Settings and activity
305 results found
-
21 votes
Lynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
11 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
45 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesUNDER REVIEW ·
AdminAngela Nolet
(Senior Product Manager, Innovative Interfaces, Innovative)
responded
Lynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
30 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Lynn Reynish
commented
Yes... using the same table for both patrons and items makes no sense. As Eleanor notes, we could use the field in item records to free up collection codes but not if it adds to the languages available to patrons!
-
15 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Lynn Reynish
commented
Our staff have mostly adjusted to this "feature" but this always trips people up and would be simpler if it were the same across the board.
Lynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
15 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Lynn Reynish
commented
Hi Samantha: Ideally, we'd like it to work in a similar fashion to how Sierra did it or even how Horizon did it (we used to be on both at various points). Customers could submit purchase requests through a form that fed into a selection list on the acquisitions side. "Selectors" would determine whether the items would be purchased (our default - but this was toggleable), sent to ILL, or refused.
Selectors were a specific set of permissions and those permissions let you a) see the lists, b) move requests into POs with the appropriate information (vendor, branch, copies, material type, collection) or c) move them to ILL, or d) delete requests (each letter was a different permission). Once moved the appropriate staff in acquisitions or ILL were notified and carried the request forward.
As far as customers went, we were good with customers seeing an "In Processing" while the request was pending or out for ILL. We'd like customers to see how many requests for purchase they have left in the month (because we limit them and would prefer the system to control that - which both Sierra and Horizon let us do).
If we deny a request, we'd expect the customer to get some sort of notification and an alert in their account.
Thanks for considering!
An error occurred while saving the comment Lynn Reynish
commented
We'd also like: a) The ability to convert such requests to ILL if we decide not to purchase them; and b) The ability to apply blocks / limits to such requests as a separate category from holds.
Lynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
-
78 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Lynn Reynish
commented
Yes please! It's ridiculous how many problems receipt printing in Leap causes.
-
6 votesLynn Reynish
supported this idea
·
This is a necessary feature - but we'd like such a feature to include the option for customers to record their own name. No automatic system can correctly pronounce every name that is presented to it. Our customers really appreciate the ability to "teach" the system how to say their name and miss it when that functionality isn't available.