Talis Aspire Digitised Content

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback
  1. TADC search and reuse from the DCS

    The ability of TADC to search for scans already undertaken as part of the CLA's Digital Content Store would be a huge boon to small institutions especially. Whilst TADC is a great workflow solution, it does not currently hold anything apart from 'our' content in the Vault. If we could source scans from the DCS, that would be hugely useful!

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Integration  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  2. New status or reason of "Ordered from BLDCS"

    I am wasting a lot of time by reviewing Requests that are at the status of Referred / Copy Pending, when many of these have had orders sent to BLDSC. This is not obvious until you open the Request, and although this info is displayed on the right of the screen, because I am assuming that something needs to be checked / done, I am scrolling down all of the Concierge checks before I realise that we are actually waiting for a file from BL.

    Please can this be added as a reason under Referred

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  3. Making note field searchable (e.g. identifying BL requests for invoicing)

    When we receive invoices for documents supplied to us from the British Library, requests are identified by the order number which the BL allocates. This is usually in this format: 00524015.

    Currently it is not possible to match up requests on our invoice with requests in the DCM. We can input the BL order number in the note field but really this needs to be a searchable field so that when we receive an invoice we can match up items listed with requests in the DCM.

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. TADC digitisation and adding priorities

    I have noticed when academics/staff submit digitisations, you cannot see the priority of the chapter they want digitised - e.g. Core, Recommended or Additional. We try to only digitise items with a Core priority. This creates a loophole for us. We end up spending a lot of money on digitisation requests which we shouldn't be.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Workflow  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. Report to identify where digitisation request has originated - RL or webform?

    It would be useful to have the ability to pull data which tells us if a request has come via a Reading List or via the webform - it would help us identify engagement with Reading Lists or the VLE.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Reports  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  6. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  7. Add edition and date to item details in request emails

    Currently only the the Book title, Authors/Editors and ISBN(s) are given in TADC emails (success or reject). For users who are requesting on multiple editions/years, it is not easy to work out which exact item the message refers to.

    It would useful if these key bibliographic details could be added to the email to avoid confusion.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Notifications  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  8. Can the ticked chapter box be changed to 'opt in' rather than 'opt out'?

    In relation to the request digitisation form we have noticed that some requests which far exceed the CLA limits are being approved by the concierge due to the 'this is one chapter' box being ticked by default. Would it be possible to make the ticking of the 'this is one chapter' box an opt in choice, rather than have it set to 'on' by default?

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Request Form  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  9. Naming of sections of a book when requesting digitisation rather than just having the page numbers

    Currently we are able to add the name of the chapter when requesting digitisation, but when we are using a section of a book instead there is no option to give it a name, all that is recorded are the page numbers. Sometimes academics give the section a name, or in the past we ourselves have given it a name eg. Extracts from......

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  10. A TADC API

    Specifically for usage - prints, downloads and views. We have a project that is monitoring 7 modules - the usage of the items on these modules. We want to automate the gathering of data as much as possible. We can use the Talis linked data API to get the data. For hardcopy books we can use the LCN (which is the bib number in our LMS) to retrieve loans, reservations and renewals automatically, and we would ike to be able to look up TADC data for each request. An API seems the obvious solution.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Reading List  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  11. Edit and pre-clear process during rollover

    Why does no data stay in the fields when you Edit and Preclear a number of requests as it does when editing just one request?

    It is useful to be able to see all the data and be able to change only what is necessary. This is often only one field such as student numbers or the requester. Whereas currently we have to re-enter all the field data as it opens as empty fields apart from the dates.

    The process requires looking at one request anyway to see what the fields contain and what might need updating. Then you have…

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Rollover  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  12. Option to source from BL when scan has been uploaded

    We would like the option of sourcing a request from BL even when the requestor has uploaded their own scan.We would like this as, where possible, we obtain an EHESS scan from BL. Currently if a copy has been uploaded there is no option to source from BL. It would be much more user friendly to have this option rather than to withdraw the request and ask the lecturer to rerequest it from the reading list.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    You can change the source of the request now when reviewing a request but we want to see if we can make this so you can raise the request via the BL using the API rather than manually.

  13. Ability to upload jpeg images in TADC - currently can only upload pdfs

    Whilst our scanner can save images in jpeg format, TADC is only able to upload pdfs. In our Art & Design dept lecturers prefer jpegs as the format presents a much clearer detailed image. In order to encourage Art & Design lecturers (under-represented in our stats) to use TARL and TADC we would like to have the facility to upload JPEGs.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is something Talis are working towards. Currently Talis Aspire Digitised Content only enables you to upload materials that require copyright clearance, but the Talis Player will not only enable you to upload material that needs to be copyright cleared, but also other materials.

    Talis have been working with beta partners to develop this, and we will keep you up to date with the wider release of this through the usual updates (webinars, newsletters, events etc).

  14. Integrate TADC User Profiles with existing TARL Profiles

    Many TADC users also have TARL.

    Staff Users register with TARL and are assigned Priviliges.
    Users then setup a separate Profile for TADC which requires exactly the same information that they have already supplied to TARL.

    My Suggestiuon is that the TADC and TARL profiles are Integrated so that users don't separately register for both products.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Integration  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    backlog  ·  Keji Adedeji responded

    We do intend to merge the different profiles but its not in the near term develoopment focus.

    It has been placed into moved to the longer term backlog.
    It will graduated from the backlog as we get through the ones that are planned and are ready to implement.

  15. New users need to be able to remove existing coversheets of resubmitted materials, at DC end to avoid duplication.

    Existing offprints that are being re-submitted for continued use have an old BL coversheet which cannot be removed during the 'accept self-scan process'. The result is a bundle that has 2 coversheets which could be confusing. The presence of the old coversheet is however useful in identifying material as a re-submission, but should be removed from the newly created bundle.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Packer  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    backlog  ·  Keji Adedeji responded

    I agree that the coversheet options available for normal uploads should be available in this scenario. This is not in our near term development focus, but I’ve put in in the backlog for review when we have got through some already planned items

  16. Extra fields on the report spreadsheet

    tTe data which appears on the report spreadsheet is currently fairly basic. We would be interested in seeing some additional fields included as standard, such as date request was made, date request made live, and the need by date - if and when there is a facility for the academic to note this - so that we are able to see how often we are able to hit this deadline.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    backlog  ·  Keji Adedeji responded

    Request date, date copied and date released were added to the Requests report. This idea has been added to the backlog to add the need by date at a later point after we have addressed some planned items

1 2 4 Next →
  • Don't see your idea?

Feedback and Knowledge Base