You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Create or enhance a feature in Figgy's edit scanned resource form to trigger an identifier as to whether Digital Content is whole or a portion of the whole in UI for applications
#6465
Open
1 of 3 tasks
kelea99 opened this issue
Jul 18, 2024
· 2 comments
As a PULFAlight, Orangelight, or DPUL user, I need a way to easily determine whether or not the digitized content available is the whole item (entire component ID or MMS ID) or a portion of the whole. If it is unclear to me whether a portion or the whole of an item is digitized, I may make a trip to Princeton University Library that is unnecessary (if items are already fully available online) or I may believe that the portion that is digitized is the extent that princeton holds.
As a figgy user responsible for the ingest/bulk ingest and/or review of items being added to the repository, I need to a way to easily mark whether an item is a portion or a whole in the edit form of the item. I will still need a free text field like that which currently exists as "Portion Note", to add further information. However, whatever triggers the portion/whole determination in the UI will need to adhere to a not-yet-existing best practice for the vocabulary used.
Please include hard deadlines, if the exhibit is part of an event, the issue is stopping work, etc.
There are no hard deadlines, nor is the issue stopping work, but this conversation has taken place with multiple staff members, including Special Collections Public Services staff, who have shared user feedback regarding this confusion and the digital studio has shared its feedback regarding confusion as to whether an item in the repository is a portion or the whole, before photography and digitization.
Priority recommendation
asap
within the next 3 weeks
PO will prioritize - MULE for next work cycle?
Sudden Priority Justification
Required if "asap" or "within the next 3 weeks" is checked. Add "Sudden Priority" and "Maintenance/Research" labels
Expected behaviour
Actual behaviour
Steps to reproduce behaviour
Screenshots
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Summary (discussed with @ccleeton and @faithc )
As a PULFAlight, Orangelight, or DPUL user, I need a way to easily determine whether or not the digitized content available is the whole item (entire component ID or MMS ID) or a portion of the whole. If it is unclear to me whether a portion or the whole of an item is digitized, I may make a trip to Princeton University Library that is unnecessary (if items are already fully available online) or I may believe that the portion that is digitized is the extent that princeton holds.
As a figgy user responsible for the ingest/bulk ingest and/or review of items being added to the repository, I need to a way to easily mark whether an item is a portion or a whole in the edit form of the item. I will still need a free text field like that which currently exists as "Portion Note", to add further information. However, whatever triggers the portion/whole determination in the UI will need to adhere to a not-yet-existing best practice for the vocabulary used.
Other tickets
See also: PULFAlight repo #1371 ; PULFAlight repo #1372 ; figgy repo #6292
Impact
Please include hard deadlines, if the exhibit is part of an event, the issue is stopping work, etc.
There are no hard deadlines, nor is the issue stopping work, but this conversation has taken place with multiple staff members, including Special Collections Public Services staff, who have shared user feedback regarding this confusion and the digital studio has shared its feedback regarding confusion as to whether an item in the repository is a portion or the whole, before photography and digitization.
Priority recommendation
Sudden Priority Justification
Required if "asap" or "within the next 3 weeks" is checked. Add "Sudden Priority" and "Maintenance/Research" labels
Expected behaviour
Actual behaviour
Steps to reproduce behaviour
Screenshots
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: