We've recently been looking into providing access to accessible formats via resource lists (prompted by Natalia from Leeds Beckett and their recent work), but are unable to come up with a way to supply publisher provided accessible formats whilst locking down access to individuals as the publisher requests.

What would be useful would be for Admin users to be able to lock down a list to individual groups or even single readers, allowing us to provide more tailored resource lists in these instances.

After utilising the rollover function in the Create lists, targeting a time period for a large number of lists the Review Jobs screen displays the numbers of lists that were completed or failed. For us to identify which lists failed (so we can fix the issue) it would be useful if we could click on the numbers and see a listing of the Title and/or Hierarchy code of those papers. Thanks.

We would like authentication to be added at the Reviews stage so full checking can be carried out at this point.
Currently because ez proxy authentication is added to links after the Review, the student link can give authentication errors that were not visible at Reviews. So if a lecturer bookmarks an article from a free e-journal, the link will work from Reviews but possibly not from the actual list page. As more and more articles are made open access this is a growing issue. (I am also going to suggest separately an article format that does not include authentication).

It would be useful if we could add multiple URLs to a bookmark, whereas currently we're restricted to just one.

In instances where we have the same title electronically from different suppliers, it could reduce turnaways due to running out of credit. It could also allow for instances where a single bookmark requires separate URLs for different volumes.

Having an ISSN search field in the 'All List Items' report would enable us to quickly and accurately establish whether or not a particular journal is included on any of our active Reading Lists. This evidence is crucial when compiling a business case for either renewing or deselecting a resource.

Extend the LTI integration so that an academic can click through from a module in their learning management system (Blackboard, Canvas, Moodle, etc) to Aspire and be granted appropriate access to the list in Aspire. This would be a much more effective way to grant academics List Publisher access to their lists than the clumsy email invitation system.

This functionality is available in other systems such as Echo360 Lecture Capture so it has the additional advantage of being familiar to academics who are already using this.

When there's a connection problem between the catalogue and Aspire, the message in Aspire reads "This item is not available" - a little misleading. Would it be better to read something like "Information on this item is not available, please check the catalogue for more details"?

We use Chapter/books in reading lists, then when digitisations are requested it is assumed they are complete chapters when we might only want a small section. or sections of the book. We would like the option to add extracts/sections here. At present we can only add one page range and we would also need multiple page ranges to be added
. When we then request a digitisation, the correct section rather than complete chapter would be selected thereby hopefully lessening the number of referrals needed in TADC.

The latest phase 4 release has altered the way a user's reading intentions are displayed. At present the can be set at the list level and reviewed on the user profile screen.

One problem with this arrangement is that a user needs to go back to the original reading list to change the reading intention or alter the note, even though they can link through to the original item.

I would like to see the ability to change the reading intentions either from the user profile screen or at the item level, in addition to existing list-level reading intention management.

At the moment we have alerts to let us know when a user has requested a review of their list, it would be great if we could have an alert in place for when a list is published. This way we could keep track on what is being published and whether they are being sent for review first.

We would like to be able to search Aspire via a Resource Discovery Tool. As we are trying to simplify searching for resources as easy as possible, it makes sense for Aspire to be included in the targets the tool can search.

Could DVD (and maybe other audio-visual resource formats such as CD-ROM) be added to the list of resource types?
Our health and sports science academics often include them on reading lists and would like them to be clearly differentiated from books.

I think this would be much more meaningful for students using the lists than 'audio-visual document'.

Although you can specify 'dvd' in the format field, this isn't very prominent on the page.

We're conscious of the risk of mixing up format and type, but both for the purposes of distinguishes materials within a list (and for citing those materials correctly) we'd like to see a Type which describes 'articles' which are not peer-reviewed academic journal articles, but news stories or discussion pieces in newspapers, magazines and professional or trade publications.

... (subject to copyright) for user created bookmarks. There's no telling where online reports etc get moved to, and uploading to a public dropbox and then pasting the URL seems long-winded.

Two extensions to the ISBN look-up API would significantly extend its utility -

1. For each matching list return the numeric value of the priority status of the item (1, 2, 3)

-- It would be very useful to be able to display importance alongside occurence

1. Support 'OR' requests (allowing multiple ISBNs to be added to a single call)

-- With a JSON [or other] string for each ISBN match

Currently when editing a bookmark the notes field does not appear again.

At the moment an email invite is sent for every invite issued - even if the user is already has an active login to Aspire. This can result in multiple emails sitting in a user's inbox.

Rather than emailing invites to users, administrators can elect to suppress the email invites.

In this circumstance, users are asked to accept invites the next time they log into the system.