:44:12.000 related to claims returned. 00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:15.000 type thing, but that way they can… 00:44:15.000 --> 00:44:23.000 if they get a claims return item, they can verify whether or not the item was just scanned, but cancel was accident. 00:44:23.000 --> 00:44:28.000 accidentally hit instead of confirmed. That's the only thing I can think of, but it's kind of far-fetched, but… 00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:29.000 Maybe. Yeah. 00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:30.000 No, that's… I don't think it's far-fetched. I think that's definitely a possibility. It's just the question is, like… 00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:36.000 Yeah. 00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:44.000 We just assume something like that might have happened, or whatever. Like, I don't know. I don't know how you'd be able to capture all of these. 00:44:44.000 --> 00:44:54.000 Yeah, I was gonna say, along the lines of what Katie said, the only thing that popped in my head was catching, like, a circulation student that's, for some reason, hitting cancel instead of accept, because they're not paying attention. 00:44:54.000 --> 00:44:55.000 Right. 00:44:55.000 --> 00:44:58.000 And you can be like, oh, okay, well, you keep hitting enter, but you're not actually looking at the screen. 00:44:58.000 --> 00:44:59.000 Right. 00:44:59.000 --> 00:45:11.000 Yeah, or like like when multiple is the first example, like when the patron didn't bring all pieces, and you sent them back. 00:45:11.000 --> 00:45:15.000 And just to capture how often that happens or whatever. 00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:22.000 I mean, I could see it being useful in a way, but no. 00:45:22.000 --> 00:45:24.000 I just don't know how you would keep track of it, because Tom's right. If it doesn't… if it doesn't go through… I mean, I guess the barcode does have to get sent. 00:45:24.000 --> 00:45:31.000 Yeah, yeah, you can't, can't. 00:45:31.000 --> 00:45:35.000 from the UI, because otherwise you wouldn't get the modal back, right? 00:45:35.000 --> 00:45:36.000 Correct. Bye. 00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:39.000 But… I don't know. 00:45:39.000 --> 00:45:40.000 No. 00:45:40.000 --> 00:45:48.000 I think what… I think the flow for check-in by barcode is that there's a pre-flight that does a check to see if there's any blocks, or if there's any pop-ups. 00:45:48.000 --> 00:45:53.000 And then, after that's cleared, then it does check-in by barcode, which is the actual action that checks it in. 00:45:53.000 --> 00:45:56.000 So the first one is actually just pulling item information. 00:45:56.000 --> 00:45:57.000 Right. 00:45:57.000 --> 00:45:59.000 But yeah. I think it's possible to do this, if people want it, I just… 00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:04.000 Yeah. So… 00:46:04.000 --> 00:46:05.000 It wouldn't be my highest priority. 00:46:05.000 --> 00:46:09.000 I start to see… no, I start to see the reason behind it. Yeah. 00:46:09.000 --> 00:46:11.000 Yeah. 00:46:11.000 --> 00:46:15.000 Yeah, I could see the reason behind it, too, but I think that… 00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:20.000 there are training opportunities to make that possible. Katie? 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:30.000 Okay, I think I might actually have a use case from our institution. One of our campuses, their check-ins were not being recorded. 00:46:30.000 --> 00:46:37.000 Um, at one point, it's just, like, they were saying they were checking in, but it wasn't… 00:46:37.000 --> 00:46:39.000 showing up in the circulation log. 00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:51.000 I think we ended up restarting the circulation module, and everything was A-OK, but I don't know if I wonder if something like that was happening to this institution. 00:46:51.000 --> 00:46:54.000 And so they just wanted a way to track things. 00:46:54.000 --> 00:46:55.000 That's a possibility. 00:46:55.000 --> 00:46:58.000 Gotcha. 00:46:58.000 --> 00:47:03.000 I mean, the other one, though, too, is they might have wanted a… I could see another 00:47:03.000 --> 00:47:07.000 kind of half use case to this is circulation statistics. 