Settings and activity
100 results found
-
3 votes
Wes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
34 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
supported this idea
·
-
37 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
This would be super helpful. I'm also adding in the keyword "audit" to make this easier for myself to find in the future :)
Wes Osborn
supported this idea
·
-
20 votesWes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
15 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
Although I know this would be more steps than happen today, I think that it is not an unusual flow for most accounts that people establish these days and would ultimately benefit both the patron with being assured they can get their notices and the library for having a better reputation for sending notices and lower costs (SMS/texts) for making sure those notices get through.
Wes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
11 votesWes Osborn
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
This seems to be a common issue across various parts of the Leap framework that could lead to data loss (see: https://ideas.iii.com/forums/951742-ils-polaris/suggestions/49250999-leap-doesn-t-save-or-prompt-to-save-notes-when-you ). Leap should be looking for these types of instances, this is common browser behavior: https://stackoverflow.com/a/7317311
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
It would be SUPER to be able to get a better handle on who is authenticating.
Or, we'd also be fine with recording the API key used in the transaction database when a patron validates. Since those would be required, we'd always have access to the information.
Wes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
In discussions with Innovative, part of this comes down to the question of do you want to allow certain functions to be "overrideable". I would argue for cataloging records, we do not want to allow any overrides, but others might feel differently and should chime in via the comments with their ideas.
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
Most staff do not understand it when the override dialog pops up and they end up putting in their own account information again or opening up a ticket.
Wes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
I might quibble a bit with the "Deny" option, but I really like the idea in General and it might pair well with: https://ideas.iii.com/forums/951742-ils-polaris/suggestions/50192763-putting-hindered-holds-more-prominent-so-all-holds
Sometimes it seems like hold processing is the only thing we can get staff to consistently process.
All this is to ultimately benefit the patron by moving requests and items more quickly through the system.
Wes Osborn
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesWes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
30 votesWes Osborn
supported this idea
·
-
12 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
What specifically are you attempting to do with the comparison? Get a list of records from one that isn't in the other or vice-versa? It might be better to do some searches to provide you with the results that you're looking for.
-
8 votesWes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
99 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
With Excel online not being able to parse the current files this is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. At least allowing for CSV as an output type would really help!
Wes Osborn
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesWes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
19 votesUNDER REVIEW · 4 comments · ILS - Polaris » Acquisitions, Serials & Item/Issue/Inventory Management · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
While this would certainly be an improvement and would offer clearer signaling and a better UI for staff, we accomplish something similar by limiting permissions for system level owned record sets so that they can't be deleted.
I think one consideration here is that if you could still go through and remove every record from the record set, what benefits do you get by being able to keep the record set "shell" in place?
In our case, we need the shell because we have some automation around handling bounce backs and some tooling for an automated holds service, but I suspect that other folks wouldn't have such automations in place.
Again, I would like to see this, but if you struggle with this today you might consider doing some permissions finagling to see if you could get yourself part (most) of the way there today.
Wes Osborn
supported this idea
·
-
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
One downside is the stronger boarders might seem to indicate something would be a required "area" but I'd probably be OK with trade off.
Wes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
9 votesWes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
3 votesWes Osborn
shared this idea
·
-
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
I'm putting the keywords Quick Search and Omnibox, Omni box and Omni Search in this comment for future reference when we go trying to find this.
An error occurred while saving the comment Wes Osborn
commented
This would be a wonderful addition for power users of the Leap and offer a nice transition for power users of the desktop client.
Wes Osborn
supported this idea
·
This is a critical blocker. If it is not possible to use the Polaris patron id, then as a workaround, there should at least be some sort of transfer or migration service that could be run at least on an account by account basis to merge the old lists into the new account.