Page Comparison

Updates from other SILS groups

Share relevant items

15 min

Josephine

Sarah

• Self-paced training should be completed, formal certification may be ongoing for some, but important to communicate updates on this progress.

• All groups currently working on filling in testing checklist spreadsheets.

•  Any member getting certified: let your implementation coordinators expected date of certification.

Vanguard Buddies Check-in

Offer feedback and suggestions

15 min

All

• Vanguard campus members appreciate having expertise of Buddies.

• Will be valuable to document what we learn through Vanguard, including specific configuration decisions:

• https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Fhnp26YXnA3W25VNa7UsmXAKAAHUB0ej

•  All vanguards: Share any useful local configuration decisions in the Configuration Recommendations folder in our Drive.

Discovery UX Evaluation Sub-Groups & Process

Discuss our work moving forward for Discovery UX

30 min

All

• Reviewed and discussed plan for Discovery UX Evaluation. Document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cHYtmC4K6hWcwLlUqCVMW-08sg0hZ2QFyIvrA7k4hzo/edit?usp=sharing .

• Discussed approaches local campuses may take to UX review within these four subgroups, including user scenarios, user flows for various scenarios (screenshots, e.g.), identifying pain points for these scenarios, developing recommendations and talking with partner groups about what whether recommendations are feasible, and bringing and recommendations back to statewide group as well.

• Welcome to use the general grad and UG personas UCSC created in how they would approach these tasks, and add to or tweak as needed. (E.g., currently no faculty or library staff scenarios have been developed.)

  • vision of using personas is designed to help us focus on archetypal users and focus more broadly on user experience, rather than focusing on very individualized, or recent pain point type experiences.

  • staff personals lower priority at this stage. Some staff tasks: the information could be located in Alma vs. in Primo.

• World Cat scope important to test - currently still being set up on some campuses. Boston U has this turned on, and could be used to explore some UX questions.

• Work needs to be done by end of Nov. Lay ground work during October/functionality testing phase

• Local groups can be good resource for developing user scenarios, and for feedback on particular pain points/recommendations, as appropriate.

Subgroups:

• Library Catalog Materials (Lisa, Josephine)

• Interlibrary Loan Process Sarah, EAS, Jess)

• CDI Content: (Jared, Ellen)

• Digital Collections: (Sharon, Michael)

• Special Collections Materials: (Heather, Chizu)

Primo VE naming & logo

Look at examples of Primo VEs named “Library Search”

15 min

Josephine

• There is a Primo VE Branding Examples document on our Discussions page and in the Branding folder of our Google Drive.

• System-wide Name Screenshots- document

• Each campus will need to make decisions about what we are going to call various things, and there are cascading effects of some of these decisions that could impact branding and harmonization. These working documents will help us start to document and discuss these issues with an eye toward harmonization as we work through various configuration options.

• timeline: Mid/End November have recommendations to share.

•  all: add thoughts to the Primo VE Branding examples document as we each work through our various configuration options.

Check-in: Consulting on RMFG’s next Decision Pages

See how VG feedback is going

15 min

All

Questions from RMFG:

"We did have one more question about 852 notes, which are notes in the call number fields for holdings. I’ll try to find an example for you but generally should they be displayed?

For local RLF records: we’re just wondering how confusing it is for resources where the loanable copy is at an RLF but there is a record at the home campus as well. For example a title search for “the hollow needle” will bring up an SRLF copy and a UCSD copy, but the UCSD copy *is* the RLF copy, we just added our bib to Alma because it’s higher quality. We might still need to send the records through migration but it’s good to know if there are issues that need to be addressed right after migration."

Discovery feedback will help them with their two decisions:

1. Bibliographic records to leave out of the Vanguard NZ

2. Vanguard local RLF migration

See our feedback consultation notes.

In general to keep in mind for RMFG:

• Are there any fields/facets that are not showing up in Primo that should?

• Are there any impacts on Primo due to campuses migrating their data differently that are critical to resolve before test load?

Homework

Prepares team for next meeting

All

•  All: View Additional Primo VE Training videos. .
•  All: Look at ExL’s Primo VE Customization Best Practices

Parking Lot/Q&A

Save these issues for future discussion & comments

• Configuration

• Defining the “Everything” scope

• Determine plan for MELVYL and Related SILS Services

• Ebook ILL lending as it relates to discovery and limiting to availability.

Decision Page

Priority vote (1-3)

Consulting group feedback due

Local 856 data

1

10/7

Bibliographic records to leave out of the Vanguard NZ

1

10/13

Vanguard local RLF migration

1

10/13

Non-9XX local data

1

10/21

Bibliographic records 9XX field mapping

1

10/21