00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:12.000 Because you're still performing an action at the desk, you're still using up staff time, 00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:18.000 But there's no transaction currently stored, and if you were to store things of this nature, you could just, oh yeah, look, 00:47:18.000 --> 00:47:23.000 There's 50 other transactions that happened that were canceled because the patron jankster mine. 00:47:23.000 --> 00:47:24.000 Um, so yeah. 00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:38.000 Yeah. 00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:39.000 Mm-hmm. 00:47:39.000 --> 00:47:43.000 Well, I think it would be helpful if it's paired with an action, so that if it was scanned, you knew it actually record the check-in as opposed to just scanned it and nothing happened. Otherwise, you would have dozens or even hundreds of scans. We have to go through and verify each one to confirm that there was an action associated with it. 00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:50.000 Right, and presumably, it would scan… if you're adding it to the CERC log, 00:47:50.000 --> 00:47:55.000 it would be added twice, like, oh, this got scanned? Oh, this got checked in. 00:47:55.000 --> 00:48:00.000 Like, every single barcode scan would be a huge amount of data to capture. 00:48:00.000 --> 00:48:03.000 Yeah. 00:48:03.000 --> 00:48:06.000 Um, I mean, yeah, it would allow you to say, 00:48:06.000 --> 00:48:10.000 Yes, this item was touched, and we physically had it here, maybe. 00:48:10.000 --> 00:48:15.000 Um, so I could see some use cases there. I'm just not sure how… 00:48:15.000 --> 00:48:18.000 to how… 00:48:18.000 --> 00:48:21.000 if it's worth it to actually develop. 00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:24.000 to operationalize. Because it says in the… 00:48:24.000 --> 00:48:29.000 the list of things that it would have an effect, it would add it to the CERC log. 00:48:29.000 --> 00:48:33.000 The loan details may be, like, maybe it's a… 00:48:33.000 --> 00:48:36.000 action on that… on the loan table. 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:39.000 of… or the loan detail table. 00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:46.000 of transactions related to the loan, or… and then update last check-in date on the item record. It wouldn't do that, because it's not checking… 00:48:46.000 --> 00:48:47.000 Yeah. 00:48:47.000 --> 00:48:50.000 It shouldn't do that. Yeah, Jacob. 00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:57.000 Is it possible to just record the cancellation without recording the scan? 00:48:57.000 --> 00:48:59.000 Mmm… 00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:00.000 Interesting. 00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:01.000 I mean, you can record whatever you want. 00:49:01.000 --> 00:49:06.000 You would have… you would just see that there was a cancellation, but… 00:49:06.000 --> 00:49:10.000 Maybe, because that cancellation… 00:49:10.000 --> 00:49:15.000 would be an action, and it would be associated with that barcode. 00:49:15.000 --> 00:49:17.000 That's not a bad. 00:49:17.000 --> 00:49:20.000 way to think about it. 00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:27.000 This conversation has really reminded me of that decluttering video I watched last night. 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:28.000 This is… 00:49:28.000 --> 00:49:39.000 It's funny, because the main point of the video was, like, when you're decluttering your house, you're supposed to do a gut reaction, and whatever your gut reaction is, is what you do with it. She… because she was like, if you… if you really think about it, you can justify keeping anything. 00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:43.000 anything. Totally. Oh, that is totally true. 00:49:43.000 --> 00:49:45.000 Yes. 00:49:45.000 --> 00:49:49.000 Um, alright, anybody want to go to bat for… 00:49:49.000 --> 00:49:53.000 keeping this? 00:49:53.000 --> 00:50:12.000 My take on this is really, is it worth this? We would have to spend a lot of time in the sense of, for example, exactly this. Please do not update the last check-in date, because then I would assume and troubleshooting, that the modal was confirmed, the last check-in was successful, and all 3 pieces must have been there. 00:50:12.000 --> 00:50:13.000 Yeah. 00:50:13.000 --> 00:50:28.000 So it would have been an enormous amount of work, and… Is it worth it? My gut reaction that the cluttering is perfectly fitting here is, no, I'd rather spend my time on other things. 00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:29.000 Right. 