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.) | |
3 | Next Steps - UX Testing Subgroup Partnership Work | 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?
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
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. |
| |
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. |
| ||
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?