Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Date

, 10am-11:30am

Attendees

  • Lisa Ngo, UC Berkeley

  • Jared Campbell, UC Davis

  • Ellen Augustiniak, UC Irvine [Today’s Notetaker]

  • Sharon Shafer, UC Los Angeles (absent)

  • Elizabeth Salmon, UC Merced (absent)

  • Michael Yonezawa, UC Riverside

  • Heather Smedberg, UC San Diego

  • Josephine Tan, UC San Francisco (co-chair) [Today’s Timekeeper]

  • Jess Waggoner, UC Santa Cruz (co-chair)

  • Sarah Houghton, California Digital Library

  • Chizu Morihara, UC Santa Barbara

Not attending

  • Sharon Shafer, UC Los Angeles

  • 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 & project timeline

Share relevant items

10 min

Jess

Sarah

End User Name subgroup: goal is to have 3 candidates to share.

No other updates

2

UX Testing Subgroup Partnership Work

Updates on subgroups' progress

20m

All

References

ReportsUpdate from SubGroups

Want to share a document with campus? Publish to Web, and share that URL. (This leaves an edit-able version of the doc with the same sharing permissions as our defaults - just SILS folks can edit.)
https://support.google.com/a/users/answer/9308870?hl=en

3

Next Steps - UX Testing Subgroup Partnership Work

Next Steps - Recommendations artifact: exact process for production

60m

Proposal: based on ExL Setup doc, each subgroup fill in.

Concern: this setup document is so skeletal that it might not provide enough structure.

Guiding principles: Minimum Viable Product.

For recommendations, how do we break them down into what’s possible and who needs to do them?

  • ILL did see success in talking through with Fulfillment FG to see if any pain points were clearly “FFG” vs. Discovery.

High and Medium priorities are both candidates for consideration.

Can we have a section or process for recording issues we expect to need to iterate on quickly, even if we don’t have a specific recommendation?

Feb 5 is when final configuration are due for all campuses, including already-Alma campuses.

IF

  • subgroup recommendation is Discovery’s responsibility (based on discussions with other interested FGs) AND

  • subgroup recommendation should be addressed to get to an MVP (high or medium priority)

THEN

Note your recommendation in the appropriate “Area” in a draft recommendation document. “Areas” will start as groupings based on ExL initial configuration document.

If there is no row where an MVP recommendation fits (based on the “areas” in the Initial Setup document) do still include them in a separate section. If there are enough of these, we’ll organize into topics.

Scopes discussions with local campuses should start - Jess & Ellen need to get a document for members of this group to bring back to our campuses.

  •  Jess Waggoner & Ellen Augustiniak will create user-friendly document outlining scope options e.g. what’s included in “Everything” or “All UC Libraries,” by
  •  All: start conversations locally in January
  •  All: figure out where your subgroup belongs and record in \\ document that Josephine Tan (Unlicensed) will ink link to here // before next meeting
4

Homework

Prepares team for next meeting

All

(Discussion of EUNS interests)

Config form discussion, e.g. Lisa Ngo (Unlicensed) 's concern about languages, which are not configurable and need ExL to enable.

  •  All: Look at ExL’s Primo VE Customization Best Practices
  •  All: Take 2 questions back to your local group(s). What should be in the concept of ‘everything’. What should or should not be pre-filtered?
  •  All: provide 1 or 2 user-testing tasks (from scenarios we’re already using) on Slack so Jess, Elizabeth, and Ellen can review before next EUNS meeting. Ideally: one network, one “local” ish. Share by eob

5

Parking Lot/Q&A

Save these issues for future discussion & comments

 

 

 

R

Note from Sharon Shafer (Unlicensed) regarding agenda item 1. UCLA Library ingested the Film and Television Library catalog records during the Alma data harvest and there was concern about the unique needs of item display and search for the film and television records. UCLA Discovery Functional Group started a document to examine the MARC fields and their function. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qWW7wr3pWau7wbAbthSB9lLcv3T0xYol990FV48MpbM/edit Should we share this with RMFG?