00:50:29.000 --> 00:50:33.000 I'm kind of the same way. 00:50:33.000 --> 00:50:34.000 I'm with you also, Anya. 00:50:34.000 --> 00:50:38.000 But that's… yeah, that's my gut reaction. 00:50:38.000 --> 00:50:39.000 All right. Nuke it. Nuclear option for that. 00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:43.000 I say nuke it. 00:50:43.000 --> 00:50:49.000 Um, and again, somebody can speak up and say, I want to keep it when we send out the list of proposed… 00:50:49.000 --> 00:50:56.000 We're just… we're just recommending. 00:50:56.000 --> 00:50:57.000 Yes. 00:50:57.000 --> 00:51:04.000 And then that person… Then that person will get the task of putting it into refinement and supplying the appropriate use cases. Can we make that a prerequisite for voting for keeping it? 00:51:04.000 --> 00:51:08.000 I… well, I… if you really want it, it seems like no one else is going to refine it. 00:51:08.000 --> 00:51:13.000 So, yes, I think that makes sense. 00:51:13.000 --> 00:51:23.000 Alright, option to retain items last borrower even after anonymization. Ooh, I know people that are interested in this. 00:51:23.000 --> 00:51:24.000 Kill it. 00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:26.000 No, no, no, no, kill it, kill it, kill it, kill it, kill it! 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:29.000 What's the point of anonymization, then? 00:51:29.000 --> 00:51:31.000 Well… 00:51:31.000 --> 00:51:38.000 Yeah, I think… 00:51:38.000 --> 00:51:39.000 Yeah. 00:51:39.000 --> 00:51:40.000 Yes, I totally agree. Also, charging a patron months and years after check-in? No, that's crazy. 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:47.000 I understand this, and trust me, we've been burned by this. Like, you go to check out a book, you open it up, and it looks like somebody threw, uh… 00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:52.000 paint in it because they were… they used so many highlighters on the thing. 00:51:52.000 --> 00:51:53.000 Which, first of all… 00:51:53.000 --> 00:51:56.000 Right. Yeah, but you can't confirm that that was the last person, right? Like, there's no… 00:51:56.000 --> 00:51:57.000 Exactly, exactly. 00:51:57.000 --> 00:51:59.000 way to even confirm. 00:51:59.000 --> 00:52:00.000 Exactly. 00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:05.000 I mean, I know there are use cases for this, it… but again, it does… 00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:09.000 It defeats the purpose of anonymization in many cases. 00:52:09.000 --> 00:52:12.000 Um, and I do think… 00:52:12.000 --> 00:52:20.000 I think what this allows is when you have people who are very much at your institution, who are pushing against 00:52:20.000 --> 00:52:22.000 short-term… 00:52:22.000 --> 00:52:24.000 anonymization. 00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:30.000 You can say, well, this feature would allow you to, in these cases, where you're like, oh, it didn't have this piece returned, whatever. 00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:31.000 Yes. 00:52:31.000 --> 00:52:35.000 But it really does put the onus on the check-in. 00:52:35.000 --> 00:52:37.000 moment to… 00:52:37.000 --> 00:52:38.000 Yes. 00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:40.000 Make sure it has all the pieces. 00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:41.000 Um, and is not destroyed. 00:52:41.000 --> 00:52:42.000 I… 00:52:42.000 --> 00:52:43.000 The other one… oh, sorry, go ahead, Robert. 00:52:43.000 --> 00:52:46.000 I just want to mention, from the perspective of working with libraries new to folio, 00:52:46.000 --> 00:52:52.000 This comes up very often. I think Sierra and Voyager at least have this, and you're like, well, wait a minute, we rely on that. 00:52:52.000 --> 00:52:56.000 Um, I don't know that any of the libraries have really… 00:52:56.000 --> 00:53:00.000 Ventu put out by having to kind of compromise and… 00:53:00.000 --> 00:53:03.000 determine how they're going to do it in folio, but I will say it. 00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:06.000 definitely a carryover from other systems. 00:53:06.000 --> 00:53:09.000 Which may not be a justification for it, but I do. 00:53:09.000 --> 00:53:13.000 hear about it a lot. 00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:18.000 Yeah. There also might be legal consequences. Oh, sorry. 00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:19.000 Go ahead, Connor. 