Page Comparison

New additions to our Confluence site

Describe new items added since last meeting

10 min

Josephine

Reported problems with access to Primo VE Discovery Sandbox. some people cannot see end-user view when logging in. Others have no access to Discovery configuration. Some folks have had success Logging in to both Member 1 and Member 2 training sandbox using Discovery Administrator account (from list in google drive): does give you access to discovery configuration options.

Top level page now includes link to SILS Implementation Timeline and Milestones.

•  All: Test sandbox access and explore sandboxes.

Updates from other SILS groups

Share relevant items

10 min

Josephine

Sarah

By August 1 we should have our recommendations for Discovery configuration set, for vanguard stage.

Sarah: One of 3 project managers will be on leave. Lena will be taking on double duty. They have a plan in place, but if we see things falling through the cracks, do let Sarah know.

Union catalog discussion

Decide how we would like discovery to search and display

40 min

All

From email with Sarah (5/4/20):

In the Public Services Escalation Leaders SILS group today, we tried to have a discussion about a sample issue we thought may get forwarded to us. In the course of that discussion, it was clear to me that there is not consensus about what a union catalog is…what we’re trying to do with the network zone of the SILS. And I think that discussion is probably best had by the Discovery group at some point. Are we truly using this as a union catalog—to display all items, physical and digital, that the end user could get a hold of some way? Or are we only showing them content they can get access to instantly? Or only UC Libraries’ holdings? What about open access content? (The discussion is more nuanced than that but you get the gist).

 Could we add this to a future Discovery group agenda? I’d like us to talk this through and see if we can come to an agreement on a definition. I think that will help with our group’s discussion, and those of other groups, about what’s being included in the catalog and why.

From Slack with Christine Barone (6/12):

Whether Primo should default to each local campus catalog vs. the union catalog?

From Slack with Xiaoli Li & Caitlyn Nelson of PPC (6/15):

Since during the Vanguard phase, we will have a union Primo and campus Primo, I think it would be useful for your group to develop some test scenarios. For example, what can be done at union level but not at campus level and vice versa.

What kind of hypotheses do you want to put out and how do you want to test them? I think something like creating scenarios for a union primo versus an institution primo would be really useful.

From Liz Miraglia (UCSD) (6/16) - Resource Management FG chair:

I know your group is talking more and more about what exactly the NZ Primo is going to look like and what our Union Catalog might be and that ExLibris also recommends reserving a certain number of fields for consortial use. My group has had that in mind as we start moving 9XX data around but with the old deadlines we honestly didn’t think we’d have time to address that since it’s been difficult to even figure out where campuses could put their data that would just keep it safe, let alone provide shared searching. Now that we have some more time, I would love to get input on what your group might want to see in a shared view. If there are any facets or aspects of records that your group thinks would be useful to test out in the NZ Primo

Notes from Discussion:

• “filter by availability” is one checkbox that has important implications. Is the purpose of Primo to allow people to discover but not click through (for example, an e-book that is available to others in UC, but not to them). Or, should we only make discoverable those materials are available to users. Gets at, is this a discovery tool, or a discovery + access tool. Is ILL

• resource sharing integration will be a key element in

• some features are more accessible if logging in at the start

• expanded results, results only available my ILL - set as default, or no? user tests with faculty suggests the default checkbox is not SEEN the way we want them to. The facet that allows people to limit by what they can only see online is also not being readily used.

• personalized toggle - UCSC found this option too complicated and confusing and so did not activate, seeing facets seen to be the stronger method. Davis, Riverside did not make this configuration, largely because they did minimal adjustments to the default configuration.

• there is an option for the NZ to be a scope

• looked at examples from SUNY, CARLI libraries for front end experiences. It’s not clear that any of these consortia are exposing a NZ primo view. They seem to be using NZ as a scope with IZ view.

• also sometimes a question of multiple campus libraries, with more specialized libraries like law library, eg. have different perspectives on a need related to this decision.

• Expand my Results is for EVERY view.

• Leaning towards leaving this level of decision to individual campuses.

• How much of this is guided by how much of shared e-resources will “live” in NZ or IZ - important to clarity of this issue.

• also use this question to explore with interventions you want to support, (chat widget, pull down menus to facet, messaging to direct users to other result sets, etc.)

• Also, a BIG question of whether we need a union catalog, or whether a NZ scope within local catalogs. This question core to many of these decisions.

This group should come up with a recommendation on the topic of our discussions today, with use cases of when people have found it useful, or not.

• look at ILL requesting, search logs, other data available to inform this decision?

• use any test case scenarios

•  All: Review these meeting notes. Add more campus details here, or send them to Josephine.
•  All: Look at Jess’s list of Primo Decisions, and crowdsource this list.
•  Those already on Alma+Primo: share 2 things: 1. test cases or user studies that can inform decisions about display in network zone or local zone. 2. Recommendations for types of records to include in vanguard migration for testing in vanguard phase.
•  All: Go to our local implementation teams, local discovery support teams for input on this set of issues.
•  Jess Waggoner : Document what other Primo consortia have done for consortia or NZ or local + NZ displays (views or scopes or whatever)

Homework

Prepares team for next meeting

All

•  All: Review these notes and add more campus details either here, or send to Josephine.
•  All: Look at Jess’s list of Primo Decisions, and crowdsource this list.
•  For those who have already brought in Alma Primo: share any test cases or user studies you’ve done that would inform what would be good to display in network zone/local zone. also, please share recommendations of which types of records we should be sure to have included in vanguard migration for testing in vanguard phase.
•  All: Go to our local implementation teams, local discovery support teams for input on this set of issues.
•  Jess: Will pull together some visuals to help us see what other Primo consortia have done in terms of showing where consortia view is shown, or where local view + nz as scope.
•  All: Find out who needs Primo VE certification at on your campus.
•  All: Keep working through trainings.
•  All: Review the Network Scope and Union View Summary document. Make comments or suggestions by COB on 6/22/20. 22 Jun 2020
  This document will be used to facilitate conversations with local Discovery groups.

Recording of last 30 minutes of this mtg

Parking Lot/Q&A

Save these issues for future discussion & comments

• Configuration

• Branding