Catherine Riches
My feedback
59 results found
-
56 votes
Thank you for all the feedback relating to the sections and the difficulties around defining them. We will be making some changes to these to make them more distinct. We will update as these become available.
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
40 votes
We are currently reviewing this idea as this is an interesting concept and one we would like to explore further. If anyone would like to add their use case to this ticket it would be helpful to understand all scenarios.
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
38 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
36 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
20 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
62 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Catherine Riches
commented
Related to this (and probably not worth making a separate idea about?), I think the wording in the 'unpublished changes' banner is very misleading for list publishers without the Acquisitions role, ie academics, when you have Force Review switched on.
It currently says 'Unpublished changes! Your changes have been saved, but not published. The library acquisitions team will review the list for changes.'
(Screenshot below, from Talis' support article here https://support.talis.com/hc/en-us/articles/205644441-Publish-Review-workflow-options)To me, this reads as though it's telling them we'll review the list anyway rather than emphasizing we will review the changes *when it has been published*.
It would be great if this wording was changed to something more like what it is for those who do not have Force Review on, eg: 'Unpublished changes! If you would like the library acquisitions team to review the list for changes, please select 'Publish.'
(I raised this with Talis when we switched on Force Review last autumn, and the feedback was logged with the Product team, but I haven't heard anything back as yet and the screenshot in the support article looks the same, so I assume it hasn't been changed.)
An error occurred while saving the comment Catherine Riches
commented
We've also seen the number of lists with 'published with unpublished changes' status go up, and I suspect a lot of the time it's us when we link an item to a list on receipt or similar, as well as academics forgetting to publish. I had to do a cleanup exercise recently which was time consuming (as I had to check which actually had noteworthy changes and might need a review requested).
I would love the warning banner to be pinned, and I also like Lucy's idea about highlighting the unpublished changes on the list. This would be a lot easier than clicking through to look at all the different 'recent changes' that may have been done in several batches.
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
31 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Catherine Riches
commented
This is similar to the following suggestion on the TADC ideas forum which is very popular, though that one refers to deletion of bookmarks with associated TADC requests, rather than the whole list - same principle.
https://ideas.talis.com/forums/171519-talis-aspire-digitised-content/suggestions/6238549-deletion-of-bookmark-with-request-linked-to-itI think it would be hugely helpful if it could be flagged up when someone is trying to remove an item that has a live/referred digitisation (or archive an entire list with any of these on it). The extra step built into Rollover last year does help identify these, but we need to know as it happens, not just once a year. A warning for them, and an email for us if they go ahead and do it, would be great.
We experience similar woes when the title/code of a module change and the list & any digitisations need editing to reflect this. I encourage staff to edit the existing list title/hierarchy module & digitisations, instead of redoing them completely, to retain links... but often the Faculty Engagement team will send over an email asking us to 'copy over this list to create a new one with this new module info, then archive the obsolete one' when the title/code have changed, so I'd like there to be something in place to catch any of these that have digitisations attached that someone may forget to edit and attempt to archive!
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
28 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Catherine Riches
commented
We would appreciate this at Surrey too - as well as being clearer for the students, it would be clearer for staff reviewing the reading lists, so they don't accidentally order unnecessary extra copies when checking our purchase ratios (we only bookmark one of the editions).
The workaround would be library/student notes explaining any edition is okay, but this still involves extra searching to find the alternative versions, as they don't always FRBRise on Primo so the 'see other formats/editions' button isn't reliable.
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
We think this is an interesting idea and will be of benefit to others so will raise this for consideration for the next Reviews work that we do.
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
19 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
68 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesCatherine Riches
shared this idea
·
-
72 votes
Please do continue to vote and add your use case to this idea. As votes and comments are added we are able to use these to review and build a case for the idea.
An error occurred while saving the comment Catherine Riches
commented
We've had quite a few instances recently of ebook platform changes where we've had to identify those bookmarks that need changes then go in and edit them individually. It would be hugely helpful if Aspire could provide the ability to edit links in bulk.
Similarly we sometimes end up with links from a source bookmarked from different URLs/different routes in to a resource eg some have gone through dx.doi.org/.... and others through the URL, and we've gone through one by one making these links consistent across Aspire. Again it would save time if we could do this in bulk.
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
We will be enabling this as part of the New List Edit so that you can perform the same View and Export options as you can without needing to switch to the student view.
An error occurred while saving the comment Catherine Riches
commented
Would love this - I raised it with Talis back in spring when we first had the V2 list edit role enabled to test things out (along with the 'Add to Bookmarks' option on an existing bookmark only being possible when viewing as student - thankfully this has now been enabled in edit mode too!) and they mentioned that other institutions had raised this too and they would be reviewing it. It would be great if it was sorted out sooner rather than later now academics are editing their lists, so they get a good impression of Talis and stay engaged.
Catherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
19 votesCatherine Riches
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesCatherine Riches
shared this idea
·
Echoing the comments already made, and also don't like the fact that once you have edited the bookmark metadata and saved the changes, the whole list then reloads and you're put back at the top and must search again if you need to then take further action on the thing you've just edited (eg place a digitisation request or add a student/library note). I am pretty sure this didn't happen in the classic list view (though my memory may be rusty!)