We have been aware for some time that the title fields of most importance to IRCs are not necessarily the ones that of most interest to the Talking Book Libraries. Also, since we have added the ability to display product images in WebOpac/WebOrdering, we need to add the ability to display and manage those images for titles. The question became what would be the best way to implement this - add an additional tab, add it as part of E-Docs or try to squeeze it on to the Title-Bib? Our general sense is that given differences in how IRC/IMCs use title information, that it may be beneficial to redesign the Title-Bib screen for IRC specific use.
The following posts present some mock-up sketches for the proposed screen with notes about what is under consideration. We would appreciate feedback on the designs.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
IRC specific Title-Bib - Feedback requested
4 years 10 months ago #159
While reviewing the fields / layout in the 3rd box on the screen, it was observed that the single # Volumes field is problematic when trying to work with automatic item naming for Braille volumes which are frequently labelled as Preliminaries, Volumes, and Supplements. This is currently done at the copy level instead of the title level - is there a need to move this distinction up to the title level?
In trying to re-arrange the fields in this area, we came up with two proposals.
Option 1 - Have the field on the Title-Bib be described as parts/copy. If all parts are to be thought of as volumes it can be typed in the field on the screen. If volumes are of different types, user would click on the expand field button and use a pop-up dialog to enter the number of each type of volume. This would result in a calculated total number of parts for the copy. The button would change appearance to indicate that the expanded calculation is in effect.
Option 2 - All three fields are always visible on the Title-Bib screen. The Parts/Copy field is a read-only field that is calculated as the sum of the three fields. If all parts are to be thought of as volumes then the number is entered in the V field and the P & S fields are left alone.
Proposed layout for the two options:
Questions to be answered:
Is is desirable to move the P/V/S distinction up to the title level or should it be kept at the copy level?
Is option 1 or 2 a preferable solution?
In moving the fields around, is there a preferred layout / grouping of the information?