Date
, 10am-11:30am
Attendees
Lisa Ngo, UC Berkeley
Jared Campbell, UC Davis
Ellen Augustiniak, UC Irvine
Sharon Shafer, UC Los Angeles
Elizabeth Salmon, UC Merced
Michael Yonezawa, UC Riverside [Today’s Notetaker]
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 | Josephine Sarah | PPC: has drafted a Minimum Viable Product sheet that FG’s will fill out |
| Need to fill out the columns |
2 | Primo VE future support | Begin discussion on who/what group will support Primo VE | 15 min | Sarah | There are links in Primo to report problems with records and within the link resolver to get support.
|
| Need to decide which is the preference? |
3 | Check-in: UX Testing Subgroup Partnership Work | Discuss any updates | 15 min | All | References
Are there areas where one subgroup’s UX testing may be better suited to be covered by another subgroup? If so, can document them HERE for follow up. | Approach to building towards our final Primo VE configuration recommendations (due by 2/5/21):
| |
4 | Notes from last week’s mtg | Helpful reference for agenda item #3 above | 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? | 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. | |||
5 | End User Name Subgroup | Gather feedback on proposed names | 50 min | Jess, Ellen, Elizabeth | End User Group Presentation (with slides) by J/E/E. Presentation is being given to various groups. “Name” would appear next to logo but would not appear as a scope or within language within Primo VE (unless that is what a group like Discovery FG recommends) Examples of:
|
| EUNS End user name proposal feedback https://forms.gle/KNm6ag77JpmMrF6G9 |
6 | 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. |
| ||
7 | 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?