Michael YonezawaHeather Smedberg, UC RiversideSan Diego
Josephine Tan, UC San Francisco (co-chair)
Jess Waggoner, UC Santa Cruz (co-chair) [Today’s Timekeeper]
Michael Yonezawa, UC Riverside
Not attending
Elizabeth Salmon, UC MercedSarah Houghton, California Digital Library
Lisa Ngo, UC BerkeleySarah
Houghton, California Digital Library Elizabeth Salmon, UC Merced
Discussion items
DISCOVERY VISION: We strive to design and implement the best possible discovery and delivery experience for our end users using data-driven decision making. We envision a network zone experience that will allow users to discover library materials across UC collections without sacrificing relevant results. As such, the default search and results interface should prioritize the success of typical users while providing additional functionality for more advanced users.
Item
Desired Outcome
Time
Who
Notes
Decisions
Actions
1
Updates from other SILS groups
Share relevant items
5 min
Jess
PPC/All Chairs:
RMFG has developed a collaborative workflow testing document that indicates impacted groups - but they will continue to reach out directly when seeking consultation
Who will name automated fulfillment network? Decided this was Discovery’s role. Basically this applies to labeling of “Resource Sharing” within Primo UI
Concerns about workload implications if we go with Fully Flexible CDI
Jess Waggoner will continue using SC testers for CDI exploration and share by
2
RLF Records
15 min
All
Fulfillment FG has recommended suppressing local holdings for RLF records
RMFG is asking DFG:
Do you think that users benefit from being able to do these kinds of title-level searches for items that would otherwise only be searchable at the journal/series level?
If so, is it preferable for us to suppress our holdings and include some kind of note to direct users to search for the main series for UCSD items? There are times where the item is available at another campus and so they might just as easily get it that way without having to request the RLF copy.
Disco FG will document concerns. E.g.
Concern: search. Loss of rich, descriptive, granular access e.g. in series item-level cataloging.
Concern: timing. Is this MVP? Cleanup is an issue. RLF Task group won’t be done with its work until after go-live.
Concern: backlog. E.g. UCSB “decanted” materials and SRLF is not caught up.
Concern: user experience & training for MVP. If we don’t suppress, all public services will have to get used to holdings being a little wrong sometimes.
Concern: special collex. E.g. because even if SD item is at SRLF, researchers have to be in SD to view/use it.
Summary of Discussion: Do we need to change anything in VG Decision Page? Or can these decisions go to go live?
Are we harmonizing on inclusion of the wordmark?
If so, to what degree (eg. flexibility around placement or color?)
Flexibility is desired.
Prominent is desirable. E.g. footer does not meet the goal of prominence.
Other menus. Campuses that might eventually want to heavily customize the top menu bars should have flexibility.
Responsive design. Campuses should understand how logos display on phones etc. E.g. Cal State Fullerton’s Primo does not show OneSearch logo on a phone.
Jess Waggoner will draft up decision for next meeting on
5
Check Ins
Discuss updates/problems/testing
15 min
All
Opportunity to check in on local implementation:
Worldcat
Boosting
Other
Journals search. SD can’t pinpoint issues.
Resource type. UCLA - collections?
6
Next Meeting
Prep for next meeting
Branding decision vote?
Follow up on sub-group work
7
Parking Lot/Q&A
Save these issues for future discussion & comments