2020-12-01 Meeting notes

Date

01 Dec 2020, 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

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 Usability Testing Confluence page Configuration Recommendations Workbook Reports ILL (Jess, Sarah, Elizabeth): Ful.FG saw list of recommendations before Thanksgiving. Divided recs by responsibility e.g. Ful. FG configuration changes taken by Ful. FG Draft Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HjRh9rSNu8qfLoXlFjewF0Nf1RJ9KtkYh7GO1xTzOow/edit?usp=sharing Digital Cols (Michael & Sharon): Dig FG still finalizing settings, so testing is delayed. Sp. Col (Chizu & Heather): Met with Special Collections & Archives Escalation Group, Resource Management FG, and Special Collections Cataloging CKG, so scenarios were well-reviewed. Chizu & Heather went thru all scenarios, now doing analysis. Draft Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q6qsfEUPl_HJpkuK0kGQSyh5aDa_Ef15HSynyY9m53E/edit?usp=sharing Catalog (Josephine & Lisa): Partners did not provide lots of help with scenarios. Still testing, but also doing analysis with recommendations. Draft Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhYqeM-9bLoImTR5uJEWHBCXiLOuu-qX2ybFIBLHIGk/edit?usp=sharing CDI (Jared & Ellen): also still doing analysis & recommendations Draft Recommendations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18wCKRFYCV51fWCVKx6gf0xVsKINZm1ZyUJCr8L5uXdo/edit?usp=sharing	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	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 04 Jan 2021 All: start conversations locally in January All: figure out where your subgroup belongs and record in document that Josephine Tan (Unlicensed) will ink to here before next meeting 07 Dec 2020
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 02 Dec 2020
5	Parking Lot/Q&A	Save these issues for future discussion & comments			Configuration Harmonization customizations Defining the “Everything” scope Determine plan for MELVYL and Related SILS Services Ebook ILL lending as it relates to discovery and limiting to availability.

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?