00:53:19.000 --> 00:53:31.000 In that case you can. Yeah, you can just adjust anonymization settings to to a period when you're still comfortable charging someone which is not months and years after you discover a damage. 00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:37.000 Right. 00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:39.000 Let's make everyone happy. 00:53:39.000 --> 00:53:42.000 And let's record the name J… 00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:45.000 period dope as the last… 00:53:45.000 --> 00:53:46.000 person who checked it out. 00:53:46.000 --> 00:53:49.000 I love it. I love it. 00:53:49.000 --> 00:53:50.000 Done. 00:53:50.000 --> 00:53:54.000 Yeah, but Jay does gonna be really upset when they get that notice. 00:53:54.000 --> 00:53:57.000 Alright, um… 00:53:57.000 --> 00:54:00.000 Yeah, I think the… I think… 00:54:00.000 --> 00:54:04.000 that… 00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:05.000 I think it would also be hard 00:54:05.000 --> 00:54:08.000 to… 00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:12.000 How would you exactly talk about anonymization on your… 00:54:12.000 --> 00:54:18.000 you know, on your policy pages, when you're, like, fully anonymized, and then… 00:54:18.000 --> 00:54:20.000 But not really. 00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:25.000 Not unless you are the… but not if you were the last person, because that's not anonymized. 00:54:25.000 --> 00:54:26.000 indefinitely. 00:54:26.000 --> 00:54:30.000 I mean, I don't know if you could prevent this, like, on the API side, but you could make it not… 00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:34.000 searchable, so it's like, oh, let me check this patrons. 00:54:34.000 --> 00:54:36.000 barcode to check 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:44.000 everything that they were the last borrower on, right? If you can just say, only if I pull up an item, then I can see who that borrower was. 00:54:44.000 --> 00:54:53.000 There's a semblance of that anonymization. 00:54:53.000 --> 00:54:57.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:54:57.000 --> 00:54:58.000 Yeah. 00:54:58.000 --> 00:55:01.000 true, except that if subpoenaed, that data is stored. If the data is stored, it is findable, right? So that would be the counter-argument to that. I totally agree with you, Robert. I think that that is… 00:55:01.000 --> 00:55:06.000 It is… it makes it harder. It's not like somebody could walk in the door and say, tell me… 00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:08.000 Everything this person borrowed, but… 00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:11.000 It is not in the event 00:55:11.000 --> 00:55:15.000 I mean, the whole Patriot Act 00:55:15.000 --> 00:55:21.000 Um, in the United States, the whole point of anonymization was so libraries could not 00:55:21.000 --> 00:55:24.000 did not have the data to supply in any way. 00:55:24.000 --> 00:55:26.000 to agents that came looking for Cindy. 00:55:26.000 --> 00:55:30.000 Does anyone else find the name of that act very, um… 00:55:30.000 --> 00:55:33.000 not sarcastic, what's a good word? 00:55:33.000 --> 00:55:35.000 I know what you're saying, Tom, and yes. 00:55:35.000 --> 00:55:37.000 Yeah, but yeah, you're right. I mean… 00:55:37.000 --> 00:55:40.000 And, yes, and it used to be, like, 00:55:40.000 --> 00:55:43.000 It used to feel so long ago, and now it feels like it's coming right back at us. 00:55:43.000 --> 00:55:45.000 Yeah, it's yesterday. 00:55:45.000 --> 00:55:46.000 Yeah, exactly. 00:55:46.000 --> 00:55:54.000 Um, and this is also a reason why we're actually running manuscripts against MetaDB, is to get rid of this information. 00:55:54.000 --> 00:55:57.000 Yeah. If you don't have it, you can share it. 00:55:57.000 --> 00:55:58.000 Exactly. 00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:04.000 Um, and people don't have to anonymize, right? Like, there's… there are lots of options that people can use. 00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:08.000 So, um… 00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:12.000 Where are we at with this one? 00:56:12.000 --> 00:56:15.000 I think the consensus is close it. 00:56:15.000 --> 00:56:18.000 Is every… 00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:19.000 Okay. 00:56:19.000 --> 00:56:21.000 I already marked close. 