Settings and activity
71 results found
-
26 votes
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
103 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
80 votesChristy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
28 votesChristy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
27 votesChristy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
114 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
In our consortium, we provide library staff with SimplyReports logins and train them to find their way around creating reports. So all of the different format options Daniel suggested would be all the different ways, potentially, that the many folks aside from admins could want to format their reports. So please, we hope you're planning to improve this.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
8 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
Glad to hear that! We'd love to see a smoother procedure for self-registration in Vega--let me know if we can do any testing or help otherwise.
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
Appreciate that pointer, Gabrielle. Happy to report that it's working with a requirement to include date of birth.
In examining the options at this level, we discovered the option to include a warning that users must be 13 or older to complete the registration form. However, this can only be configured for users who choose "If you are not registered for library services, click or tap here to register now" from within PowerPAC's login link. Our patron registration begins with a link in Vega Discover, which takes them to the page that comes up *after* the patron clicks the above-mentioned link, so unfortunately our users will not see the warning.We'd love a way to be able to deploy this COPPA warning in our Vega Discover setting.
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
Hi Gabrielle, thanks for pointing that out--we hadn't seen that option. Just requiring a birthdate may be the answer, and it's not a bad piece to require anyway.
Christy Sayre
shared this idea
·
-
69 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
Some patron-identifying fields would be helpful in our consortium, particularly Patron code, but possibly patron assigned branch. This would help libraries decide whether to fill the hold and could ultimately lead to better service.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
38 votesChristy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
86 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
I recently had a request for this from staff in one of our libraries, and discovered there's not an ideal way to add this info, so I would like to see a data well for this.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
This idea will be reviewed by the product management team for consideration in an upcoming release.
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
As an administrator, this would be a huge time-saver. It's very difficult to line up a real-time test of a service like this.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
We have a growing number of app users, and it would be a nice additional way for staff to push out quick messages to individual patrons -- "we've been trying to reach you!" "You left your library card here, we're keeping it safe"
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
79 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
The notices in their current form, while nice to look at, are very confusing and we receive constant questions about it.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
27 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
Borrowers rarely claim they returned something until they receive notification that they've been billed for a Lost item. In Leap, changing a Lost item to a Claim is a very messy and step-heavy process. One has to copy the barcode of the lost item, which opens up the item window. Then come back to the patron record, and check out the lost item again (without checking it in). That removes the lost status and removes the bill, often one of the goals. Once the item is checked out to the patron and appears in the Out/Overdue view, the staff can select the item and make it a Claim. The process of all of this leaves a history of being checked back in and checked out again, which, when viewed by others, makes it seem as though staff was tampering with the record.
By contrast, it's very simple to change a Claim to a Lost item, and the trail is "clean." So please consider providing staff with a clean and simple way to change a Lost item to a Claim.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
130 votesChristy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
132 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
I can see how this would be useful for any kind of device that requires re-charging.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
In a consortium of 43 libraries, it's nigh impossible to consider adding additional patron codes. With the hold setting in the item record limiting holds to patrons from this library and branches, it seems like the architecture is already in place to add a similar capability for limiting checkouts--this would be a truly elegant solution and could make managing our circulation much simpler.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
17 votesChristy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
92 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
We just had a library ask us if it was possible to emphasize the pickup area (like Locker) on the hold slip. Their staff is often missing that the hold is for the locker, not the holds shelf. Of course, the info is there, but if it could be bolded, or in a larger font that the rest of the info on the slip, there'd be fewer mistakes and their patrons wouldn't be showing up after hours, only to find that their hold isn't in the locker--imagine the frustration!
An error occurred while saving the comment Christy Sayre
commented
I'd love to see more flexibility on these. Being able to have branch-defined fields could in effect allow us to re-create our regional delivery slips in the setup of our routing slips. This would eliminate alot of work, use less paper, and eliminate clutter around each library.
Christy Sayre
supported this idea
·
-
30 votesChristy Sayre
supported this idea
·
.JPG){kind=link}
Yes, Please! We need something better, because the process of updating these to missing is too cumbersome. For each item, there's a series of steps:
they need to be checked in;
if there's a hold, refuse that;
but then reactivate the hold;
then it might want to transit to its home branch, so refuse that;
then there might be a block of some sort, so continue through that;
And this is all just to get the one item checked in.
You still need to mark it missing, which is a few more steps.
Imagine if have a list of 20 of these.