Date
, 10am-11:30am
Attendees
Lisa Ngo, UC Berkeley
Jared Campbell, UC Davis
Ellen Augustiniak, UC Irvine
Elizabeth Salmon, UC Merced
Sharon Shafer, UC Los Angeles
Michael Yonezawa, UC Riverside
Heather Smedberg, UC San Diego [Today’s Notetaker]
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
Jared Campbell, UC Davis
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 | 10 min | Josephine Sarah | EUOS: they will be making a list of different places UC-eLinks are placed in preparation for our decision of what UC-eLinks will be renamed. Checking in with EUOS and others for clarification on using this wordmark designs in the interface proper. Some campuses have already started experimenting with placement in PrimoVE
| ||
| 2 | Configuration Recommendations Workbook | Decide which recommendations are ready for sign off | 30 min | All | Configuration Recommendations Workbook Discussion highlights: Label for location: not clear what this means to users. Once One option is to have three or five showing, so it becomes immediately clear to a user what we mean by thatlocation means. Could also change facet name, but want to avoid long descriptive label. Preference for the first option/approach for these facets we choose to includeif this facet is used. Facets configurable by search profile slot. Facet group names will need to be the same, but you can choose to configure what shows differently across search profiles/slots. Library Facet: some may choose not to display this. If you do, you might want consider what to label it , and how to order it in the display in within the context of other facets like, the UC Libraries and Location facets. Discussed usefulness, or not, of facets Location and Library. We have some first impressions, but will test on this during this phasetest phase. Rename “Available Services,” to something more clear, like, “Check availability.” Note: The current workbook has this issue slightly misidentified/confused with another “May be Available” holdings/item language, elsewhere. Relabel “Resource Sharing” to “Request through Interlibrary Loan.” Discussed the context of the other types of request links. Consult with the ILL and Fulfillment group: they’ve done thinking around this and one of the CDL developers created a “Request Lite” version that would help streamline this process for users. ILL subgroup recommends using “enable without login” configuration option so that ILL links display as an option, before people have been signed in. The alternative is, people have to be logged in/authenticated before seeing the ILL link. Noted this will appear to all user groups, even those who do not have ILL permissions. Consider ease of use for main/majority of users vs. a bit of confusion for smaller groups like community users in making this decision. Consider adding helpful language under this link option: e.g., UCSC includes info about ILL service times. Other campuses could do this also, and/or add a bit about audience here. MARC fields configuration decisions: LA/Berkeley working on some documentation from their local conversations, and will share. Irvine has similar, really helpful documentation for their current, production environment. | Recommendations:
| Jess Waggoner will add new recommendations to our decision page for configuration decisions. Jess Waggoner will start a new document to track our shared knowledge discussions. |
| 3 | Testing Plan | What can we provide as an answer | 20 min | All | Test Phase Timeline - skipped this agenda item due to time. | ||
| 4 | Boosting Planning | Discuss plans for boosting | 15 min | All | Some testing scripts - could share information amongst ourselves, to help others in their own searching/configuration. Might include things like, find a local collection, find local holdings of books, etc. Will help locals campuses as they check whether their institution boosting levels are set to liking. | Jess Waggoner will start a document | |
| 5 | WorldCat Testing Planning | Discuss which campus will test what | 15 min | All |
| Different campuses focus on different configuration options, bring this together and review. ILL/Fulfillment invested in this - include in discussions and testing. | Campuses decide and communicate which of these approaches you plan to set up for test phase. |
| 6 | Homework | Prepares team for next meeting | All | ||||
| 7 | Parking Lot/Q&A | Save these issues for future discussion & comments |
|
|
Questions/comments:
|
|
...