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:26.000 Alright, again, others can speak up if they really feel like they want it. 00:56:26.000 --> 00:56:27.000 This is a great dog. 00:56:27.000 --> 00:56:28.000 Um, and it would have to be optional, I think. 00:56:28.000 --> 00:56:29.000 Yeah. 00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:31.000 Um, so… 00:56:31.000 --> 00:56:33.000 Yes, definitely. 00:56:33.000 --> 00:56:38.000 Alright, it is 11.54, let's do this, um… 00:56:38.000 --> 00:56:42.000 make this the last one, although… 00:56:42.000 --> 00:56:46.000 Don't we? Didn't this already get developed? I thought this was already in development. 00:56:46.000 --> 00:56:47.000 Yeah, for page slips. 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:51.000 This printing a single… 00:56:51.000 --> 00:56:54.000 um, pull slip. 00:56:54.000 --> 00:57:03.000 I think… I feel like this is probably… why did Darcy… Darcy… Darcy doesn't work at Cornell anymore, she left. 00:57:03.000 --> 00:57:04.000 Which was sad, because she's great. 00:57:04.000 --> 00:57:05.000 Long, long since, but she did a lot of work. 00:57:05.000 --> 00:57:18.000 Yeah, I think this was probably workarounds for, uh, library technical services, where they wouldn't have to use the check-in app. 00:57:18.000 --> 00:57:19.000 Okay. 00:57:19.000 --> 00:57:27.000 For that they could print slips directly from inventory, because the use case is weird. We… you're right, there is already an option in requests where you can print individual page slips. 00:57:27.000 --> 00:57:31.000 Gotcha. 00:57:31.000 --> 00:57:32.000 L… 00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:33.000 Um, but this is also mentioning, like, in the inventory screen, you can print a slip from there, or… 00:57:33.000 --> 00:57:39.000 transit slips, and yeah, this feels like a workaround for library technical services. 00:57:39.000 --> 00:57:43.000 So they don't have to use a check-in app. 00:57:43.000 --> 00:57:48.000 Yeah, but it… if you have a slip for transit, it should be… 00:57:48.000 --> 00:57:53.000 a, um… it should actually be in transit. 00:57:53.000 --> 00:57:54.000 Exactly, exactly. 00:57:54.000 --> 00:58:01.000 Right? Which, in order to do that, you have to have it. So, I guess the thing I thought had already been developed was that 00:58:01.000 --> 00:58:08.000 Pick slips were… I definitely saw it, whether it was in 00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:12.000 Um, Bug Fest, or… 00:58:12.000 --> 00:58:13.000 Yeah. 00:58:13.000 --> 00:58:15.000 something… is it available now? 00:58:15.000 --> 00:58:16.000 Yeah. 00:58:16.000 --> 00:58:23.000 Yeah, it's in Ramson's. Yeah. 00:58:23.000 --> 00:58:24.000 Right. 00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:27.000 I'm looking right now, I'm in Sunflower and there is a line that says print selected pick slips, but it's grayed out. So it's like it's not quite ready maybe. 00:58:27.000 --> 00:58:28.000 You have to turn it on. 00:58:28.000 --> 00:58:31.000 Do you have to check something off, though, Erin? Do you have to, like, check a… 00:58:31.000 --> 00:58:32.000 select at least one, and then it becomes active? 00:58:32.000 --> 00:58:37.000 You have, yes, you have… 00:58:37.000 --> 00:58:38.000 Oops. Hmm… 00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:39.000 Is… 00:58:39.000 --> 00:58:40.000 Okay, yeah, it's it's a bit… 00:58:40.000 --> 00:58:56.000 I did do that, and it's still… it didn't make a change. So… Oh, you know what? Hang on. Hang on. Maybe this. Okay, never mind. So what there is now, there is a column that says single print. And there is a button in that column that says print. But that is also grayed out. So I can't do anything with it. So it looks like they're working on it. 00:58:56.000 --> 00:58:57.000 I think you have to turn it on. 00:58:57.000 --> 00:58:58.000 I think… 00:58:58.000 --> 00:58:59.000 Interesting. I wonder if it's a permission. 00:58:59.000 --> 00:59:04.000 I'll start rubber. 00:59:04.000 --> 00:59:05.000 That's what I thought. 00:59:05.000 --> 00:59:08.000 Yes, I think, yeah, that might be a permission. I think this was ready for Ramsens. I did a UAT on this. I'm I'm pretty sure. 00:59:08.000 --> 00:59:09.000 Yeah? 00:59:09.000 --> 00:59:10.000 It does… it does work. It works. It works. 00:59:10.000 --> 00:59:11.000 Okay. I'll have to investigate turning that on. 00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:17.000 I think this was where I was confused about the pickup service point versus the item location service point. 