Feedback requested--Instances sub-record location

[McLaughlin, Brianna Jean]

Hello,

 

I am soliciting feedback on behalf of Dev/Pri  about a ticket we discussed last month: ANW-2271 Staff UI Relocation Instances sub-record towards the top of the Resource/AO record, such as after Dates. The primary questions are if the Instances sub-record should be relocated within the archival object record, and if so where it should be relocated to? We had mixed opinions amongst the members of the Development and Prioritization sub-team.

 

Please let us know your thoughts by Monday, October 6^th.

 

Thanks!

 

Bri McLaughlin, she/her/hers

Digital Collections Librarian

Indiana University 

812-856-3321

Please note that my e-mail address has changed from brij...@indiana.edu to brij...@iu.edu

 

 

 

 

[Paul Sutherland]

Hi Bri,

I don't have a strong opinion on order, though to me it makes more logical sense to have the instances being separate from and not intermixed with descriptive metadata. I do find myself having to press the End key a lot. It is annoying, I agree.

This request could be generalized - the order of the fields in the SUI interface could be adjustable by an admin panel (OR for individual users), so an institution or individual could choose to show Instances, or anything else, higher up if they wanted in the SUI.

Paul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Archivesspace_Users_Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Archivesspace_User...@lyrasislists.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/lyrasislists.org/d/msgid/Archivesspace_Users_Group/PH0PR08MB8226CBAAA22191C665D9E374AC06A%40PH0PR08MB8226.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.

--

Paul Sutherland

Archivist of Indigenous Materials
Center for Native American and Indigenous Research

Library & Museum
American Philosophical Society
105 S. 5th Street, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106

Lenapehoking

215-440-3408

amphilsoc.org/library/CNAIR

I am currently on a reduced schedule working Tuesdays-Thursdays. Me and my colleagues at CNAIR can be reached at cn...@amphilsoc.org.

I respectfully acknowledge that I work and reside in Lenapehoking, the homeland of the Lenape people in past, present, and future generations. I ​am grateful for the past and ongoing generosity of numerous Indigenous communities and individuals who have offered guidance, expertise, and opportunities for collaboration that make my work possible.

Learn more about ...

- The Indigenous Subject Guide to our Indigenous collections, updated frequently
- Blog posts by CNAIR staff & fellows
- Fellowships (residential and non) for working with our collections and elsewhere.
- Scheduling a visit to our Reading Room to view our collections

- Our Museum's current exhibit Philadelphia: The Revolutionary City, open through the end of 2025

[Regine I. Heberlein]

Hi Bri,

I like how Paul reframed the issue.

As the request is stated, I would worry that it's designed to address a single institution’s workflow preferences.

Keeping the Instance sub-records within the Instance record area is pretty intuitive. Moving it might in turn send other users scrambling to find it or mess with their particular workflows.

A customization option seems like a good alternative.

-Regine

Regine Heberlein (she/her)

Archival Systems Technical Lead

hebe...@princeton.edu

 

**My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged to reply to this email outside of your regular working hours.**

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/lyrasislists.org/d/msgid/Archivesspace_Users_Group/CAMqxH-p8G0500hwNB6Vr9D_7NFzb4pqnMgS3GzH_jKKPyZxuRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dan Michelson]

I agree with Paul and Regine.  I seem to remember an existing ticket asking for the functionality described by Paul, but I couldn't find it with a quick search, so I may be conflating it with something else.

All the best,

Dan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/lyrasislists.org/d/msgid/Archivesspace_Users_Group/MN2PR04MB67340C34991330AFE1F6CB33CE06A%40MN2PR04MB6734.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

--

Dan Michelson

Collections Archivist

Smith College Special Collections

[Roke, Elizabeth Russey]

I agree with all that has been said.  I think instances need to continue to be separated in some way from the descriptive record, much as bibliographic records are separate from item/holding records in ILS systems. I also wouldn’t want to divorce container instances from digital object instances, which should be treated similarly.  

I wonder if a button at the top of the page that automatically scrolls to the instances section might satisfy this user request.

--

Elizabeth Russey Roke

Archival Technology Program Manager

Library Technology & Digital Strategies

Emory University, Atlanta, GA

404-727-2345 | eru...@emory.edu

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/lyrasislists.org/d/msgid/Archivesspace_Users_Group/CAOS_AZkJP0F0K3hCrkxRchx%3Dc%3Den90wk5CZ_R7P_M6_4c0npgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Regine I. Heberlein]

I may be misunderstanding, but would what Lydia is proposing really address this issue? Wouldn’t it simply allow for the Instances area to be moved around in the record display?

Whereas what the requesters are asking for, as I understand it, is to be able to separate the Instance subrecord from the Instance record and display it elsewhere. 

[Paul Sutherland]

Regine - I think there may be confusion over "subrecord" here. I think all the request is asking is for the whole Instances section to move up.

Dan - I wonder if you are thinking about this other request by the same user for rearrangement of the PUI elements? https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1064

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/lyrasislists.org/d/msgid/Archivesspace_Users_Group/MN2PR04MB6734B713759F144E8491B326CE06A%40MN2PR04MB6734.namprd04.prod.outlook.com.

[Regine I. Heberlein]

If that’s the case, then I agree!