2023-03-24 Meeting notes

Attendees

Jackie Gosselar, UC Berkeley
Jess Waggoner, UC Santa Cruz
Gem Stone-Logan, California Digital Library;
Jared Campbell, UC Davis;
Zoe Tucker, UC Los Angeles
Anna Kahrs, UC San Francisco
Sean Claudio, UC Irvine
Douglas Worsham, UC San Diego
Michael Craig, UC Santa Barbara
Jessica Kruppa, UC Riverside, Chair
Joe Ameen, UC Merced;

Not Present:

Meeting Recording:

	Item	Desired Outcome	Notes	Decisions / Discussion	Actions

	Item	Desired Outcome	Notes	Decisions / Discussion	Actions
1	Sharing and Updates	Share any Discovery related information from other SILS groups	Update on Ex Libris New Records meeting about Root Cause Analysis: Slides: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s29-UzS-D8Kc5Dfo-z9JTdinX0qqizW-/view?usp=share_link
2	UX Subgroup updates	What’s the UX Subgroup up to?	UX group is compiling a table of known issues and pain points in Primo, taken from UX research. Campuses will work on solutions individually as availability allows. Upcoming topics for discussion: Labels: What have you changed that’s working well? What needs improvement? Where should we consider balance of text vs. other elements on screen? ILL: How many paths are there to make an ILL request? What methods result in the most successful requests?
3	FRBR Preferred Records	Updates from ERES and RM?	https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Ew1xOnG3gIRSCvXuI4KcGsjpizcVUcGEb4dY9PluWU/edit (Google Doc) Official Confluence Version
4	Database Search	Report on what local groups considered ideal desire	What the ideal desired functionality of Database search looks like. Find the gaps in that functionality Write a “this is broken, please fix it” page Idea Exchange. UCSC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mnZa1TI8VZaO9uxWQoRwKu_pu10CCcIndjd23VVASqM/edit UCR: Same as UCSC. Other issues noted included that ExL has a sketchy idea of what libraries and users consider databases.	Formally document on Confluence why we don’t use this. Workaround: External A-Z through Springshare or whatever. Berkley: Still linking to an external page because it works better for now. (A-Z) Judicious in our top menu because they don't want the top menu to be expanded because people don't use stuff behind the elipses menu. Division by subject isn't vibing. Doug: Similar things. Describes it as reverse shopping. If you go to the store and they ask why aren't you buying that brand of bagels, then you have to justify why you aren't buying it. If it worked the way we wanted to, then the user wouldn't have to leave one interface for another. sc: Users actually use "databases" as a search term in the search bar. They expect it to be in the UI in primo.	We’ll create a stalled decision page. There’s still a lot of issues with this one, but it’s convoluted by the various ERES and CDL cleanup projects. Currently, we don’t feel an urgency around using or improving this feature and our current external database lists are preferable and working fine.
5	Exclude records from Network Zone	Are there currently use cases?	(Go Live) Exclude Records from Discovery Network “No urgent use cases necessitating this configuration change were identified at this time. Discovery FG recommends reevaluating once usability data is available and additional data clean up has taken place. Discovery FG should seek out any emergent use cases at that time.” Update: This is actually in the Enhancement Voting too, I noticed.	SC: Ticket from staff where student tried to request a dongle from a totally different UC. It’s hard to know how often this happens, but it does happen. Lending rule: Not lendable gets cancelled, but unknown if stats are kept. IF we used the 520, it would need a normalization rule to suppress that text from discovery. It’s still not really acceptable. But it’s only being put on non OCLC records, right?	How can we find stats on how often a not-lendable item Next meeting, start up the decision page and flesh out testing parameters.
6	2023 Enhancement Voting		https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QhsuDjErQYXGaeBUVIWsmq-59IKIv0uhCPdhqG75bio/edit?usp=share_link	This is only round 1. There probably will be a round 2. Local ELUNA members will spend their points however they want. This group will consider where to spend the consortia points.	Slack: We’ll have a thread of what we think will do the most good for the most people consortia wise to figure out where to throw consortia points at.
7	Any outstanding SLACK questions or other things that have come up?
8	Review Workplan		Work Plan
9

Pre/Post meeting Discussion comments and thoughts

Review the possibility of leveraging Idea Exchange and enhancement points to get stuff we want developed… developed.