00:59:17.000 --> 00:59:19.000 And if you're… 00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:23.000 You might have a filtered list, but it will only print ones. 00:59:23.000 --> 00:59:26.000 that have one of those? 00:59:26.000 --> 00:59:32.000 features, I… I may be concerned about it, though. 00:59:32.000 --> 00:59:36.000 Oh, I think you might be talking about just the… are you talking about just the regular… 00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:39.000 when you print pick slips, which one it's using… 00:59:39.000 --> 00:59:40.000 What it's printing for, Robert? 00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:43.000 I mean, maybe, but I thought… I thought the same principle applied… 00:59:43.000 --> 00:59:49.000 Because you could create a filter, but you couldn't do things based on the filter, you had to do it based on 00:59:49.000 --> 00:59:57.000 your actual service point, but… 00:59:57.000 --> 00:59:58.000 We use… 00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:05.000 Oh, gotcha. Yeah, I think it's designed to print just a single pixlip, however you got the request up on your screen. It's designed to be able to print just that. 01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:09.000 pixelope. Sorry, Olga, go ahead. 01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:24.000 Uh, we started using it in Ramissance. It does work, but it has a bug. And sometimes it doesn't work. We did have opened a ticket for that. 01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:33.000 We opened the ticket for that, and I don't remember… I don't think it's fixed yet. But in general, it works. 01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:38.000 Right. I feel like the biggest need for this has been this… the pay… 01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:43.000 pick slip that you can't get it to reprint. You have to print the whole… or you can design… 01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:44.000 Right. 01:00:44.000 --> 01:00:46.000 You could, like, run your pick slip 01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:50.000 printing and just choose that one page, if you could find it. 01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:54.000 But since they're not in call number order, you can't. 01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:55.000 And you can. 01:00:55.000 --> 01:01:02.000 I think it was also to get around the reprinting of slips, because if you didn't fill a page request and you print this list from a service point, 01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:06.000 it would reprint all the old ones, and I think there's also a way of getting around that workflow, too. 01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:13.000 Right. Yeah. 01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:14.000 Right. 01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:17.000 And you can always reprint hold and transit slips by checking the item in. So there is no more need for this ticket, I think. 01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:20.000 Yes, let's close this one. I think we closed all but one. 01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:22.000 Or almost. 01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:23.000 You almost had a perfect record. 01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:27.000 There are two I have to look at at the front end. 01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:28.000 to keep. 01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:31.000 Yes, two to test one. to be refined, and all others. 01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:32.000 Great job! I want you grouped back next two weeks, same team, come back. We're gonna… 01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:37.000 too close. 01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:41.000 We're closing tickets! It's amazing. 01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:42.000 Same bat time, same bat channel. 01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:46.000 Oh, Katie, did you see Aaron's message about which, um, 01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:48.000 Which require… or which permission… 01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:51.000 slash capability it is to… that needs to be turned on. 01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:55.000 Yeah, we turned it on in ramps, and so… 01:01:55.000 --> 01:01:56.000 I don't know. 01:01:56.000 --> 01:02:00.000 Well, if you know that… but if you know the permission, we can translate that with the… 01:02:00.000 --> 01:02:01.000 The ICANN has permissions, um… 01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:03.000 Okay, let me see… 01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:06.000 function. There's a way to translate it. 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:14.000 If you put the permission in there, if you find it, I can… or if you send it to me on Slack, I can translate it and send it out. 01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:18.000 I think the setting is under circulation requests. 01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:25.000 And then view print details. I think that's it. 01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:31.000 Um, or that setting to turn it on. I'm not sure about the… 01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:33.000 role, though. 01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:38.000 Oh, you think there's a turn-on and a capability? Like a… 01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:39.000 a setting… what did you say the setting was, Tom? 01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:41.000 Yeah. 01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:48.000 Um, it's under circulation. Hold on, I just opened another window. 01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:49.000 Okay. 01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:52.000 Um, under circulation, under requests, um, there's a few different ones. There's title level requests, which you can turn on or off. 01:02:52.000 --> 01:02:59.000 print hold requests, and then view print details, which I think is a bad name if that is it. 01:02:59.000 --> 01:03:03.000 But the only option under there is Enable View Print Details. 01:03:03.000 --> 01:03:06.000 parentheses, pick slips. 01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:09.000 So my guess is that is the… 01:03:09.000 --> 01:03:11.000 functionality to turn it on. 01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:12.000 Okay. 01:03:12.000 --> 01:03:14.000 And then… 01:03:14.000 --> 01:03:15.000 Huh. 01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:16.000 So I have that selected. Hmm. 01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:17.000 Okay, so it has to be… 01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:18.000 Okay, I… 01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:21.000 Let me… 01:03:21.000 --> 01:03:22.000 Okay. 01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:23.000 I'll, uh, email… I'll… 01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:24.000 I'll keep playing around with it. 01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:30.000 message you on Slack when I figured… oh, sorry, it was a while ago. 01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:31.000 So, 01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:32.000 Thank you. Thank you. 01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:36.000 No, it's fine, and like I said, if you find the permission, we can translate it to the capability set. 01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:37.000 Okay. 01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:41.000 So… alright, thanks, everyone! 01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:42.000 Um… 01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:43.000 Thanks, Judy. 01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:52.000 There it is. Um, it looks like it's under Application App Platform Complete UI Circulation Settings, Request Prince… no, never mind. I was wrong. 01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:53.000 Stop listening to Tom. Alright. 01:03:53.000 --> 01:03:54.000 Thanks for your efforts, Tom. Thanks for your efforts. 01:03:54.000 --> 01:03:58.000 Stop listening to Tom. 01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:02.000 Yeah, Katie, if you find it and can share it, that would be fantastic, and we'll figure it out. 01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:05.000 Yes. 01:04:05.000 --> 01:04:06.000 Take care. 01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:09.000 Alright. Take care, everyone. Thank you, see you Monday! 01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:13.000 Bye!